Soldiers and The Use of Force: Military Activism and Conservatism During The Intifadas Murat ÜLGÜL* Abstract Introduction Are soldiers more prone and likely to use force Are soldiers more prone to use force and initiate conflicts than civilians? To bring a and initiate conflicts than civilians? new insight to this question, this article compares The traditional view in the civil- the main arguments of military activism and military relations literature stresses that military conservatism theories on Israeli policies during the First and Second Intifadas. Military professional soldiers are conservative activism argues that soldiers are prone to end in the use of force because soldiers political problems with the use of force mainly are the ones who mainly suffer in war. because of personal and organizational interests Instead, this view says, it is the civilians as well as the effects of a military-mindset. The proponents of military conservatism, on the who initiate wars and conflicts because, other hand, claim that soldiers are conservative without military knowledge, they on the use of force and it is the civilians most underestimate the costs of war while likely offering military measures. Through an overvaluing the benefits of military analysis of qualitative nature, the article finds 1 action. In recent decades, military that soldiers were more conservative in the use of force during the First Intifadas and Oslo conservatism has been challenged by Peace Process while they were more hawkish in a group of scholars who argue that the the Second Intifada. This difference is explained traditional view is based on a limited by enemy conceptions and by the politicization number of cases, mainly civil-military of Israeli officers. relations in the United States. By analyzing several other countries, these Key Words scholars have found that soldiers are more war-prone than civilians because Military Activism, Military Conservatism, Use of Force, Israeli Politics, Palestinian Intifada, of organization/personal interests and Civil-Military Relations. a military-mindset. This theory, which is called military activism or militarism, * Dr., Karadeniz Technical University, holds that military regimes are more Department of International Relations, likely to initiate wars than civilian Trabzon, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] regimes, including dictatorial ones.2 57 PERCEPTIONS, Summer 2016, Volume XXI, Number 2, pp. 57-80. Murat Ülgül In this article, I will attempt to bring a new insight to the literature by The politicization of the analyzing Israeli soldiers’ preferences Israeli soldiers is important in on the use of force during the First and explaining the differences in the Second Intifadas. In this comparative- soldiers’ preferences between qualitative case study, I will show a the First and Second Intifadas. complex picture, as the Israeli soldiers were conservative in the use of force Second, the politicization of the Israeli during the First Intifada and Oslo soldiers is important in explaining peace process while the military was the differences in the soldiers’ one of the most hawkish institutions preferences between the First and after the Second Intifada erupted in Second Intifadas. Similar to the Israeli 2000. I will explain this complexity with politicians and society, Israeli soldiers two factors. First, the condition of the were divided on how to establish peace enemy plays an important role in what with the Palestinians. During the First the soldiers see as their organizational Intifada, the top echelon of the military and personal interests. During the supported the “land for peace” formula First Intifada, the Israeli soldiers saw of the Labor Party and they were open themselves in opposition to a civilian to dialogue and negotiations with the population and using force against Palestinians. On the other hand, the them was regarded as a violation of generals after 2000 belonged to the organizational and personal interests. other end of the political spectrum and Yet, when the Palestinian Authority saw the use of force as a most efficient (PA) became a state-like entity over policy; therefore; it was not surprising time and had an armed presence, using to see that the generals of the Second heavy force in the Second Intifada did Intifada entered politics as members not contradict with these interests. of the right-wing parties. All in all, these factors show that neither military conservatism nor military activism The traditional view in the alone can explain the policy preferences civil-military relations literature of the Israeli soldiers. stresses that professional soldiers are conservative in the use of Below I will first explain the arguments force because soldiers are the of military conservatism and activism ones who mainly suffer in war. theories. Then I will analyze the policy preferences of the Israeli soldiers during the First Intifada, Oslo peace 58 Soldiers and The Use of Force: Military Activism and Conservatism During The Intifadas process and Second Intifada, mainly at stake. As an advocate of this view, through secondary resources such as Huntington argues that professional newspapers, memoirs and books on soldiers rarely favor war since it means the subject. In the conclusion, I will the intensification of threats to national summarize the findings and highlight security. As he states in his oft-quoted the theoretical implications of the book, The Soldier and the State, a soldier article. “tends to see himself as the perennial victim of civilian warmongering. It is Military Conservatism and the people and the politicians, public Military Activism opinion and governments, who start wars. It is the military who have to fight them.”4 Similarly, General Because soldiers are trained to fight as Douglas MacArthur, Chief of Staff of their profession, it is natural to assume the United States Army in the 1930s, that they are more war-prone than points out that soldiers have no interest other groups, especially politicians. in war and “the soldier above all people Nevertheless, the traditional view on prays for peace for he must suffer and this question is exactly the opposite, bear the deepest wounds and scars arguing that international conflicts are of war.”5 In accordance with these mainly the result of ambitious policies observations, Betts found that during of irresponsible civilian politicians. the Cold War, American officers did Among political science theories, for not homogenously advocate use of example, the diversionary theory of war force when faced with crises; instead, points out that politicians occasionally civilians offered more aggressive provoke external conflicts and initiate policies than soldiers.6 wars when they face domestic crises.3 Civil-military relations scholars also In recent decades, this theory has been give attention to the relationship challenged by scholars who argue between wars and political elites that the traditional view is based on a and have found that soldiers are limited number of cases. By extending more pessimistic on the utility of the number of cases and looking at force than civilian politicians. They non-professional armies as well, critics argue that because civilians have no found that soldiers are indeed more experience on the battlefield, they often war-prone than civilians and military underestimate the costs and overvalue regimes are more likely to initiate wars. the benefits of military action. As a These scholars explain their findings result, soldiers are less inclined to use with two factors. First, they argue that force until the survival of the state is soldiers may advocate for offensive 59 Murat Ülgül policies because war provides significant barracks physically separate soldiers organizational and personal interests. from the civilian world for an extended To begin with, combat may bring glory period while the military in general and excitement, and victory in war may enlists those who view national security open the door to political careers for as a main concern. As a result of this some generals. Combat may also offer a specific socialization process, the beliefs large share of the budget to the military. and norms gained during military During wartime, soldiers can convince education have a long-lasting effect the government to buy new weapons in soldiers’ minds and the militaries much easier than in peacetime, when became “total institutions that mold the money is spent for education, health the beliefs of their members for life.”10 and other services. Finally, combat may give the military leaders an opportunity to try new strategies, test the soldiers’ Military-mindset refers to a efficiency and even market the weapons common set of norms gained the military industry produced in by soldiers during their military that country.7 According to military service; in other words, it is activism, all these benefits may increase the organizational subculture the belligerency of soldiers and make within the military. them more likely to advocate war.8 Second, proponents of military activism explain soldiers’ war-proneness with According to military activists, their military-mindset. Military- military-mindset has two main mindset refers to a common set of and interconnected characteristics. norms gained by soldiers during their First, soldiers are trained as realistic, military service; in other words, it is pessimistic and cautious men. the organizational subculture within Because even a small mistake may the military. As Rosati and Scott