Unintended Consequences

I'm way up above the Arctic Circle doing a bit of research. Not much to do here on a Saturday afternoon but maybe go for a walk in the snow, so my mind is on a wander...

Some of my recent thinking and posting has been about things relating to the military-civilian relationship in liberal democracies like the US and Canada*. Especially in the face of controversial wars and limited public support.

For much of the 20th century the military was an arms length institution from both government policy making and civilian inspection. It is rigidly hierarchical with formalised discouragements and penalties for stepping outside that hierarchy or untimely questioning of established methods, systems, and people. It needs to be in order to function efficiently.

Lately, especially since the US experience in Vietnam, western governments, especially again the US, have embarked on controversial wars without full civilian mobilisation and/or optimal levels of public support. The military, being what it is, has had the unenviable task of prosecuting these wars until it wins, loses, stops working, or the civilian leadership tells it to come home.

In the US, Canada and the UK, since 2001, the military has found itself immersed in the public discourse on the war(s) instead of remaining arms length from the discussion. Maybe not intentionally**, but when the chief soldier gets up at political events wearing a red shirt, or military field manuals are publicly published, as part of pro-current-war PR campaigns, the military enters the field as an active political actor.

Consequentially, it opens itself up to the same public/media scrutiny as the civilian political players, forcing the military to address its critics, possibly putting it in conflict with public opinion, and fundamentally altering the military-civilian discourse.

At its core, I believe this is what happens when politicians maintain war without public support, and use the conflict/military as a political wedge issue.

That said…

Some might say resulting public scrutiny/engagement of the armed forces enhances democracy. Others might say the military should be the more traditional arms length tool, neutral and free of political processes. Still others might challenge my whole construction.

I’d like to know what readers think. Please discuss.


* I acknowledge a sweeping generalisation about western liberal democracies here.

** It it possible for politicians to involve the military partisan political acts, or for politicians to turn up at non-partisan acts and make them so by their presence.