Defense Transformation and Legitimacy in Scandinavia after the Cold War

Abstract

This article analyzes how defense transformation in Scandinavia has been legitimized and which legitimacy it enjoys. The overall result is that it does not have unambiguous support. There are, however, similarities and differences, both between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members Denmark and Norway and nonaligned Sweden, and between the NATO members. Theoretically, the alliance members should be more willing to transform—even if it implies a “denationalization” of defense. In Denmark, that is, with some reservation, the case but not in Norway. Nonaligned Sweden should, according to the same logic, be resistant to downsizing the armed forces and gearing them for NATO expeditionary war fighting operations. However, that is not the case. A consequence of the negative attitude toward the transformation is less influence, resources, freedom of action, and so on, for the defense forces in general, and an even more lukewarm attitude toward conducting combat operations in a NATO context in particular.

How pressure for change challenge military organizational characteristics

“…However, the Swedish security and defence sector have been through major changes during the last decades (Holmberg 2015). The Swedish Armed Forces have therefore experienced major challenges and demands (Petersson 2011, Bergström et al 2014. We argue that it is therefore a suitable example for a problematization of how military organizational characteristics are being challenged.…”

“…These find the changing norms rather uncomplicated, the armed forces are seen to have a clear role with respect to the use of force, and decisions regarding the use of force are considered to have legitimacy (Interview 3). It is known in previous research, however, that there were resistance towards this role in the military organization at the time (Eriksson, 2006, Petersson 2011. Most likely, both the bureaucratic and narcissistic characteristic of the military organization were challenged, but managed to internalize the new role with time.…”

Understanding public agency communication: the case of the Swedish armed forces

“…The Armed Forces went through a fundamental change, both in terms of a significant downsizing of units, personnel and equipment, and in terms of raison d'être , from being a massive national defense force set on countering a Soviet attack, to being a ‘leaner and meaner’ and almost expeditionary force participating in global crisis management. Scholars identify a relative lack of societal support for the defense transformation and of the new missions of the Armed Forces in Scandinavia at large as well as in Sweden (Petersson, ; Berndtsson, Dandeker, & Ydén, ). The abolishment of the conscript army in 2009 intensified the need for new ways of engaging and communicating with society.…”

Recruiting the “enterprising soldier”: military recruitment discourses in Sweden and the United Kingdom

“…In relation to our two cases, recent surveys show that both the Swedish and the British public substantially disagree with contemporary military operations such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Berndtsson, Dandeker, and Ydén 2015, 7-15). In addition, it has been argued that ongoing and far-reaching military transformations in Sweden and elsewhere can create problems of legitimacy (Petersson 2011). It has also been suggested that both the Swedish and the British public have a limited knowledge about the macro-roles and purpose of their armed forces (Fey 2012;Moore 2009).…”

“…The prevailing abolishment has lasted since 1961 (Strachan 2003, 45). Sweden did not abandon conscription until 2010, and the change of recruitment methods was part of the shift from territorial defence to a focus on international missions as well as the gradual abandonment of policy neutrality (Petersson 2011;Agius 2011). Until recently, Swedish governments have been reluctant to send troops overseas (except on United Nations (UN) "blue helmet" missions), and the Swedish Armed Forces have a rather limited experience of war fighting.…”