Ron Smith: Face the hard facts of war

Ron Smith

There is a serious problem with the standard of public discussion of military matters, and not just in New Zealand. This has been exemplified by the response to a defence industry conference in Wellington and to the story of the cremation of two al Qaeda dead in Afghanistan.

In both cases (and many others like them) the public debate and media response to events reflected a negligible understanding of the realities of war and little consistent application of moral principle.

Responsibility here falls mainly on the media. It absolutely needs to make an effort to understand the issues. Otherwise we shall stumble from one defence policy quagmire to the next.

Arms manufacture is not an evil unless we do not allow the use of military force for any purpose or in any circumstances. This is not the view that most people who reflect on the matter actually take (unless they are absolute pacifists).

If we do think that there are circumstances in which the use of violent force is justified (as in East Timor, and countless earlier cases), then we cannot think that those that supply the weapons that our forces use in such circumstances do wrong. We may think that particular weapons or tactics ought not to be used but we cannot condemn weapons, per se.

Inappropriate treatment of enemy dead (as in the case in Afghanistan) is certainly contrary to international humanitarian law but the amount of public discussion and condemnation was totally out of proportion to the gravity of the breach and is particularly misleading when so many other breaches of a more serious kind go unreported, and without comment.

The soldiers concerned are fighting in a war in which their adversary recognises no humanitarian limitation whatsoever and has regularly killed innocent men, women and children, and mercilessly tortured captives.

There is a third point that also arises out of the Afghan case. We may conceive of an ideal of just warfare in which participants respect all the rules and even resolve not to think or speak ill of their adversary (or those that give him support). But we need to ask ourselves to what extent this is a reasonable requirement to put on those who risk their lives to protect our interests.

In war there is a fundamental tension between the need to respect humanitarian conventions and the need to achieve our military objectives. If we do not pay some attention to military necessity, we may find that the "just causes" for which we invite our fellow citizens to die are lost and their death is sheer waste.

The effective application of military force requires persons of some determination and robust fixity of purpose, who are able to exercise initiative, without being second-guessed by other parties, distant from the action and ignorant of its realities, and that this may be seriously undermined by the overzealous imposition of rules and restraints.

There is now a real question about the appropriateness of the Rules of Engagement that have been adopted in recent conflict situations from Bosnia to East Timor.

Those who have given some thought to military strategy and the organisation of military forces also recognise that conflict has a mental dimension and that how it turns out may depend on how the respective parties feel, as well as how they are situated, from a military point of view.

Psychological Operations are intended to undermine an adversary's will to fight by causing him to doubt his cause or his leadership. This can be a significant factor and to forgo the advantage such operations may bring may have serious consequences. We lose more men and the "bad guys" win.

Causing your own forces to doubt themselves is, of course, plain stupid. Regrettably, this does not seem to stop us doing it. We really need to give this whole matter much more attention, and for this the media has a serious responsibility.

* Dr Ron Smith is Director of International Relations and Security studies, Department of Political Science and Public Policy, the University of Waikato