| Summary: | Relations between a country's political leadership and military power are important in many aspects. The military has a force mandate which requires control to balance its strength and loyalty. Unclear governance, grave disagreements or hidden agendas are indicative of a dysfunctional relationship and can lead to the military being given unrealistic goals, low political efficiency and failures in strategic assessments and decisions. In a crisis or war this means a risk to people's lives. There is an ongoing debate within the research field of civil-military relations regarding the extent to which and in what way politics should govern the military made in order to keep it both strong and loyal. The extremes advocate and autonomous military, separate from politics or the opposite, a military integrated with politics and society. The Swedish model is a combination of the extremes. Does this solution affect how Sweden plans its defence and the relationship between the political and military leaders in practice? Do the leaders have the right prerequisites to implement strategic plans? The purpose of this study is to analyze and explain in what way the civil-military relationship affects the strategic assessment and the defence decision-making processes in Sweden, by using Brooks theory. The purpose is also to contribute to fill the gap discovered in this research area as the bulk of studies have been done in an American perspective. The result shows that Sweden's civil-military relationship creates good conditions for a strategic assessment. There are however remarks that needs to be taken into account in order to minimize risks and mistakes.
|
|---|
