The one critical lesson emerging from the recent developments in the Middle-East is that military force can no longer guarantee absolute victory. Yes, it can contain and maybe weaken the perceived enemy, but it is limited and cannot completely neutralize them. In fact present developments only reveal that military approach has had counterproductive results. Not only does it strengthen the resolve of people but more importantly it sways world opinion. In a world where technology has broken all geographical boundaries, the world opinion cannot be simply ignored.
The futility of force as demonstrated in the present crisis is a learning point for all armies and governments and perhaps it is an opportune time to reaffirm a public discourse that calls for the transformation of the traditional thinking that perceives militaristic and security-centric paradigms as the means of settling political differences. The irony of military approaches is evident by the fact that after all the operations and bloodshed, it would still require a political process to settle the issue. The need to engage in a political process is inevitable.
A fundamental implication emerging from this lesson involves the realization that freedom, democracy and justice cannot be imposed through the use of force. Desmond Bowen, the policy director at the Ministry of Defense remarked “No longer does the singular strand of military activity lead to success.” It would be fair to say that conflicts of today involve objectives, which cannot be resolved when military force is used.
The symptoms of today’s conflicts while appearing to be very clear on the surface may in fact be connected to combinations of other issues which may have developed over time. What is needed is the identification and clearer understanding of the root causes and to differentiate them from the consequences while addressing them. The implications of these insights should not be ignored any longer. The task of addressing conflicts requires a more challenging and constructive political process of engagement, persuasion and negotiation.
It is pertinent that stakeholders are no longer confined only to power blocs and armed groups and it has become increasingly evident to widen the ambit of and political process towards resolution by involving different sectors of society at multiple levels of any process. It becomes far more crucial for non-government actors to initiate public discourses in an open and free manner on defining issues that determines the future of the people. Groups that encourage and engage in honest critical and constructive dialogue is more likely win people’s trust and would be in a better position to negotiate.
In a world where governments are being forced to become more accountable and with societies becoming better informed, the use of force is becoming increasingly futile. The theatre of struggle has moved from the jungles to the negotiating table in which the weapon is no longer the barrel of a gun or a bomb from a warplane, but the art of diplomacy and persuasive negotiation. The art of war is now engaged in a battle for ‘hearts and minds’ in which there is no more room for force.
