Writing on international relations frequently makes reference to the use of force, but rarely integrates changes in its nature into a central role in the explanatory model. In particular, force, in the shape of military capability, is often seen as the ‘servant’ of ideas about its appropriate use, and thus of the norms of the international system, rather than as an independent element, let alone playing a central role in affecting the latter. This article addresses the issue with particular reference to relations between the West and the ‘non-West’, arguing that the contested relationship between the different narratives of military history impinge directly on the character of international relations.

Differing narratives of military history

That this issue is directly pertinent today stems most apparently from the crisis in Iraq, but is in no way restricted to it, because differing views on the effectiveness and legitimacy of military capability play a major role in conflicts and confrontations around the world. Indeed, whether war is seen to stem from mistaken assessments of relative power or from bellicosity, these differing views play a key role.

Nevertheless, the Iraq crisis indicates important aspects of the issue. First, a concern about the spread of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ played an important role, at least in the public explanation of American and British policy towards Iraq prior to the conflict; while it has certainly played a major part in the diplomacy focused on particular states, especially North Korea, Libya and Iran.