We often talk about the importance of “supporting our veterans,” but rarely ask what roles veterans have in modern society. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, that question remains as salient as ever. The United Kingdom's new Veterans Strategy (PDF), released last month, attempts to answer it. It goes beyond improving services, to shift the perception of veterans as vulnerable to being recognised as skilled contributors within national security, resilience, and prosperity. This is a noble aim and reflects the real positive economic and community contributions that most veterans make post-service. But, in a changing society, can the Strategy succeed in this ambition?
To some extent, these objectives are a continuation of the government's previous Veterans Strategy Action Plan (PDF). However, the tone of the 2025 strategy signals a more explicit and ambitious effort to harness the benefits gained from military service and reshape society's relationship with veterans. Delivering this vision will mean confronting longstanding public perceptions, demographic changes, and policy tensions.
In the aftermath of the United Kingdom's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, public debate, policy, and research have concentrated on the challenges faced by those who served. While well-intentioned, this has driven focus on the negative consequences of military service and the challenges faced by those who served. The public is more likely to see veterans as forgotten, left behind, or ignored (PDF), rather than brave or courageous. An overwhelming majority associate veterans with health issues (PDF), particularly poor mental health and PTSD.
There have been growing calls for policy, research, and services to take a more nuanced approach that also recognises the positive impacts of military service.
There have been growing calls for policy, research, and services to take a more nuanced approach that also recognises the positive impacts of military service. Recent research from the Centre for Evidence for the Armed Forces Community (CEAFC), funded by the Forces in Mind Trust, shows that many veterans view their service positively, citing strong bonds, purpose, and upward social mobility, among other benefits.
Changing defence needs have also provided an impetus to make better use of veterans' skills and competencies. This includes actively leveraging them as the United Kingdom's Strategic Reserve (PDF) and easing their re-entry into active military service through “zig-zag” careers.
The new Strategy reflects this shift, but changing ingrained public perceptions is difficult, especially as the civilian-military gap (PDF) widens. With a shrinking Armed Forces, fewer people have personal ties to the military. Changing this understanding requires coherent messaging and a clearer picture of who today's veterans actually are.
A major challenge lies in reconciling terminology with veterans' own identity. The Veterans Strategy wants to explicitly increase number of ex-serving people who identify as “veterans.” However, the veteran community is becoming younger and more diverse in gender and ethnicity, with many no longer self-identifying (PDF) with that term. As a result, many service providers avoid referring to them in that way to appear more inclusive, opting for “former” or “ex-Service personnel” instead. To achieve the Strategy's objectives, policymakers will therefore need to carefully coordinate across the sector to ensure terminology is coherent and not counterproductive.
A second issue concerns how veterans transition to civilian life. This is typically centred on employment support, but research from RAND and CEAFC shows that transition also involves navigating a major identity shift. The military is a unique environment and leaving it can create a sense of “culture shock” that affects veterans' ability to thrive in their post-service career. If the UK government wants to effectively enable veterans to reach their full potential as civilians, it needs to invest in evidence-based interventions that focus not only on practical skills but also on identity, helping individuals understand and adapt to the transition.
A third question is how veterans can and should contribute to national security. The Strategy suggests roles such as “educating the public about the Armed Forces” through community engagement. However, little evidence exists about the extent to which veterans already perform these roles, would be willing to do so, or what support or incentives they would need. Newer initiatives, including “zig-zag careers,” also require proper evaluation. Better data and transparency between government, researchers, and the broader sector will be essential to understand the extent to which this is feasible.
The 2025 Veterans Strategy signals an ambitious effort to redefine veterans' roles in society in modern times.
Finally, the Strategy's emphasis on celebrating veterans' strengths must be balanced with the core narrative of the Armed Forces Covenant (PDF), which focuses primarily on mitigating disadvantages resulting from military service life. These apparently contrasting perspectives, of service as both an advantage and as a potential source of hardship, can appear in tension—even though it is possible for both to be true across the breadth of the community. As the Covenant's legal duty is set to expand and be fully embedded into law, the government will need to balance these messages carefully so that policy remains coherent and effective.
The 2025 Veterans Strategy signals an ambitious effort to redefine veterans' roles in society in modern times. If policymakers can match ambition with clarity and sustained commitment, the Strategy could mark a turning point that not only reshapes veteran policy, but also redefines society's relationship with the Armed Forces and defence more broadly. But to be successful, the government must confront possible policy tensions, invest in evidence, and rethink how society really views the military and veterans. Otherwise, it risks fading into fragmented initiatives and unfulfilled promise.
