Meaning-making

Meaning-making is an ambiguous concept in scholarly literature, reflecting the miscellaneous semantics of ‘meaning’ itself. Park and Folkman have pointed out the manifold conceptual and operational approaches to meaning-making in psychological literature – an unclarity that has also characterised psychological studies on veterans’ meaning-making.Footnote ⁵ Presumably in an effort to rectify this, Schok, Kleber, and Boeije identified ‘two construals of meaning making’: ‘to make sense of the event’ and ‘to find personal significance in the event’.Footnote ⁶ While claiming that these two different forms of meaning-making have independent roles in how one processes experiences cognitively, these scholars did not, however, clearly establish the relationship between them.Footnote ⁷ Identifying several themes and sub-themes from their interviews with Dutch Cambodia veterans, the scholars, moreover, did not distinguish clearly between the two in their analysis. As a result, these scholars do not provide a clear operationalisation of meaning-making despite their attempt to define the concept.

What is more, the small but emergent body of sociological literature dealing with the meaning of war as described by veterans lacks a consistent conceptualisation and operationalisation of meaning-making. Some studies’ use of the concept is more in line with an understanding of meaning-making as synonymous with sense-making. Ruffa and Sundberg, Gustavsen and Rafoss, and Ruffa and Rietjens, for instance, have studied how veterans interpret or define military missions.Footnote ⁸ More attuned to veterans’ own personal accounts, Driessen argued that Dutch veterans make sense of their war experiences by confronting or complementing their memories and understanding of the war during return visits to their former deployment area in former Yugoslavia.Footnote ⁹ In a related vein, Lomsky-Feder conceived of veterans’ meaning of war as recollections of war experiences and interpretations of war’s place in one’s life story.Footnote ¹⁰ Aiming to engage with the work of Lomsky-Feder, Gustavsen defined meaning-making as ‘a cognitive process that enables service members to connect their experiences to something greater, to comprehend and organize their understanding of both ordinary and dramatic events, and to reintegrate these experiences into their lives in a purposeful manner’.Footnote ¹¹ Gustavsen operationalised this definition by identifying what she termed military, societal, and personal frameworks of meaning among Norwegian veterans. However, looking at her empirical analysis, a more accurate description of the findings would be the military, societal, and personal significance of the veterans’ deployment as her informants describe the military relevance, the societal so-called patriotic value, and the personal impact of their deployment.Footnote ¹² Followingly, Gustavsen’s approach differs from that of Lomsky-Feder, who focused on how veterans situate war within the broader story of their life. Finally, Bartone has also grappled with meaning in the sense of significance, although using the term ‘positive meaning’. He contrasted this with ‘existential boredom’, which he claims ‘really has to do with a lack of meaning – questioning or doubting the significance and importance of what you are doing’.Footnote ¹³ I would, however, claim that if the opposite of positive meaning is lack of meaning, then rather than terming it ‘positive meaning’, one could simply talk of ‘meaning’.

My assertion of the inconsistent and unclear conceptualisation and operationalisation of ‘meaning’ and ‘meaning-making’ is without disparagement of the significant insight the above-mentioned literature offers into how veterans narrate their war experiences. Meaning-making can indeed be understood as a process that involves the construction of ‘meaning’ in several senses of the term: one has to make sense of an event before evaluating its significance.Footnote ¹⁴ This means that different parts of the meaning-making process can be considered separate, although related, constructions of meaning. Followingly, I maintain that we as researchers need to seek conceptual clarity and make explicit what form of meaning-making we refer to, in order to increase the analytical value and comparability of our findings.

For the purpose of this study, with an interest in if and how veterans render war meaningful after its failure, I understand meaning as significance, relating to questions of value and worth.Footnote ¹⁵ In this study, meaning-making thus refers to evaluating how the war in Afghanistan was of value or worth, that is, assigning it a meaning and hence rendering it meaningful. If veterans do not attach any significance to it, the war is, conversely, rendered meaningless.

Veterans’ meaning-making has previously been studied based on the assertion that it has implications for their well-being or their relationship with the military organisation.Footnote ¹⁶ However, their meaning-making is also interesting in a civil–military relations perspective, which this study explores in two ways. First, veterans’ meaning-making can be compared to the meaning that civilian society assigns to war. The congruence of civilian and military evaluations of the war can inform us qualitatively about ‘societal–military (dis)integration’, that is, similarities and differences between society and the military.Footnote ¹⁷ Second, veterans’ evaluation of the war reveals how veterans reflect on the failure of the war. These reflections can then be analysed in terms of how veterans understand the military’s role in war and by extension in society.Footnote ¹⁸ This again informs us about civil–military relations in terms of civilian control of the armed forces, understood in a broad sense to include not only military subordination to civilian authority but also the prevalence of civilian political preferences.Footnote ¹⁹

Method

The study is based on interviews with fifteen Norwegian Afghanistan veterans. This sample size was pragmatically determined. The relative homogeneity of the group led to an estimated sample of ten to twenty veterans prior to the interviews, and the final number was settled as similar patterns within the content of the interviews were recognised.

The interview sample was composed of veterans who had been deployed at least once to Afghanistan with the Norwegian Army and who currently held a military rank of no higher than Lieutenant Colonel (OF4) or Master Sergeant (OR8).Footnote ²⁰ The interviewed veterans included both active (10) and former (5) service members.Footnote ²¹ Reflecting the overwhelming majority of males among Norwegian Afghanistan veterans and military personnel in general, they were all men.Footnote ²² They had between one and six deployments to Afghanistan in the period between 2003 and 2014 as professional or enlisted soldiers. Although Norway contributed troops to both Operation Enduring Freedom and Resolute Support Mission, these veterans had all deployed to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). While they had served in various contingents and held different roles, they all had experience from combat and missions outside of military camps. They had served primarily in Kabul or in northern provinces of Afghanistan, and many had been affiliated with the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Meymaneh, which Norway led between 2005 and 2012. The interviews were held in the winter months of 2023/2024, that is, about two and a half years after the withdrawal. The interviews were conducted and transcribed in Norwegian, and direct quotes cited in the text have been translated to English by the author.

The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner, which meant that all interviews covered similar topics and questions, but also that there was room to explore different issues that arose during the conversation. Most questions were somewhat generic and related to the veterans’ experiences during deployment and after homecoming. The veterans were also asked directly whether they experienced their deployment as meaningful and why, but this study’s analysis of their meaning-making is based on an interpretation of the totality of their accounts.

To sort and interpret the interview material, inductive thematic analysis similar to Braun and Clarke’s approach was employed as follows.Footnote ²³ Each of the transcribed interviews was coded separately. The empirical codes were then grouped together thematically. Finally, the groups of codes that reflected a majority of the interviewed veterans’ evaluations of the war’s significance were conceptualised as themes before existing literature was recurrently drawn in to support the analysis. Because the analysis indicated no substantial difference between active and former service members, the study does not differentiate between these two categories.

The study acknowledges that the interviews reflect individual accounts. Still, it is possible to identify patterns in the material with broader relevance. Interviews can be a source of information about how individuals want to be perceived, reflecting established narratives within their profession.Footnote ²⁴ Through the interview data we not only get an understanding of how veterans ascribe meaning to the war but can also explore the underlying shared narratives and understandings of the military and its role.Footnote ²⁵ On this note, a possible objection to the method outlined above is that my position as a civilian researcher may have affected the responses from the interviewed veterans. However, like Duncanson, I contend that ‘the issue of whether [they] are telling “the truth” or not is perhaps less relevant than what they reveal about identities’.Footnote ²⁶

Main themes in veterans’ meaning-making

Five main themes were identified in the material and are analysed following some initial reflections. Notably, the interviewed veterans were generally negative towards or uncertain about what the war had achieved on an overall level. Some asserted that they never had much faith in the project: ‘To think that one, with the support of NATO forces, will democratise Afghanistan and create a functioning society, I don’t think many of us believed it very much. […] I think we considered it more demanding than public opinion and the politicians at home did.’ Others were more upset. One veteran who still worked in the Armed Forces expressed his deep frustration with the withdrawal, stating that ‘it feels extremely meaningless when we suddenly flip the switch and go home and say we are done. It was infuriating.’ Yet he also stated that he would have deployed again if given the opportunity. The sections below illustrate how veterans assigned meaning (i.e., significance) from their own experiences and the perceived outcomes of their deployment despite the overall result of the war.

Doing the job

Most commonly, the veterans constructed meaning of war in terms of doing the job inherent to the military profession. This is hardly surprising given the military focus found in Afghanistan veterans’ narratives in existing research.Footnote ²⁷ In the interviews, a large majority of the veterans described their deployment as a part of their job in the Armed Forces. One veteran for instance stated that:

Reflecting on the changing security situation in Afghanistan, another veteran emphasised that ‘the mission is a political direction that is given. And you have the choice: Either you resign, or you do as the job demands.’ In such a manner, deployment was rendered significant as a fulfilment of their commitment to the job.

The war was, moreover, considered a valued experience for the veterans as military professionals. Several portrayed it as carrying out their profession in real life rather than just training. Reflecting on whether he would deploy again if given the opportunity, one veteran concluded among other things that ‘I get the chance to do the warring part of my job and do what I have trained for and used my entire career to build experiences and competence for’. For him, it was about using his abilities, whereas for others it was about doing more than the routine at home, ‘not just practice, train, repeat’.

The veterans also valued their deployment as a mission that was completed and a job that was done well. Reflecting on the accomplishments of the operations, one veteran declared that

This is substantiated by statements like ‘we or I or Norwegian soldiers, we could not have done much differently’ or ‘we have done what we were supposed to’. By evaluating the war as a well-completed mission, veterans’ meaning-making implied a lack of consideration of the Armed Forces’ role in Afghanistan and in achieving the political goals of the military operations. This appraisal of the military effort reflected their view of their deployment as a result of political decisions, illustrated by a veteran’s statement that ‘one can think whatever one wants of the war and stuff, but in a way, veterans have only done as the government or the Storting [Norwegian parliament] have said’. With limited reflections on the role of the military effort for the outcome of the war, the failure was, moreover, rather attributed to the political level. For instance, several advanced criticism of the Norwegian government’s approach of separating civilian and military efforts, and some voiced their belief that more could have been accomplished had these efforts been better integrated. Other factors that, according to interviewed veterans, contributed to failure included the coalition strategy, features of the Afghan society, and the withdrawal of troops.

Realising oneself

Another theme that frequently arose in the interviews was that of self-realisation. This theme is characterised by considerations of what the war had brought the veterans personally as individuals. Besides being a valued experience for them as military professionals, deployment was also regarded as an experience in mastering the demands of the job. One veteran expressed it like this, reflecting the sentiment of several others:

In this sense, deployment had allowed the veterans to test themselves and their standard as soldiers in a war. Others saw the experience of mastery in a broader light. These veterans described a sense of resilience – knowing that they could handle challenges – as the most cherished personal outcome of their deployment.

Existing literature offers different interpretations of whether this form of self-realisation is conditioned by socialisation within the military profession and community or rather reflective of motivations of the veterans prior to military service.Footnote ²⁸ However, only one of the veterans interviewed for this study stands out in his description of his deployment as an ‘exhilarating experience’ that he had ‘dreamt of daily since perhaps middle school and at least since 9/11’. Other veterans tended rather to portray the deployment experience as their military training being put to the test. The interviews thus substantiate the claim that ‘this notion of self-realisation through desiring and experiencing combat is not really about the self – it is about an assimilated self culturally positioned within the institutional context of the military’.Footnote ²⁹

Still, another element of self-realisation was conveyed in the interviews. All but one of the veterans outlined personal growth due to their deployment. For most, it was a sense of having gained new perspectives and an appreciation of life in Norway and the daily, little things in life. At the same time, some described a disinterest for what they deemed trifles that were exaggerated in Norwegian society and media. It was particularly the experience of Afghan society and its contrast with Norwegian society to which the veterans related this experience of growth. One veteran put it like this:

Experiencing community

Beyond professional and individualistic considerations, the veterans also valued their experience of community with fellow Norwegian soldiers during and after deployment. These relations were described as partly collegial. Several recounted doing the job and solving tasks together with close colleagues and feeling safe knowing the skills of one’s colleagues. For most, it was also something more: a comradeship characterised by team spirit, loyalty, and close bonds. Some claimed that this comradeship was built on trust and mutual dependence during the mission. Several also emphasised the joint experiences of demanding situations and both misery and adventure. This sense of comradeship appears to be particularly connected with deployment experience. Many described it as something they missed or as a particular strong memory.

At the same time, several described lasting bonds that are distant yet strong after deployment. A veteran who had attended an anniversary celebration for his former military unit said that:

The perceived fellowship post-deployment can be further described as a ‘community of experience’, a sense that other veterans share and understand your experiences. One veteran explained that ‘we are a group, a certain type of people who have experienced something not many others have experienced. We can get understanding and acceptance from our surroundings, but no one gets it completely without having been there themselves, right.’

While several seemed to relate to also others who have been deployed to Afghanistan, it was evident that the perceived community was especially rooted in one’s military unit. This substantiates the notion of a ‘band of brotherhood’ described by Schok, Kleber, and Boeije or Woodward’s notion of ‘mateship’, both describing a perceived bond within a team reflecting the reliance on one another.Footnote ³⁰

In addition to considering it as an outcome of military training towards unit cohesion, Woodward has read this mateship as veterans’ self-affirmation in opposition to perceived marginalisation by civilian society.Footnote ³¹ Corroborating this argument, veterans in this study both implicitly and explicitly excluded others without the same deployment experience from their community. The alienation towards civilian society is particularly evident.Footnote ³² Several veterans disassociated themselves from civilians who in their eyes cannot understand or relate to their experiences, to the extent that some described experiencing a dissonance after homecoming and facing civilian life in Norway upon return. Rather than expressing a contempt for the lack of civilian interest in or engagement with the military effort, as Woodward found among British veterans, or a sense of moral superiority, as Stanar has argued exists among Western militaries, the Norwegian veterans expressed a sentiment of superiority in terms of understanding, experiences, and maturity.Footnote ³³ This corresponds to Mogstad’s and Reuver’s findings of a sense of civilian ignorance and naiveté among Norwegian and Dutch Afghanistan veterans respectively.Footnote ³⁴ To some extent these findings resonate with what Harari coined as ‘flesh-witnessing’ to describe the self-proclaimed authority of veterans’ personal experiences of war.Footnote ³⁵ However, there is no empirical evidence in the material to claim that veterans expressed a standpoint that civilians ‘have no authority to speak about the war’.Footnote ³⁶ Nevertheless, by emphasising the military community, civilian opinions are ultimately rendered less relevant. This is underscored by the statement of one veteran, who had left the Armed Forces years ago, that the public debate in Norwegian media following the withdrawal made him once again think that civilians do not understand.

Making a difference ‘then and there’

The veterans also constructed meaning of the war looking to what they deemed positive achievements in Afghanistan. Many were positive of having made a difference for certain individuals or groups themselves, through creating stability and security in certain areas, through enabling social development, or through human interactions in which they were able to show compassion. As an illustration, one veteran explained that when ‘you very directly can contribute and see a difference, see the local population for instance be pleased about something you do or contribute towards or have done, then of course it feels meaningful’. For most, it was a perception of having made a difference ‘then and there’ for individual people and communities rather than for Afghanistan as a whole, reflecting the negative outlook on the results of the war. One veteran stated that:

Another veteran who stated even more pessimistically that he is unsure ‘whether we overall have contributed to anything else than people dying in the years we have been there’, also said it did not feel futile on a personal level due to having made a difference for individuals. For him, meeting civilian Afghans and aiding them with small things in their everyday life was a treasured memory. Interestingly, these quotes illustrate that despite being pessimistic or even negative about the overall outcome of the war, the veterans were able to interpret meaningful outcomes for Afghans resulting from their own deployment.

Molendijk has interpreted such perceptions among veterans of having made a difference in specific cases as a form of justification or rationalisation, enabling the veterans to ‘explain their conduct as right or excusable’.Footnote ³⁷ She argued that ‘“doing good” is not only satisfying in itself, but serves as compensation when bigger accomplishments are hard to identify’.Footnote ³⁸ This is corroborated by findings in this study. One veteran put it into words, stating that, among other things, ‘thinking that one can make a difference in some cases’ was a ‘small solace’ when one struggled to perceive the mission as meaningful. Another veteran reflected on his intention to ascribe meaning to his deployment in this manner, saying that:

While the focus on positive achievements may be an intentional strategy for some, as Gustavsen has claimed in previous research, it nonetheless illustrates that veterans did not express an ‘aversion to idealism’Footnote ³⁹ or an ‘emotional and moral detachment’,Footnote ⁴⁰ which other researchers have pinpointed among veterans.Footnote ⁴¹ In a Norwegian context, Mogstad found that in their post-deployment reflections veterans ‘fervently distanced themselves from humanitarian values and motivations’.Footnote ⁴² However, it is important to stress the difference between motivations, which Mogstad addressed, and meaning-making. In fact, although some endorsed a conception of the war as an attempt to do good for Afghanistan, idealism did not play any significant role in my interviewees’ talk of motivations, and a few even explicitly emphasised that it was not a motive for deploying. This does not, however, repudiate the veterans’ emphasis on it as an ultimately meaningful outcome. Whatever their initial motivations, ‘small-scale achievements’ in relation to Afghan society were salient in their construction of meaning after the war.Footnote ⁴³ This is also in line with research on other contexts, in which personal experiences of helping and interacting with the local population are accentuated by veterans.Footnote ⁴⁴

Serving the country

Finally, the veterans assigned meaning to the war seeing their deployment as a service on behalf of Norway. Only two veterans expressed patriotic sentiments explicitly, talking about ‘a wish to serve my country’ or choosing to do it ‘on behalf of society’. Deployment was rendered meaningful as a personal effort on behalf of Norway more implicitly by multiple veterans. The significance of their effort emerged often in response to questions regarding recognition from Norwegian society, indicating a transactional view of their service. Some considered medals and medal ceremonies upon homecoming as important recognition from Norwegian authorities of their effort. Others expressed a wish for more recognition efforts, for either their own sake or the sake of other veterans. One veteran stated that:

This national orientation among veterans was, as in Gustavsen’s study of Norwegian veterans during the war, mostly ‘phrase based’, that is, lacking of broader reflections.Footnote ⁴⁵ This conciseness illustrates, as Gibson and Abell have pointed out, that while references to national service may not loom large in veterans’ narratives, it is hard to deny the national aspect of being members of a nation’s armed forces.Footnote ⁴⁶

Moreover, while many veterans valued their effort on behalf of the state, there are some indications that they separate between out-of-area deployment and direct territorial defence. Some veterans denigrated their own efforts by clearly distinguishing between themselves and World War II veterans whose experiences and efforts on Norwegian soil, they argued, far surpass their own deployment abroad. This supports existing literature arguing that military service in international operations is not considered a ‘heroic sacrifice’ by most soldiers.Footnote ⁴⁷

Veterans’ separation from civilian meaning-making and politics

The sections above have examined how Norwegian veterans assigned meaning to the war in Afghanistan after its ultimate failure, attributing their deployment significance in terms of the military profession, self-realisation, experiences of community, local achievements in Afghanistan, and as service on behalf of Norway. The following sections discuss this meaning-making with regard to implications for Norwegian civil–military relations.

To begin, it ought to be emphasised that veterans’ meaning-making illustrates that Norwegian veterans are integrated within civilian society. Their construction of meaning is surely situated within the specific socio-cultural context in which it takes place, in accordance with findings of existing research.Footnote ⁴⁸ For instance, the veterans’ emphasis on self-realisation and their transactional perspective of military service reflects broader trends of self-orientation in Western societies.Footnote ⁴⁹ The claim of having made a difference during deployment also harmonises with humanitarian narratives that have been used to politically legitimise the war domestically.Footnote ⁵⁰ Followingly, the veterans did not appear disconnected from society at large.

Nevertheless, the above findings imply a societal–military gap in evaluations of the military deployment to Afghanistan. A notable trait of veterans’ meaning-making was the focus on their own deployments and experiences, rendering the war meaningful despite its outcome. In contrast, a study by Yttereng showed that there was a substantial focus on ISAF’s ultimate failure, with few claims of any valuable outcomes among civilians, except a few politicians, participating in Norwegian media debate in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal.Footnote ⁵¹ Although that study conceptualised meaning-making more as sense-making, the focus on failure in the media debate, arguably, promoted a clear sense of meaninglessness. The evaluation that prevailed in Norwegian media shortly after the withdrawal thus stands in stark contrast to the professional, personal, and local value attributed to their deployment by veterans. These findings are in line with research that has previously established a discrepancy between civilian and military narratives of the war in Afghanistan in the Norwegian context.Footnote ⁵² One possible explanation for such a gap could be, as Gustavsen has argued, that ‘veterans must invent their own strategy for how to evaluate and organize the experience [of war]’ due to the lack of shared interpretations within Norwegian society.Footnote ⁵³ However, this study contends that there is also a military side to this gap as veterans distanced themselves from civilian opinions of the war. This assertion is supported by Mogstad, who has found that Norwegian veterans contrasted themselves with ‘“naïve” civilians far from the battlefield’.Footnote ⁵⁴

What is more, in their meaning-making, veterans distanced the military effort from politics. Although veterans viewed the war as a failure, they found their deployment meaningful. Significant in a civil–military relations perspective, they conceived of it as a well-completed job and placed responsibility for failure on the political level. Echoing a Huntingtonian view of military service and objective control of the military, veterans hence separated between military and political areas of responsibility. In this view, politicians are responsible for political decisions, whereas the military ought to act as a loyal instrument of the state and obey orders.Footnote ⁵⁵ The military are considered accountable for the conduct of war, but, as an instrument of the state, not for political or strategic goals.Footnote ⁵⁶ Veterans were with this perspective enabled to distance themselves from responsibility for the outcome of the operations. Rather, they could accentuate the completion of the military mission and claim that it was performed sufficiently or well. In this perspective, they ‘have done what Huntington’s norms require of them – applied their expertise to achieve the military goal set before them’.Footnote ⁵⁷

This distance from politics is not an unanticipated stance considering that political goals of achieving security and stability in Afghanistan can be perceived as quite unattainable for the small Norwegian forces. It also bears reminding that the Huntingtonian perspective paradoxically not only separates the military and political spheres but also ultimately links these spheres through the service of the former to the latter. The interviewed veterans did indeed express a commitment to adhere to political decisions. This can be read as what Ryan termed ‘the argument to democratic duty’.Footnote ⁵⁸ This argument entails that the preservation of democracy requires soldiers to fight wars that democracy has decided to wage and follow orders regardless of their personal convictions.Footnote ⁵⁹

Still, distance from politics within the military represents a weakness in the civilian control of the armed forces in a broad understanding of the term. As Hoffman and later Brooks both have demonstrated, civilian control can be understood as more than solely civilian authority and military compliance.Footnote ⁶⁰ Rather, it is also characterised by civil–military dialogue and synergy, in essence ‘civil–military relations [that] operate in a positive manner by promoting civilian preferences and political goals’.Footnote ⁶¹ This necessitates that the relation between military efforts and political goals is considered by the military. It is significant then that other studies illustrate that a disregard for political goals extends to Norwegian veterans beyond this study.Footnote ⁶²

The separation of the military and political spheres is, moreover, not limited to veterans. There is also a civilian side to this separation, with Norwegian politicians having shown limited interest in the conduct of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan. This was evident when a governmentally appointed committee in 2016 evaluated Norwegian participation in the Afghanistan war in the period 2001–2014 without substantially scrutinising Norwegian military efforts.Footnote ⁶³ A recent evaluation of Norwegian efforts in the years 2015–2021 asserted that twenty years of war in Afghanistan ended in ‘defeat’ but maintained, with limited substantiations, that Norwegian military efforts were of little importance for the outcome of the war.Footnote ⁶⁴ Research has additionally illuminated how the discourse in Norwegian public debate in the immediate aftermath of withdrawal was focused on the failure of NATO and US strategy in Afghanistan and did not consider the Norwegian military contributions in any significant degree.Footnote ⁶⁵ This lack of engagement entails that as much as the military may distance itself from politics, Norwegian society is not in control of whether the use of military force is set up to meet political-strategic ends.Footnote ⁶⁶

Concluding remarks

From the perspective of veterans interviewed for this study, the war in Afghanistan was meaningful in several regards despite its ultimate failure. Their deployment was considered an inherent and valued part of the military profession. In addition, it had personal significance to them as they had experienced both individual self-realisation and soldier community. The veterans also looked beyond themselves to find value: having made a difference for individuals in Afghanistan and having made an effort on behalf of Norway.

These findings are notable because they not only further scholarly understanding of veterans’ meaning-making after failure but also contribute towards shedding light on Norwegian civil–military relations. Significantly, this study has, by synthesising its findings with previous research, illustrated civil–military separation in meaning-making after war. It has argued that veterans’ meaning-making differed from that of the Norwegian public, manifesting a societal–military gap in how the war is evaluated. Moreover, it has found a reciprocal distance between veterans and politics, which demonstrates a weakness in civilian control, broadly understood, of the Norwegian Armed Forces. The study hence also expands scholarly understanding of how the military’s experiences can shape civil–military relations, identifying a different dynamic than the involvement of armed forces in society and politics that hitherto has been the focus of this research field.

Due to the qualitative nature of the study, findings cannot easily be generalised. However, as detailed in the methods section above, veterans’ narratives can be considered to be revealing of collective understandings that already exist within the Norwegian Armed Forces. This is supported by correspondence between this study’s findings and existing research on Norwegian veterans. The ramifications could be great.

Weaknesses in civilian control of the military can, for instance, have operational consequences. Scholarly literature on American efforts in Afghanistan has previously argued that the notion of separate civilian and military spheres among American civilian and military leaders during the war contributed to failure in Afghanistan.Footnote ⁶⁷ There are also indications of similar disjunctions in smaller ISAF-contributing states, including Norway. A study of the Swedish–Finnish PRT in Mazar-e Sharif claims that the military character of the PRT’s efforts, at the expense of a comprehensive approach, was due in part to a lack of a clear political strategy from domestic governments and preferences for a military approach within the armed forces.Footnote ⁶⁸ Examining Norwegian efforts, Ekhaugen’s research has showed how military commanders in Afghanistan in practice bypassed national political directives.Footnote ⁶⁹ At the same time, the politicians were well aware of this bypassing, but had their attention directed elsewhere most of the time and accepted it as long as the political directions were adhered to by the letter, but not in practice.Footnote ⁷⁰ Whereas this previous research has shed light on how weak civil–military interaction affected how the war was carried out and ultimately ended, the findings of this study suggest that civil–military separation persists into meaning-making after war. Given that meaning-making reflects evaluations of war, this entails that such separation not only has had consequences for the conduct of previous wars but might also affect the lessons that are drawn in preparation for the next. More research is needed to establish whether this is also the case for other countries than Norway.

What is more, a civil–military gap in how operations are evaluated could ultimately entail that the military and civilians draw different lessons from the same operation. However, neither the veterans interviewed for this study nor the public debate in the immediate aftermath of withdrawal offered substantial critical consideration of Norway’s military contributions to the operations in Afghanistan.Footnote ⁷¹ Whereas the public debate focused on the failure of NATO and US strategy in Afghanistan, Norwegian veterans concentrated (largely uncritically) on military efforts in isolation from the larger picture of what happened in Afghanistan. The result is the same: as the use of the state’s primary instrument of force is not closely examined, it raises the question of what lessons are drawn both within the Armed Forces and by Norwegian society after twenty years of war in Afghanistan. Yet those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. A recent literature study has illustrated that the same shortcoming is present within Norwegian academia.Footnote ⁷² This calls for further research on Norwegian military efforts.