Introduction
Armed suasion is relatively a new term which has been fronted to explain the showing off of military power as a means of gaining an upper hand over other nations in international affairs. Though the term is relatively new, the art is quite old and has been used successfully by a number of nations in the past. In this article, specific examples are picked to discuss and explain the paradoxical logic of armed suasion.
Armed Suasion
This is a military as well as a political strategy of gaining international political mileage. Basically, this strategy involves flexing a country’s military muscles in a manner that is more of visible to other nations (Baylis, 2006). The principal intention of doing this is to create an awareness of military strength that is in place. Alternatively, it might be viewed as an awareness campaign aimed at sensitizing the observers that the military on display is worth to reckon with. It is worth noting that armed suasion only works during peace times (Luttwak, 2001).
Examining how this strategy has been used in the past has proven it to be a contradictory strategy. It is a paradoxical strategy because the military on display never gets to be tested in a real combat to ascertain its capability. This however does not mean that an armed suasion does not work – it works and works wonders. Luttwak (2001) offered several examples of how armed suasions have worked wonders in the past. One great case discussed was that of Italy during the Mussolini reign. He noted that the military policy in place then was actually an armed suasion strategy: “…a military policy in which stage management was far more important than the sordid need of war preparation…sacrificed real combat strength for the sake of hugely magnified images of military power” (Luttwak, 2001, p. 221).
The paradox comes in because when armed suasion is used, it seems to work miracles but when the time comes for the actually testing of the military power it proves otherwise. This was the case for Italy under Mussolini. The armed suasion that Mussolini had used to gain so many advantages against nations such as Britain and France were thwarted when Italy went to war in 1940. Italy emerged out of the war defeated and thus successfully lost all the gains it had acquired early through armed suasion (Luttwak, 2001).
Another illustration of armed suasion was the arms race. The Soviet Union and the USA engaged each other in this race for some time. They never fought each other but always there was a display of military might and intelligence through blasting of nuclear bombs, flights to the outer space, construction of long range missiles, among other actions (Luttwak, 2001). This same strategy is seen today in regional areas. For example, Pakistan and India have always flexed their military muscles with the aim of intimidating each other to gain regional respect (Nelson, 2012).
Conclusion
Armed suasion is a strategy which has always been in use. This strategy has been viewed as an awareness campaign of the military might of a nation. Its aim is to dissuade other nations on the dangers of inflicting on the interests of the nation using the strategy. Paradoxically, history has shown that though this strategy has worked, when it comes to real war it has sometimes been disastrous. However, it is still a great strategy as it avoids wars and yet realizes results which are intended.
References
Baylis, J. (2006). Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Luttwak, E. (2001). Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace. Massachusetts, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nelson, D. (2012). India and Pakistan escalate nuclear arms race.The Telegraph. Web.