Debating History, Healing the Present: Forward Assist’s Debating Society and Moral Injury

Moral injury has become one of the most difficult and least understood consequences of military service. Unlike physical wounds, it cannot be seen on the surface of the body, and unlike post-traumatic stress disorder, it does not always present through flashbacks or hypervigilance. Instead, moral injury gnaws at the very core of identity, creating an inner rupture between who a person believed they were and what they did, saw, or failed to do in the course of military duty. For many veterans, both men and women, the struggle is less about surviving external danger than about coming to terms with the choices, compromises, and tragedies that military service forced upon them. When a person feels that their actions have betrayed their own deepest values, or that they have been betrayed by the institutions that commanded them, the wound is profoundly moral, spiritual, and existential. Healing it requires something different from conventional therapy. It requires dialogue, meaning-making, and the ability to re-enter moral conversation with oneself, with others, and with history.

Forward Assist, a veteran support organisation in the United Kingdom, has responded to this need with a uniquely innovative programme: the Veterans Debating Society. Here, veterans gather not to confess, not to be analysed, and not to relive trauma, but to engage in structured debate on historical and military-themed topics, many of which touch on precisely the kinds of moral dilemmas that generate injury in the first place. By debating events from history, wars long past, controversial campaigns, or questions of military ethics, participants find a safe yet challenging way to explore the issues that haunt them in their own memories. The debating society transforms what might otherwise remain silent and corrosive guilt into shared inquiry, performance, and dialogue. In the process, it creates a space where healing becomes possible.

To understand why debating historical topics can be so therapeutic, it is important first to grasp the dynamics of moral injury. When a soldier feels responsible for civilian casualties, when a medic feels powerless to save a life, or when a servicewoman feels complicit in an unjust operation, the resulting injury is not simply sadness or fear but a collapse of trust in the self. Shame convinces the veteran that he or she is unworthy, dishonourable, even beyond redemption. Silence sets in because speaking feels impossible; the words themselves seem dangerous. Traditional counselling can help, but for many veterans, the step into therapy feels like admitting weakness, and the unstructured act of confession can be overwhelming. Debate, by contrast, is familiar. It offers rules, structure, and purpose. Veterans are used to training, drills, and operating within defined frameworks. The debating society taps into this comfort with structure while redirecting it toward moral exploration.

Historical topics play a vital role in this process. When a veteran is asked to debate the morality of the First World War, or to argue for and against the use of atomic weapons in 1945, or to discuss the justifications for colonial military campaigns, the conversation is not directly about his or her own experience. That distance is crucial. The veteran can project feelings and reflections onto history without the vulnerability of personal exposure. He may describe the futility of trench warfare, or the unbearable civilian toll of strategic bombing, or the ethical compromises of counter-insurgency. In doing so, he or she is often also speaking obliquely about his own memories, but under the safer cover of historical analogy. Debate gives permission to speak the unspeakable, because the topic is not “what did you do?” but “what can we learn from history?”

At the same time, debating history allows veterans to reconnect with the tradition of soldiering across generations. They are reminded that moral dilemmas are not unique to them but have haunted military personnel throughout history. When a female veteran debates whether Florence Nightingale’s reforms adequately addressed the suffering of Crimean War soldiers, she is also reflecting on her own struggle as a modern military medic faced with inadequate resources. When a male veteran argues about the morality of the Vietnam War draft, he may be thinking about the young men he saw deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan with little say in the matter. The historical frame situates individual experience within a broader continuum, reducing the sense of isolation. Veterans come to see that their own struggles are part of a long human story of warfare, ethics, and survival.

The structured nature of debate also directly counters the chaotic fragmentation that moral injury produces. Debate has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Arguments must be marshalled, evidence presented, rebuttals delivered, conclusions drawn. For the veteran whose memories feel jumbled and overwhelming, this discipline provides containment. The debating chamber becomes a safe arena where difficult themes can be handled without spiralling out of control. A male veteran might find himself arguing one week that military intervention can never be morally justified, and the next week defending humanitarian intervention in Bosnia. The intellectual exercise forces him to see multiple perspectives, breaking the rigid self-condemning narrative that moral injury enforces.

Crucially, debate is not solitary. It is a communal performance. Veterans listen to one another, challenge one another, and support one another. This collective process counters the isolation of moral injury. The act of being heard, of having one’s argument respected even when contested, helps rebuild trust in human dialogue. Male veterans, often socialised into silence and emotional stoicism, find that debate allows them to speak openly without feeling they are confessing weakness. Female veterans, who may have experienced marginalisation or invisibility in the armed forces, discover that debate grants them authority: their voices matter, their arguments carry weight, their perspectives are valued. The debating society becomes a microcosm of a healthy community, one in which diverse experiences are acknowledged and respected.

The very topics chosen by Forward Assist are central to the healing process. Debating whether the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, or whether the Falklands War was justified, or whether drone warfare represents progress or regression in military ethics, confronts participants with questions of responsibility, guilt, and justification. Veterans are not asked to disclose their personal memories, but they are invited to wrestle with dilemmas that mirror their own. In making arguments, they inevitably draw on their lived experience, filtering it through the lens of history. The effect is to begin integrating memory with reflection. What was once a raw wound becomes part of a larger conversation about war, humanity, and morality.

The healing potential of debate also lies in its performative aspect. To stand up, to marshal thoughts, to speak persuasively before peers, is an act of reclaiming agency. Moral injury robs individuals of their sense of control and dignity. Debate restores both. A male veteran who once felt powerless in the face of impossible decisions discovers that he can construct a coherent argument, defend it under pressure, and even win the respect of an audience. A female veteran who once felt silenced by military hierarchies discovers that her reasoning can shape the course of a debate. These small victories accumulate into a renewed sense of competence, purpose, and worth.

Debating historical topics also enables veterans to separate self-condemnation from objective analysis. When one debates the morality of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one is required to weigh military necessity against civilian suffering, long-term deterrence against immediate destruction. There is no simple answer. The exercise teaches veterans that morality in war is rarely black and white. This lesson reflects back onto their own lives. A man who believed himself wholly unforgivable for surviving when others died may begin to see that survival is not a moral failure but part of the tragic ambiguity of war. A woman who felt complicit in a mission with civilian casualties may begin to understand the structural forces that constrained her choices. Debate cultivates moral complexity, and moral complexity opens the door to self-forgiveness.

The Forward Assist Debating Society also fosters intellectual growth. Many veterans left school early or have not engaged in structured academic thought for years. Debate stimulates curiosity, research, and learning. Veterans study historical sources, read about past conflicts, and prepare arguments. This intellectual engagement shifts focus from brooding over memories to expanding horizons. They begin to see themselves not only as ex-soldiers but as thinkers, historians, and citizens capable of contributing to public discourse. This re-framing of identity is essential in countering the negative self-image imposed by moral injury.

Another powerful aspect of debating history is that it often leads veterans to identify points of moral courage in the past. In preparing arguments, they may encounter stories of individuals who resisted unjust orders, who spoke out against atrocities, or who sought humane solutions in the midst of war. These stories become sources of inspiration. They remind veterans that even within the darkest times, acts of conscience are possible. By debating whether such figures were right, veterans indirectly explore their own desire to reconcile honour with survival. They may come to see that their own service, flawed though it may feel, also contained moments of courage and integrity.

The debating society also has ripple effects beyond its immediate members. Veterans who develop skill and confidence in debate often take their voices into the wider community. Some speak in schools about military ethics, others contribute to public discussions of defence policy, and some become mentors for younger veterans. In these roles, they transform moral injury into moral contribution. What once felt like a disqualifying wound becomes the source of unique insight and authority. Society benefits from hearing voices tempered by both experience and reflection, and veterans benefit from knowing that their painful journeys can serve others.

Male and female veterans experience this journey in ways shaped by their backgrounds and identities. For men, debate often provides an acceptable language for emotional disclosure. Speaking in the format of argument, they are able to reveal their inner conflicts without feeling they are breaking codes of masculinity. For women, debate often represents a reclamation of visibility. In mixed-gender groups where their experiences may have been sidelined, the debating floor gives them equal standing. The respect earned through argument validates their service and their suffering. Together, these experiences foster a culture of equality and mutual recognition within the debating society.

Debate is also an inherently hopeful activity. It presupposes that dialogue is possible, that conflicting views can be expressed without violence, and that persuasion can occur without coercion. For veterans who have known the breakdown of dialogue in war zones, this is a profoundly healing message. The debating chamber becomes a symbol of what human beings can achieve when they choose words over weapons. By participating, veterans are reminded that they are not trapped in cycles of violence, that there are alternatives to silence, and that their voices can shape a more humane future.

The damaging impact of moral injury will never be eradicated entirely. Some memories remain painful, some regrets unhealed. But the Forward Assist Debating Society shows that the burden can be lightened, integrated, and transformed. By debating historical morally injurious topics, veterans find ways to speak the unspeakable, to reclaim dignity, and to rediscover community. They learn that their struggles are part of a larger human story, that moral complexity is universal, and that dialogue offers a path forward. Debate becomes both a mirror and a bridge: a mirror reflecting their own hidden conflicts, and a bridge connecting them to history, to peers, and to society.

The essence of the programme is not in winning or losing arguments but in the act of speaking, listening, and engaging with the moral weight of military history. In doing so, veterans begin to heal the rupture between who they were, what they did, and who they can become. The debating society does not erase the past, but it allows the past to be faced without despair. In the voices of veterans debating the ethics of history, we hear the sound of healing: tentative at first, stronger with practice, and ultimately confident enough to claim a place in the ongoing dialogue about war, morality, and humanity.

Tony Wright