Understanding Civil-military Interaction by Hoogensen Gjørv Gunhild

Author:Hoogensen Gjørv, Gunhild
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (CAM)
Published: 2014-04-06T04:00:00+00:00

Blurring of Lines: Images vs Reality?

Perceptions, evidence-based or not, stick. Both inside and outside of Norway, CIMIC in general has been often perceived as too military by civilian organizations, “militarizing civilian work”, or not military enough by some military actors. CIMIC has suffered from an image problem, much of which has come from the heavy focus on projects rather than on the core, doctrinal activities of CIMIC such as liaison, information collection and sharing, civilian situational awareness (with a focus on NGO demands/needs as well as protection/support of civilians), operational planning and advising the commander. The “saint” image that, according to Kristoffersen, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wished to profile through CIMIC projects in Afghanistan, challenged the image of NGOs as the “real” do-gooders, as well as challenged the hard, masculine “risking lives and taking lives” foundation of military culture.

Amongst more than 120 respondents that I interviewed for this project, few had a neutral view about CIMIC. One civilian respondent suggested that the problems associated with the CIMIC role are that it is politically motivated and designed to meet the goal of the military (Hoogensen Gjørv 2007–2010b). As such a military position that is designed to implement “projects”, as the CIMIC position is often understood, is less desirable than just a civil-military contact that has no project (read: political) agenda. It was interesting that other military activities, by comparison, were not considered “political” according to this respondent. Politics, in this case, was embedded within the projects themselves. The less the military have to do with anything remotely humanitarian or development oriented, the less political and the better it is. One civilian respondent felt better talking about civil-military interaction rather than CIMIC itself – CIMIC was too politically burdened (Hoogensen Gjørv 2007–2010c).

The struggle over what the military (not just CIMIC) is supposed to represent and how to operate has also been visible in the Norwegian media. As noted in a recent e-article about the awarding of the highest military honour to one of Norway’s fallen: “One does not get the War Cross for building schools for girls”. The “Krigskors” (war cross) is the highest ranked distinction for exceptional performance and/or loss in battle. Coordinating with civilian actors will not get an officer the “Krigskors”. The greatest military honours go to combat, not coordination or communication. At the same time however, the emphasis on protecting civilians has only increased (largely coming from the political machinery), setting the role of combat in an increasingly precarious position and in principle increasing the importance of functions that focus on the civilian environment. This was exemplified during the increasing concerns for civilians during the March 2011 air attacks in Libya: “Norwegian jets have carried out bombing in Libya both Friday night and Saturday morning. No civilians were killed, according to the Norwegian Armed Forces” (Skjæraasen 2011). Although still fighting enemies, the focus has become civilians, which in turn demands a military competency to know and understand civilian security: “[Øystein Kvarving] states that he had seen a video recording of Friday’s bombing.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.