ABSTRACT
In his book Globalization: A Critical Introduction (2000: 3), Jan Aart Scholte argues that globalization is a ‘distinctive and significant feature of recent world history’ which continues to affect all areas of human achievement and endeavour. Given its broad sweep, we might reasonably expect the globalization process to have a major impact on military forces, particularly if we see them not just in strategic terms, but as complex bureaucratic/political and social/cultural entities. This expectation is enhanced by the long-standing conceptual and practical connections between military force(s) and such concepts and political entities as (in)security, society and the state. Military forces are often the agent of the state’s birth. They provide the means of defending the sovereignty of the nation and the security of its peoples against various threats or sources of insecurity, of projecting the security interests of the state (or state elites) beyond national borders, and of underpinning, and sometimes enforcing, governmental authority within society and the state (Desch, 1996; Holsti, 1996). Military experiences and traditions, especially those in times of war, play a central role in the construction of national identity, and in defining what it means (and does not mean) to be an accepted member of society (Campbell, 1992). Military service, and particularly service in combat in the defence of the state and its security interests, is often posited as the most important, and noble, responsibility of the state’s (until recently male) citizens (Enloe, 1983).1 National military forces and their associated organizational and broader strategic cultures are often represented as appropriate models or means of maintaining internal cohesion and legitimacy in times of change or adversity (Cerny, 1996: 132). Indeed, in a rapidly globalizing world, state-based militaries are seen by many as one of the last repositories of national independence, pride and assertiveness.
