Britain needs leaders who know what real courage costs

During September’s United Nations general assembly in New York, we stood alongside Ukrainians and American legislators from across the political divide. Ukraine has demonstrated a profound truth: wars are not won by militaries alone. They depend on the strength of the societies behind them º communities that refuse to fracture, industries that keep working, institutions that withstand pressure and ordinary people prepared to shoulder responsibility for something beyond themselves.

It is a lesson Britain cannot afford to forget. Russia’s war against Ukraine, hostile state activity, threats to critical infrastructure and technologies that bring conflict ever closer to home expose how uncertain our security has become. The police investigation near RAF Fairford , which has led to charges under the National Security Act, brings that reality uncomfortably close. Arguments about defence spending and military capability are necessary.

But they also raise a deeper question: what qualities does a democracy need in its leaders, and its citizens, to withstand a more dangerous world? We come from different political traditions and disagree on important questions of policy. But before entering parliament, we both served in Afghanistan and learned what responsibility for others demands. Military service teaches that courage is rarely as dramatic as it appears from a distance.

More often, it is exercised in quiet decisions, made with imperfect information and a keen awareness that others will live with the consequences. Responsibility remains yours whether the outcome brings praise or criticism. That experience is not unique to the armed forces. A nurse making a difficult judgment on a hospital ward, a firefighter responding to an emergency , a teacher refusing to give up on a struggling pupil or a business leader responsible for employees’ livelihoods may all recognise the same obligation: to act with others’ interests in mind, especially when doing so is difficult.

Such qualities matter to the strength of the nation itself. Security is not simply about what the military can defeat. It is also about what our communities, public institutions, industries and economy can absorb, sustain and recover from. Yet there is a striking gap between the qualities we value and those we see in political leadership. Focaldata polling commissioned by With Honor – an American organisation co-founded and led by a former US marine, Rye Barcott, that seeks to encourage more veterans into government – finds that only 6% of Britons associate elected leaders with courage.

We could dismiss that as cynicism about politicians. It would be more useful to ask why people are not seeing it. Related articles: Tom Tugendhat: ‘I get letters from Beijing that say we know where you live’ Al Carns: Dan Jarvis’s appointment as defence secretary ‘will not solve problems’ at MoD Barcott’s book Courage Can Save Us , published in the UK this autumn, tells the stories of 10 American political leaders – five Democrats and five Republicans – who have worked across political divides, often at considerable personal cost.

One lesson running through their lives is that character is not acquired upon entering public office. It develops through experiences that demand responsibility and is tested by the choices people make when that responsibility becomes difficult . Courage is too easily confused with confrontation. The loudest voice is not necessarily the strongest . There are quieter, more demanding tests: admitting a mistake, recognising good judgment in an opponent, accepting compromise when the national interest requires it or making an unpopular decision whose benefits may not be felt for years.

The public knows these choices carry a cost. The polling found that 64% believe politicians who take an unpopular stand within their own party risk losing support, influence or votes. That is not an argument for rebellion for its own sake. It is a reminder that conviction means little if it disappears when tested. None of this requires artificial agreement. Parties exist because people disagree, and those disagreements deserve honest argument.

But beneath them must lie a shared understanding that public office is entrusted to us on behalf of others. It is not a possession, nor a reward. We know too that bonds built through shared service can survive political strain. The relationship between the UK and the US rests on more than presidents and prime ministers. Across generations it has been sustained by people working together in defence, science, industry and trade – and by those who have served shoulder to shoulder.

The same durable trust matters within our own society. There are grounds for hope. Focaldata found that 53% of 18 to 24-year-olds see serving their community as an opportunity rather than an obligation. The instinct to contribute has not vanished. Perhaps we have been too quick to assume otherwise, and too slow to build the opportunities that allow it to flourish. There are quieter, more demanding tests: admitting a mistake, recognising good judgment in an opponent, accepting compromise when the national interest requires it or making an unpopular decision whose benefits may not be felt for years There are quieter, more demanding tests: admitting a mistake, recognising good judgment in an opponent, accepting compromise when the national interest requires it or making an unpopular decision whose benefits may not be felt for years Those routes need not be confined to uniformed service.

Schools, hospitals, emergency services, charities, businesses and community organisations can all help young people acquire practical skills , confidence, belonging and a sense of accountability. We should value that experience and welcome more people who have led, built and served in different parts of British life into public office. There are also early discussions about whether a distinctly British initiative, With Honour UK, could help bring more of that experience and spirit of service into public life.

Britain will need strong armed forces, resilient infrastructure and enduring alliances in the years ahead. But none can substitute for a society in which people trust one another, take responsibility and understand that they have a stake in their country’s future. A resilient nation needs more than people prepared to defend it. It needs people who feel that it is theirs to defend. And those entrusted to lead must demonstrate that the same duty binds them too.

Al Carns MP was minister for the armed forces, 2025-26. Tom Tugendhat MP is the shadow foreign secretary Photograph by Efrem Lukatsky / AP Defence UK Politics National Society