Every responsible national government must achieve a balance of national prosperity and security. As Robert Bates notes in The Development Dilemma, ‘to achieve development, a society must be both prosperous and secure.’ In the wake of the Cold War, this appeared to be a simpler balancing act as the threat of nuclear and large-scale conventional war receded, and military budgets could be significantly reduced. However, in the past decade, the rise of Chinese and Russian power and the growing instability in the global security environment has meant that governments must now turn their attention to achieving a different balance of prosperity and security for the 21st century.
Defence and intelligence budgets must inevitably rise to counter the threat of military, economic and information operations being conducted by an axis of authoritarians. Achieving this new balancing act will require more than just reapportioning government budgets. Mobilisation involves the deliberate, planned use of a society’s resources to achieve national objectives in time of war, crisis, or disaster. It will demand a more holistic approach to mobilising national capacity to ensure not only that national sovereignty is preserved, but that democracy itself survives into the 22nd century.
Perhaps most importantly, it will demandthat governments have honest and sustained conversations with their citizens. Mobilisation in the 21st century must be national in character and requires a social licence from citizens. The aim of this essay is to explore why mobilisation is a vital concept in deterring war. Key elements and implications of national mobilisation will be explored through the lens of what I describe as the Mobilisation Trinity: people, industry, and ideas.
Deterrence is the practice of discouraging or restraining a nation-state or non-state entity from taking unwanted actions. It has several key features. First, the desired effect is a psychological one, aiming to affect a potential aggressor’s decision process. Second, the effect is achieved through the ‘use’ of force in the form of a threat. Third, the psychological effect is fear of possible undesirable consequences. And finally, the undesirable consequences for a potential aggressor are failure or that costs will exceed possible gains.
No comments:
Post a Comment