Air Power, Insurgency and the “War on Terror” - Prof. Joel Hayward's ...

Chapter 11
not international, concerns: that he was merely trying to distract attention from <strong>the</strong>
Congressional hearings into <strong>the</strong> Monica Lewinsky sc<strong>and</strong>al that were scheduled for <strong>the</strong>
following day. In 2003, President George Bush, after consulting Congress <strong>and</strong> obtaining
its approval via a voted resolution, launched an invasion of Iraq. His stated political
purposes were to confiscate or destroy Iraq’s illegally-held weapons of mass destruction,
overthrow <strong>the</strong> oppressive <strong>and</strong> non-elected regime of Saddam Hussein (<strong>and</strong> initiate a
wave of democratic reform throughout <strong>the</strong> region), <strong>and</strong> ensure that all elements of <strong>the</strong>
al Qaeda terrorist group operating or hiding in Iraq were exposed <strong>and</strong> neutralised.
The common element in <strong>the</strong>se five diverse examples of military action is that all were
instigated by political leaders for, what were claimed, sound <strong>and</strong> specific political purposes.
If all of <strong>the</strong>se cases fulfil <strong>the</strong> dictates of <strong>the</strong> notion that <strong>the</strong> use of military force must
conform to a principle of war that dem<strong>and</strong>s a political/policy purpose rationalizing such
use, than that principle is manifestly meaningless.
Ra<strong>the</strong>r, many will no doubt fall back on <strong>the</strong> argument that <strong>the</strong> principle of political
purpose must necessarily be qualified. That is, <strong>the</strong> political purpose used as justification
for military action should be rational, consensual, achievable <strong>and</strong> moral. Yet motives are
virtually always judged through <strong>the</strong> eyes of <strong>the</strong> beholder, or more to <strong>the</strong> point, by those
devising <strong>the</strong> political purposes for military action. Even <strong>the</strong> actions of Hitler, Stalin <strong>and</strong>
Tojo were justified in <strong>the</strong>ir own eyes, but were not seen as being so by a large portion of
<strong>the</strong> globe. A bit more surprisingly perhaps is that nei<strong>the</strong>r were <strong>the</strong> actions of Presidents
Clinton <strong>and</strong> Bush viewed by many as fulfilling <strong>the</strong> criteria. Yet in all five cases <strong>the</strong> majority
of <strong>the</strong> populations (<strong>and</strong> militaries) of Germany, <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union, Japan <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> US
supported <strong>the</strong> actions, <strong>and</strong> by extension <strong>the</strong> political purposes, of <strong>the</strong>ir leaders. At least
<strong>the</strong>y did so as long as <strong>the</strong> military operations were viewed as being successful.
It <strong>the</strong>refore seems clear that merely stating a principle of war that all military actions
must have a purpose <strong>and</strong> that such purpose must be grounded in policy/politics can be
an extremely vague if not misleading concept. None<strong>the</strong>less, it is equally self-evident that
Purpose is indeed a crucial component of military action. Yes, <strong>the</strong>re must be a point to it
all. Given <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>mines surrounding such a principle, however, perhaps it merely can be
said that <strong>the</strong>se purposes should be well-conceived, clear, <strong>and</strong> non-trivial, that <strong>the</strong> use of
military force should not be considered as an end in itself, that <strong>the</strong> gains to be achieved
should be commensurate to <strong>the</strong> resources expended, <strong>and</strong> that all those involved should
underst<strong>and</strong> what is expected of <strong>the</strong>m individually <strong>and</strong> as a nation before employing <strong>the</strong>
military tool. Yet saying that says a very great deal indeed.
<strong>Air</strong> <strong>Power</strong>, <strong>Insurgency</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “War on Terror” 205