Defence is one of the most emotive issues which any government has to deal with, and the structuring of defence policy is often more about swaying and controlling the public mood than it is about maintaining the security of a state, such is its importance at election time. In the event of international crises, it becomes even more of an issue, not simply because of the prospect of war but because of the pressure for governing politicians to turn on one another. Policies made on the hoof, in reaction to a divided and often hostile public, rarely saved any politician for long. In this situation, however, hard choices must sometimes be made between what is good for the politicians and what is good for the country. In this regard, flexible policies built on solid pre-existing principles offer the greatest security for both.
For many years now we have witnessed the spectacle of large numbers of people protesting against war itself, and insisting that all individuals and nations should be able to live alongside one another in peace. This seems naive; how can one prevent violence when it is the ultimate resort available to someone seeking to protect self, loved ones, livelihood or principals? A man can only be abused for so long before it becomes sensible for him to strike back; even where an individual may resist that, for the sake of some greater cause, civilisations which resist it will simply be extinguished, and all their great causes lost. I do not see that war can ever be prevented by this logic, for the sake of peace. I do, however, suspect that war is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the modern world, and that it may diminish simply because it ceases to be a useful option. Many recent wars have occurre wars have occurred primarily because they served as useful political distractions for the government(s) of the stronger power(s) involved. Others are averted on at least a monthly basis due to political pressure. The threat of economic sanction has become a greater danger to most nations than the threat of military defeat, though I find it rather quaint that it is still frequently presented as a gentle option: is it really so much more pleasant to starve than to be shot?
International political popularity has become essential to any nation wishing to advance itself and to be an economic success. Such popularity is frequently impossible for a country engaging in internationally unfashionable wars.
However mighty an individual nation, it is numbers of nations which count when it comes to modern war. No one nation can successfully stand alone against a large number of others. For political reasons, those nations with sufficient resources are increasingly inclined to take sides (either directly or via organisations such as NATO and the UN) in wars which initially have nothing to do with them. Thus, defence policy has become more about keeping large numbers of other nations (and especially powerful ones) on side, than about maintaining an impressive military of one's own. Poorer countries cannot compete directly by military means, anyhow, when might is increasingly dependent upon expensive technology.
The first thing which any politician considering the issue of defence has to understand is that, in war, there are no rules. Sure, there are assorted agreements and conventions, and these will usually be adhered to during minor skirmishes. We adhere to them, however, only when we can afford to. Poorer and more desperate nations are vilified for using terrorist tactics and targetting civilians, as if this automatically renders their political case invalid - but what other choice do they have? The UK targetted civilian targets in the bombing of Dresden, when it considered that its last best hope of turning things around in World War II. The US murdered countless civilians with its nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each of these incidents might still be seen as having been for the greater good. Is it so very different to consider a suicide bomber in that light? Moral condemnations of the desperate will not impress them, for desperation makes all these things very clear. Very few people ever go to war without a strong moral imperative. It is understanding the imperatives of the enemy which offers the key to victory, either through military action or through negotiation.
Go back to Jennie's page about politics.
This way to go back to Jennie's personal pages.
Last updated 7th December, 2005