The Case for Discriminate Force

Western democracies face increasing constraints on the use of their overwhelming military power. The classical logic, legitimacy and effectiveness of employing force to safeguard national interests apply less and less. State and non-state adversaries threaten important and even vital Western values and interests but are seemingly undeterred by – or even inspired by – Western military superiority. At the same time, phenomena such as globalisation, the growing transparency of the battlefield and changing Western value systems subject civilian and military leaders to mounting pressure to wield military power selectively and to use increasing discrimination in choosing means as well as ends.

Although the end of the Cold War ushered in a new era in which some speculated that force would play a less salient role in the international system, force remains essential to the West’s maintenance and enhancement of security and stability. Yet military doctrine and force structures have been slow to adjust to new security challenges. Preventive diplomacy not backed by a credible threat of force is often impotent. Classical deterrence is less reliable against contemporary adversaries and asymmetric challenges such as terrorism. Nonmilitary means of coercion by themselves often fail to change the behaviour of adversaries; and even when such coercion eventually succeeds, the time taken can result in greater bloodshed. The former Yugoslavia is an excruciating case in point. Yet the military options necessary to back up diplomacy, deterrence and coercion have not yet been fundamentally transformed to meet the new realities and constraints.

To view full text please see PDF below (login may be required).