Military policy, often referred to in Western nations as defense policy or national security policy, is a public policy that tackles international security and the military and consists of the activities of a government that are primarily concerning the armed forces. The Defense Ministry minister is the primary decision-maker for the national military policy.
Although referred to as defense or national security policy, in some countries this is not the main purpose of the military policy as their armed forces may not be designed for defense and security, but rather for aggression, leading to minimization.
Nonetheless, this policy comprises the measures and initiatives that governments take concerning strategic goals and decision-making such as when and how to commit national armed forces and ensure retention of independence in the national development as well as mitigation of hardships imposed from hostile or aggressive external actors.
The main purpose of this policy is to provide strategy (concerning the units and uses of force) and structure (deals with the acquisition and organization of the resources). Regarding the strategy, this policy is viewed from a foreign-policy perspective. In itself, this concept identifies a need and prescribes a policy on the uses, strengths, and weapons of the armed services. In itself, it serves two types of issues: program issues (dealing with composition, readiness, and strength of the military forces in addition to number, type, development of their weapons) and use issues (deployment, commitment, and employment of military forces, war plans, declarations of war, alliances, etc.)
As for the structural side, it is the domestic component of the military policy and it implies a budgetary policy, a man-power policy, a procurement policy, and organizational policy. These define the size and distribution of funds, pay and working conditions of members of the armed services, the acquisition and distribution of supplies to the military forces, respectively the methods by which the aforementioned are organized and administered.
Although these practices are distinct, any major decision in military policy involves a combination of all these principles. To give an example of how these are blended if there is a decision that is primarily influencing the international environment, strategic terms are formulated and then translated into structural policies. In opposition, when a decision is affecting the allocation of domestic values, it is first formulated in structural terms and only later the strategic implications are calculated.
A decision to cut out the military’s budget is more of a concern with domestic factors (structural side) that could be determined by a fear of inflationary effects on high military spending or desire to balance the budget and reduce taxes.
However, such a decision implies changes for war plans and deployments, changes that could make it difficult for a state to respect its existing commitments of a political nature.
Conversely, a decision like assuming the commitment of aiding another state will consequently have an impact on the programs and war plans of the military, leading to changes in the military manpower, and in the end, even affecting the domestic economy.
As such, one must be aware of the fact that theoretically, domestic, foreign, and military policies should be congruent. In practice, their purposes and goals are always conflicting. Therefore, our journal focuses on delivering the most current information regarding military policies and how these may affect the rest while analyzing it at full length.