IMO industrial policy is the way to mitigate risks of war or extortion vis-a-vis a specific trading partner. Only once this safety criteria is fulfilled, politicians can think about tackling other issues with industrial policy - and unfortunately these further initiatives often fail or have unintended second-order effects (e.g. we want Intel chip factory in Germany).

My understanding is that due to human nature wars mostly start due to religious or extremist views of individuals leading a nation. Such a risk of your trade partner invading you because they don't like your skin color can be hardly formalized in an economic theory (maybe there exists one already, idk).

So role of industrial policy would be to ensure that a certain balance is kept with regards to creating dependencies to other nations, which could be abused in case of war.

Famous negative examples of failed industrial policy for Germany would be the dependence on gas mostly from russia and the dependence on oil mostly from middle east.

Another example would be the agricultural subsidies to ensure all citizens can be fed even when other nations would not export any food. A current example in Germany would be the production of "German steel" using fossil energy instead of production of CO2-neutral swedish steel. As Germany is part of EU, this is a conflicting view: We can't on one side ask for more trade and integration of supply chains between democratic EU countries, but on the other side assume that Sweden will deny steel exports to us when we'd need it.

Producing steel in Germany with fossil energy instead of doing it in Sweden with hydroelectric power is both more expensive and has more negative externalities (CO2 emissions due to use of fossil fuels). Therefore such industrial policy reduces welfare that would otherwise be available for German people.