Veterans' Associations Facing the Challenge of the 21st Century
Christian's article, "Dare to Think Differently," encouraged a break with entrenched certainties and the acceptance that reflection on veterans' associations and veterans' associations can no longer be satisfied with dogmas inherited from the past. It paved the way for a necessary debate, based on questioning and intellectual courage.
Antoine's text, which follows, continues in this vein but goes further by confronting the stated principles with the concrete realities of veterans' associations in the 21st century. Its author highlights the contradictions of a discourse that claims to revitalize while refusing to adapt to social, human, and territorial changes.
This is neither about denying the heritage nor weakening the Legionnaire identity, but about remembering that an institution that demands adherence without freedom and loyalty without listening risks isolation. This contribution is intended as a clear-eyed warning, in service of vibrant, useful associations faithful to the spirit of fraternity they claim to uphold.
Louis Perez y Cid.
Between Dogma and Reality
By Antoine Marquet (Lt. Colonel TE – er)
The text currently circulating, penned by a general officer, paints a picture of veterans' associations that seems frozen in the cement of the last century. In 2026, as the world has shifted towards hyper-connectivity, mobility, and individual autonomy, this project of "taking back control" resembles more of a semantic utopia than a concrete response to the realities on the ground.
Behind a stated desire for revitalization, what is most apparent is a profound misunderstanding of the social changes that have transformed the relationship of former legionnaires to community involvement.
The paradox of the informal "you" and the general is apparent from the very first lines.
The author proposes abolishing both the title "Monsieur," deemed too civil, and the rank, considered too military, in order to establish a supposedly pure and egalitarian brotherhood. In reality, this attempt to neutralize language primarily creates a relational void. Even more striking, this general who calls for the erasure of titles will often be the first, in the privacy of a banquet or ceremony, to demand that his own be remembered. The result is a one-sided equality, where the former legionnaire remains relegated to a status of permanent moral subordination.
This ambiguity extends into a superficial equality.
The text asserts that "no one is more of a legionnaire than another," while immediately reminding everyone that a corporal cannot be the equal of a warrant officer. Veterans are invited to recognize each other as brothers for the duration of a speech, but without ever allowing them to forget the barriers of the barracks. This nostalgia for military hierarchy prevents the emergence of a truly modern, community-based life founded on volunteering, mutual respect, and freedom of commitment.
It's also important to remember that the very function of veterans' associations has profoundly changed. From a vital need to a memorial gathering, the shift is clear.
In the last century, the association often served as a lifeline for the demobilized, uprooted legionnaire, sometimes isolated linguistically and socially. In 2026, the former legionnaire is, in the vast majority of cases, independent and integrated into society. His expectations have changed: he seeks an emotional connection, a temporary one, centered on remembrance—Camerone—and on solidarity during difficult times, particularly the funerals of his comrades-in-arms. Trying to attract younger generations by hardening rituals, demanding impeccable singing, or a rigid uniform is misguided. Offering discipline to those seeking networking, a listening ear, or simply camaraderie is tantamount to orchestrating the atrophy of those structures.
Added to this is the geographical and financial absurdity of certain positions.
The author rejects civilian “sympathizers” in the name of doctrinal purity, while implicitly acknowledging that they often ensure the financial survival of the associations. Above all, he ignores the territorial reality: in countries like Portugal or Italy, a single association can cover the entire national territory. Members there are, by definition, isolated. One doesn't travel eight hundred kilometers for a song rehearsal. By refusing any openness, the author thus accepts the idea of “embryonic” associations, frozen in their orthodoxy, rather than vibrant ones rooted in reality.
The reasoning reaches its climax with the notion of “mandatory freedom,” illustrated by the case of Marseille.
The author asserts that membership in the Federation is an unassailable dogma and that "breaking away is a mistake," while simultaneously proclaiming that each local association is "free and responsible." This is the classic paradox of: "be free, but do as I say." To label the choice of autonomy by a structure like Marseille's as a "mistake" is to forget that we are not longer under the code of military regulations, but in the civilian world of volunteering. This moral blackmail of loyalty reveals an institution that attempts, through guilt-tripping, to retain men who have already more than paid their dues.
In conclusion, I would say that the author is projecting a hazy theory of the Alamo, or even Camerone. Indeed, this text is not a vision for the future; it resembles more a desperate resistance strategy. The author seems to prefer seeing the ship sink with a crew in impeccable uniform rather than accepting a change of course. Yet the Legion's identity will not be saved by coercion, semantic injunctions, or nostalgia for an abstract hierarchy. It will survive through genuine, flexible, humane solidarity—the kind that finally respects the freedom of men who have already given so much.
The text currently circulating, penned by a general officer, paints a picture of veterans' associations that seems frozen in the cement of the last century. In 2026, as the world has shifted towards hyper-connectivity, mobility, and individual autonomy, this project of "taking back control" resembles more of a semantic utopia than a concrete response to the realities on the ground.
Behind a stated desire for revitalization, what is most apparent is a profound misunderstanding of the social changes that have transformed the relationship of former legionnaires to community involvement.
The paradox of the informal "you" and the general is apparent from the very first lines.
The author proposes abolishing both the title "Monsieur," deemed too civil, and the rank, considered too military, in order to establish a supposedly pure and egalitarian brotherhood. In reality, this attempt to neutralize language primarily creates a relational void. Even more striking, this general who calls for the erasure of titles will often be the first, in the privacy of a banquet or ceremony, to demand that his own be remembered. The result is a one-sided equality, where the former legionnaire remains relegated to a status of permanent moral subordination.
This ambiguity extends into a superficial equality.
The text asserts that "no one is more of a legionnaire than another," while immediately reminding everyone that a corporal cannot be the equal of a warrant officer. Veterans are invited to recognize each other as brothers for the duration of a speech, but without ever allowing them to forget the barriers of the barracks. This nostalgia for military hierarchy prevents the emergence of a truly modern, community-based life founded on volunteering, mutual respect, and freedom of commitment.
It's also important to remember that the very function of veterans' associations has profoundly changed. From a vital need to a memorial gathering, the shift is clear.
In the last century, the association often served as a lifeline for the demobilized, uprooted legionnaire, sometimes isolated linguistically and socially. In 2026, the former legionnaire is, in the vast majority of cases, independent and integrated into society. His expectations have changed: he seeks an emotional connection, a temporary one, centered on remembrance—Camerone—and on solidarity during difficult times, particularly the funerals of his comrades-in-arms. Trying to attract younger generations by hardening rituals, demanding impeccable singing, or a rigid uniform is misguided. Offering discipline to those seeking networking, a listening ear, or simply camaraderie is tantamount to orchestrating the atrophy of those structures.
Added to this is the geographical and financial absurdity of certain positions.
The author rejects civilian “sympathizers” in the name of doctrinal purity, while implicitly acknowledging that they often ensure the financial survival of the associations. Above all, he ignores the territorial reality: in countries like Portugal or Italy, a single association can cover the entire national territory. Members there are, by definition, isolated. One doesn't travel eight hundred kilometers for a song rehearsal. By refusing any openness, the author thus accepts the idea of “embryonic” associations, frozen in their orthodoxy, rather than vibrant ones rooted in reality.
The reasoning reaches its climax with the notion of “mandatory freedom,” illustrated by the case of Marseille.
The author asserts that membership in the Federation is an unassailable dogma and that "breaking away is a mistake," while simultaneously proclaiming that each local association is "free and responsible." This is the classic paradox of: "be free, but do as I say." To label the choice of autonomy by a structure like Marseille's as a "mistake" is to forget that we are not longer under the code of military regulations, but in the civilian world of volunteering. This moral blackmail of loyalty reveals an institution that attempts, through guilt-tripping, to retain men who have already more than paid their dues.
In conclusion, I would say that the author is projecting a hazy theory of the Alamo, or even Camerone. Indeed, this text is not a vision for the future; it resembles more a desperate resistance strategy. The author seems to prefer seeing the ship sink with a crew in impeccable uniform rather than accepting a change of course. Yet the Legion's identity will not be saved by coercion, semantic injunctions, or nostalgia for an abstract hierarchy. It will survive through genuine, flexible, humane solidarity—the kind that finally respects the freedom of men who have already given so much.