Why Plaid Cymru are wrong to back Armed Forces Day

Adam Johannes

On 27th June 2026, “Armed Forces Day”, a Welsh peace camp pitched its tents outside RAF Lakenheath to oppose the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain.

Imagine the message it would have sent if a Plaid Minister in the new Welsh Government had stood alongside them, in solidarity with those of us who believe Wales should reject the British state’s march towards ever more aggressive militarism and the expansion of an already bloated military budget.

Instead, Deputy First Minister Sioned Williams chose to speak at an Armed Forces Day event in Carmarthenshire.

These events celebrate militarism by sanitising the realities of war and repackaging them as family entertainment. Disurbing photographs from the event, organised by the armed forces, Plaid-led Carmarthenshire Council and the Welsh Government, show children encouraged to pose with heavy weapons and dress in military uniforms

At a time when military spending is rising, austerity is being prepared to pay for it, and the drift toward future wars are accelerating, Plaid has a clear political choice to make: will it stand with the anti-war movement, or will it help legitimise the institutions driving that agenda?

Those justifying Plaid Cymru’s leadership support for Armed Forces Day put forward two arguments.

First, they pretend Armed Forces Day is just about supporting veterans.

Second, they claim that if you criticise Armed Forces Day or the growing presence of the military in everyday life, then you must be an absolute pacifist completely against all armed forces.

Political

Armed Forces Day was always political. It was invented by Gordon Brown’s Labour government in response to the deep unpopularity of the Iraq War. Iraq sparked huge public opposition, including the biggest protest in British history. Lots of people were angry about it. Labour lost votes over it.

Military recruitment slumped as working class communities became less willing to provide the cannon fodder for rich man’s wars, correctly seeing that Britain’s wars weren’t about defending their own country, but destroying someone elses. New groups like Military Families Against War started speaking out. More and more people began questioning why Britain always joined US wars.

So the establishment wanted to shift public opinion. They tried to rebuild support for imperialism by focusing on emotional sympathy for soldiers as individuals, rather than questions about the wars they were sent to fight.

That’s when we started hearing a sudden and sharp increase in the word “heroes” being used for soldiers. Military parades through town centres were deliberately increased, and Armed Forces Day was created. It aimed to change how people think about the army, not in any political or critical way, but as something automatically worthy of praise, as an institution we all must reverence. The aim of the day was to push militarism into civilian life to shore up support for future wars.

It was clever propaganda. If the real goal was to support veterans, the entire feel and focus of Armed Forces Day would be different. It would be about significant boosts to public funding for proper housing, jobs, training, mental health support, and ending homelessness among ex-soldiers. You would hear the stories of the lives of veterans after they quit the military and war. Not ceremonies and celebrations.

Now Armed Forces Day is being promoted more than ever. One reason is that the UK Labour government want to manufacture consent for big increases in military spending, and big cuts to pay for it. If you make it a patriotic duty to support the military it makes it harder for trade unions and community campaigns to stand up against the cuts needed to pay for increased arms spending.

One-sided

Armed Forces Day is not a neutral celebration. It was designed to normalise militarism and unquestioning support for Britain’s role in global conflicts. Opposition to Armed Forces Day is rooted in a simple democratic principle that the armed forces, like every other powerful institution, should be open to scrutiny and debate.

The day promotes the idea that the military is beyond criticism, creating a one-sided narrative in which the realities of intervention, civilian suffering and Britain’s wars abroad are rarely examined critically. Instead, young people are encouraged to support values such as discipline, obedience and loyalty, without being encouraged to consider the consequences of placing imperialist violence at the centre of international affairs.

It’s also important to understand that Britain’s military is not just about defence. There’s a lot of military aggression involved. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, occupied and destroyed by Britain in alliance with the US for years. Those wars destabilised the world, increased terrorism and made us less safe. Recently Britain’s military has covertly supported Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the US/Israel war on Iran.

Militarism helps dampen down any public questioning of British foreign policy, wars, and arms spending, and encourages us to just accept it all as automatically good. Through militarism, the British state is able to shield itself from public scrutiny and democratic accountability.

The events are marketed as family occasions, with children encouraged to engage with military displays and equipment. The danger is that young people are presented with a sanitised image of the armed forces – one that appears exciting, glamorous and harmless – while the human suffering and moral questions surrounding imperialist wars are pushed aside.

Armed Forces Day provides no space for honest discussions about the realities of military life. Recruitment often targets poorer communities, the armed forces have faced serious concerns around bullying, harassment and abuse, and veterans deserve proper long-term support through the welfare state rather than being left dependent on charity.

Questionable

Our communities have many other things worth celebrating: the solidarity of neighbours, the dedication of nurses, teachers, firefighters, care workers and all those who sustain society every day. These values of cooperation, compassion and collective responsibility deserve far greater recognition.

Rhun ap Iorwerth and Sioned Williams’ embrace of Armed Forces Day, and the Plaid Welsh Government giving public money to events promoting the military, should concern anyone who believes Wales ought to stand for peace.

The use of taxpayers’ money to fund Armed Forces Day events is questionable. Rather than spending public money celebrating militarism, the Welsh Government could invest in anti-militarist festivals that promote peace, solidarity and international cooperation.

Plaid members must challenge their leadership’s embrace of militarism, including support for increasing Britain’s already bloated military budget, and since becoming the Welsh Government already welcoming new arms manufacturers to Wales.

Plaid have managed a remarkable trick of supporting spending billions more on the military, then complaining about the cuts needed to pay for it. It’s like ordering the most expensive meal on the menu and acting shocked when the bill arrives. But the real question is why choose militarisation over people, communities and the living world at all. If you’re a Plaid member, it may be time to ask your leadership to oppose the new global arms race instead of trying to have it both ways.