Since the cold war, most countries have moved on from the classical security perception that all threats are external and aiming to invade the sovereignty of the state, thus leading to military armies fighting each other. Instead as Globalization have become more predominant since the beginning of the 1990’s new threats have also emerged that militaries can’t fight as they used to, thus it has become necessary for a wider view on security which also involves human suffering, and the general trend among armies have been to combat these through international peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This study aims at showing the change in which the Swedish army have undergone since the end of the cold war and into modern days, both in terms of political decisions and also show how the use of language have been changed throughout the course. The thesis covers a time period between 1989 to 2009 and following the process of change from the Swedish political institution that works with military issues, called the Försvarsutskottet or the FöU and the method applied is process tracing with a detailed narrative. Several important conceptions are also explained such as Globalization, Collective security and Human security, which will make the result chapter more understandable. The results showed that the biggest changes in Sweden’s military policy came in three steps, the beginning of the 1990’s was influenced with economic problems for Sweden which also lead to budget downsizings in the military. The mid-1990’s was the time where there existed no real external threat to Sweden, and hence it came to be dominated by several large reforms which also aimed at lowering the costs of the military and adapt it into becoming rapid response forces. After the 9/11 attacks in 2001 the new threats emerged and the Swedish military focused even more on improving their international and humanitarian operations. The thesis ends by discussing these finding and present some changes in the use of languages in-between the 20 years.

The Defence Commission has proposed that the Swedish Armed Forces once again will be assigned the main task of defending Sweden against an armed attack. Defence against an armed attack has gained more focus since the defence decision 2015 and prior to the upcoming defence decision it is even more emphasized. Are the politics and the Swedish Armed Forces in agreement regarding the meaning and implications of this on basis of contemporary threats? The overall aim of the study is to understand the interaction between politics and the Swedish Armed Forces in the designing and shaping of the Swedish Armed Forces. This study has a starting point in the prelude to the planned political defence decision 2020 and aims to understand some of this major context. It is focusing on identifying the coherence between the Defence Committee and the Swedish Armed Forces’ military strategic leadership in terms of the meaning of an armed attack being the primary basis of designing and shaping the Swedish Armed Forces. In addition, important factors that have an impact on the interaction between politics and the Swedish Armed Forces are identified. The empiricism is taken from international law, the military strategic doctrine of the Swedish Armed Forces, reports from the Defence Commission and interviews with members of the Defence Committee and the military strategic leadership of the Swedish Armed Forces. The results show that there is lack of coherence within the Defence Committee as well as between the Defence Committee and the Swedish Armed Forces regarding the meaning of the proposed main task to the Swedish Armed Forces and how it should relate to other tasks. There is an illusion regarding the definition of an armed attack. In reality it is the government that, under constitutional responsibility, defines an armed attack when there is an act of aggression. In addition, it is identified that it is suitable to mutually improve trust between politics and the Swedish Armed Forces by increasing knowledge of each other's realities. / Försvarsberedningen har föreslagit att Försvarsmakten åter ska få huvuduppgiften att försvara Sverige mot väpnat angrepp. Försvar mot väpnat angrepp har fått ett allt större fokus sedan försvarsbeslutet 2015 och inför det kommande försvarsbeslutet föreslås en ytterligare inskärpning. Är politiken och Försvarsmakten överens om innebörden utifrån samtidens hot? Studiens övergripande syfte är att förstå samspelet mellan politiken och Försvarsmakten i utformningen och inriktningen av Försvarsmakten. Studien tar avstamp i förspelet inför det planerade försvarsbeslutet 2020 och tar sikte på att förstå en del av detta stora sammanhang genom att fokusera på att identifiera samstämmigheten mellan försvarsutskottet och Försvarsmaktens militärstrategiska ledning om innebörden av att väpnat angrepp ska vara dimensionerande för Försvarsmaktens inriktning. Därtill identifieras viktiga faktorer som påverkar samspelet mellan politiken och Försvarsmakten. Empirin är hämtad från internationell rätt, Försvarsmaktens militärstrategiska doktrin, försvarsberedningens rapporter samt intervjuer med försvarsutskottet och Försvarsmaktens militärstrategiska ledning. Resultatet visar på att det saknas samstämmighet såväl inom försvarsutskottet som mellan försvarsutskottet och Försvarsmakten avseende innebörden av Försvarsmaktens föreslagna huvuduppgift samt hur den ska förhålla sig till övriga uppgifter. Det råder en illusion om innebörden av ett väpnat angrepp. I verkligheten är det regeringen som under konstitutionellt ansvar fastställer vad som är ett väpnat angrepp när en aggressionshandling sker. Därtill identifieras lämpligheten av att ömsesidigt förbättra förtroendet mellan politiken och Försvarsmakten genom att öka kunskapen om varandras realiteter.