Militaries need to rethink role in a changed world

By Shefali Rekhi

SINGAPORE: Sometimes the silence of guns can be disturbing. For those whose lives revolve around its echoes, it can even be deafening.

Militaries in many advanced countries find themselves in this predicament today.

With the end of the Cold War and declining perceptions of threats to national security, they are facing a string of questions.

These are directed at their size, their might, their structures and their responsibilities -- much of which was beyond the realm of debate and discussion previously.

Militaries had previously basked in a display of their strength and were closed to public scrutiny. Civilian societies held them in awe, while civilian governments lived in fear of being overthrown.

But now, that equation is changing. The civilian world is now challenging and questioning structures and actions of the existing military set-up.

The growing distrust between the civilian and military worlds is marked by the former failing to comprehend completely the mission of the latter, while the military wonders why the memories of the civilian society and policy makers are so short.

There are obvious dangers to this. Prof. Eliot A. Cohen, director of strategic studies at the U.S.-based John Hopkins University, warns that in due course, this would undermine civil- military cooperation.

In times of critical need, it could even harm military effectiveness.

Delivering his lecture, Problems Of Civil-Military Relations In The 21st Century, earlier this week, Cohen said he believed that while the friction had not reached crisis stage, it seemed to be heading that way. That would be worrying, he said.

At the lecture, organized by the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, he said an inherent friction in the relationship was always there.

The civilian world feared the size of the military while the latter believed the civilian world misunderstood it and was ungrateful for all that it had ensured.

This mutual misunderstanding had grown further in recent years with changes in the environment and technological advances.

As Cohen explained, militaries across the world were shrinking, given the declining threat perceptions and the advances in technology that "no longer favored mass militaries". "This is having its own impact on the civil-military relationship," he said.

Another critical change was the advent of the Internet. The explosion of the medium was seeing a tremendous amount of military information in the public domain and open to debate.

Alongside, the media was playing a significant role by shaping public opinion against the use of force.

Changes in the environment included a change in the legal system as well.

Traditionally, legal systems within a civil government left the military alone. But this, too, was changing.

In the case of Israel, for instance, the military was forced to grant admission to women in various positions not because of public pressure or government order, but because the Supreme Court willed that it do so.

Perhaps another critical factor, Cohen said, was the growing disparities in structures and values between the civilian and military worlds.

While the civilian world had changed dramatically to alter its hierarchical structures and adopt new values, the military world had not.

Militaries continue to practice their hierarchical ways and, as Cohen said, it was hard for them to see how they could do without their conventional structures.

"Consequently, you have a situation where the militaries are associated with being hierarchical, collective and altruistic," he said.

"On the other hand, the civilian world can be described as being more individualistic, hedonistic and libertarian."

The clear division seemed to be putting a lot of stress on those within the military.

The findings of a survey conducted in the U.S. showed that the military found itself adhering to values that were no longer respected by the rest of the society.

Factors such as these had left military organizations facing a tumult within, somewhat confused and perplexed about the direction ahead.

Military organizations face a dilemma wherein they do not know if it would be appropriate to submit to the ways of the civilian world or hold on to ideals of the past.

One of the ways this was showing up, Cohen said, was in a degree of greater openness. The decisions to allow women in combat positions and to show a greater tolerance for homosexuals reflected this.

But these decisions could add to the psychological stress within the military, with different people holding different views on the subject.

Given these realities, perhaps the time has come for a paradigm shift in civil-military relations.

Military organizations need to re-examine their ways in the changed circumstances.

At the same time, the civilian world needs to give them more space to change, while showing a greater degree of understanding for their work.

This is needed not only to build mutual trust, but to ensure that the guns do not boom again.

The writer is with The Straits Times Foreign Desk.

--The Straits Times/Asia News Network