War has not changed. It is, as ever, a mainly political act resulting from a battle between two independent wills. And yet we have still to recover from the concept that has been so prevalent for the past 40 years, that war is an issue of technical combat between two great arsenals and that the stronger they are, the more likely they are to win. Today’s crises are making us realise, albeit rather too slowly, that an accumulation of technical power can well lead to nothing other than an accumulation of political impotence if we do not take into account the changed conditions in which military force is used.

It is clear that our most sophisticated weapons systems encounter enormous difficulties in achieving the desired political aims. We therefore have to consider this carefully and make both military men and politicians (the latter, of course, having the final decision on the structure and employment of our forces) understand that we have to adapt to these new conditions of warfare if we want our military force to serve a real purpose for the State. History shows us that if it wishes to be in a position to act for the nation’s future, if it wants to carry weight in the world, the State has to possess not just a military force but one that serves a purpose.

The Circumstances Surrounding War

This is the heart of the debate, for if war itself has not changed, the circumstances surrounding war certainly have. They are now entirely variable, evolutionary, uncertain and forever changing.