The People: Ambivalent Supporters

Abstract

The intensity of the people’s role in military activity has changed from the days of mass mobilization war that characterized the West in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.¹ When, for instance, NATO armies are deployed, the populations of most of Europe and North America may ‘sympathasize but do not suffer; they empathize but they do not experience’.² However, that is not to say that the people have no role in contemporary operations. In democracies like Canada, the population has a significant influence on the way both the government and the military conduct themselves on the battlefield. So while Colin McInnes may be correct in his assessment on suffering, he is wrong when he says that “society no longer participates, it spectates from a distance.” ³ Philip Everts believes that, “whether the consequences are good or bad, and whether we like it or not, the public is … always involved in wars, their participation, conduct or prevention, and whatever their form, as participant or observer.” Therefore, he continues, “public opinion, what people think and the way they look at the world and how they act upon their convictions in the political process [is] not only a topic of concern to governments, but consequently also a major factor in understanding foreign policy and international politics.”⁴