Search

The growing trend toward the securitization of infectious disease has legitimated a role for national militaries in responding to public health crises. This apparent “militarization” of health has met with resistance from the health and security sectors alike, who argue that it risks politicizing health outcomes while also draining limited military resources. This article attempts to place such concerns within the broader historical context of military involvement in public health. With specific reference to pandemic influenza—a disease of great historical import and a current policy priority in the context of securitized global public health—this article details the pedigree of military involvement in fighting the disease and draws on the established record to demonstrate the role that militaries can play in improving public health outcomes. The article argues for an ongoing military role in the global fight against pandemic influenza, both in augmenting civil influenza programs and in improving their own preparation and response mechanisms for future pandemics.

While still significant, the 2009 H1N1 (A) influenza pandemic was generally viewed as comparatively mild in contrast to past influenza pandemics. Even so, the conventional response of many governments to protect their populations against the threat from the H1N1 virus was to ensure adequate vaccine production and/or access to supplies of vaccines and antiviral medications. In this article, I examine the influence of biomedical knowledge (and the professionals that wield it) in determining the acceptable and rational limits of influenza public policy from 1918 to today. Particular attention is given to the role that medical practitioners have played in shaping post-World War II influenza policy and governance structures, together with the development, deployment, and political effect of more recent biomedical techniques—such as evidence-based medicine—in reinforcing the importance attached to influenza vaccines and antivirals. The article concludes by discussing how the intense focus on pharmaceutical-based solutions reflects a particular view of biomedicine that has had serious political implications in distorting global health governance arrangements, and I argue that only by unpacking these structures and revealing the political authority in play can alternative policy responses more appropriate to a wider proportion of humanity be considered.