A New Defense Environment - Consequences for Political-Military Relations

Sammanfattning av Anna Bolins artikel i KKrVAHT nr 6 2000.

It is today often talked about the "new times" in security politics and in military affairs, or, as it here will be denominated, "the new defense environment". One important, although often forgotten, consequence of the developments in defense and military affairs is the changed requirements on the relations between politicians and military leaders. The new defense environment, and the new tasks and role of the military coming with it, implies the need for and the creation of other and different relations and interactions between the military and politicians. It also means new conditions for the possibilities to obtain sound civilian democratic control of the military.

In this article, Ph.D. student Anna Bolin discusses some of the implications for political-military relations, stemming from the changed conditions for military security.

The main arguments are, first, that due to the uncertain, ambiguous, and highly political nature of the conflicts, which the military of today is called upon to intervene into, there is an increased need for a clear and active political leadership. The failure in providing enough and appropriate political leadership may result in not just less military security, but also yielding civilian democratic control.

The second argument is that the complexity and multi-dimensionality of current and probable future crises and conflicts in which the military is engaged, require a greater degree of military interaction and cooperation with other actors involved in these missions - on governmental and administrational levels, as well as in the field. This in turn means that we probably will se, and do need, a more politically and socially aware military.

A third aspect that is discussed is the consequences for the possibilities to obtain firm civilian democratic control of the armed forces.

The fusion of politics and military affairs is, and has for long been, an anathema for many of those studying political-military relations, where the degree and type of military participation in politics is seen as maybe the most important aspect when it comes to civilian democratic control. The new context - militarily, as well as socially and politically - may, however, be argued to have altered several of the connections and realities earlier in place.

For example, it can be argued that a more active political leadership, and the increasingly militarily and strategically aware civilians and politicians that this should imply, would offset the increased military role and involvement in politics.

What also may be a counteracting factor is that, although more politically integrated the armed forces are no longer the sole actor in providing national security. The broader understanding of security and the mulitfaceted nature of military missions have brought a row of different actors in alongside the national armed forces.