Secrecy, Acknowledgement, and War Escalation: a Study in Covert Competition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Secrecy, Acknowledgement, and War Escalation: A Study in Covert Competition DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Austin Matthews Carson, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Randall Schweller, Advisor Richard Herrmann Jennifer Mitzen Copyrighted by Austin Matthews Carson 2013 Abstract Why do states use secrecy? Specifically, why do great powers often seem to create a kind of “backstage” area around local conflicts? That is, why create a covert realm where external powers can meddle in local conflicts to pursue their security interests? This project generally analyzes how secrecy is used in international politics and why states are individually and collectively motivated to use it. Existing scholarship suggests states use secrecy to surprise their adversaries or insulate their leaders from dovish domestic political groups. I develop an alternative logic rooted in the desire to control conflict escalation risks. In the context of interventions in local conflicts by outside powers, I find intervening states use covert methods to maintain control over the perceptions and interpretations of outside audiences whose reactions determine the magnitude of external pressure on leaders to escalate further. Intervening in a secret, plausibly deniable manner makes restraint and withdrawal on the part of the intervening state easier. It also creates ambiguity about their role which can give the political space to responding states to ignore covert meddling and respond with restraint. Escalation control dynamics therefore make sense of why states intervene secretly and, more puzzling, why other states – even adversaries – may join in ignoring and covering up such covert activity (what I call “tacit collusion”). ii Drawing on Erving Goffman and others, I develop an “impression management” theory for why states individually and jointly use secrecy and political denial to achieve their goals. To illustrate several new concepts and evaluate the theory’s value-added, I use a sophisticated comparative case study research design that leverages within- and between- case variation in the Korean War, Spanish Civil War, and the civil war in Soviet- occupied Afghanistan. Each conflict hosts several external interventions and several opportunities for tacit collusion; variation among these outcomes helps distinguish the relative importance of escalation and other considerations. Together, the conflicts span the early and late Cold War as well as a particularly important set of cases in the pre- bipolar, pre-nuclear 1930s. Similar findings across time and space suggest the generalizability of the findings. My data are drawn primarily from primary documentation from internal decision-making and assessments, including original archival research on the American awareness of and reaction to Soviet pilots fighting in the air war over Korea in the early 1950s. The project attempts to contribute to scholarly and policy knowledge in several ways. It provides a rare window into the tactics and politics of covert security competition, a set of practices that remain alive and well in places like the Middle East. The project also offers new historical findings, presents a novel theoretical framework for understanding how states manage publicity and use secrecy in international affairs, and helps better understand the difficult dilemma between political accountability and secrecy in foreign policy in democracy. iii Dedicated to Bruce and Nancy, for years of unwavering affection and support and Sarah, for her love and companionship iv Acknowledgments I have had the good fortune of working with incredibly supportive colleagues and friends without whom this dissertation could not have been completed. My dissertation advisor, Randy Schweller, provided the precious intellectual resources of trust and autonomy, steadily encouraging me to write well and think ambitiously. Rick Herrmann provided reliable, encouraging and constructively critical feedback. Jennifer Mitzen provided invaluable input for the project’s theory and framing; her wisdom was always only a phone call away. Equally important was my “shadow committee” of Alex Downes and Alex Thompson to whom I repeatedly turned for advice and friendship. Bentley Allan, my most important sounding board and a dear friend, has my sincere gratitude for his patience, wisdom, and shared love of General Tso’s tofu. Jason Keiber accomplished a rare triple play of friendship, introducing me to my future wife, presiding over our wedding, and providing hilarious and insightful commentary along the way. My parents, Nancy and Bruce, my sister Jess, and my Grand Rapids crew (Sean Ferguson, Jason O’Callaghan, Joe Perry) provided love, laughter, and a safe haven when I needed a break from Columbus. Other friends and colleagues who provided advice and support include Justin Acome, Bear Braumoeller, Jon Brown, Zoltan Buzas, Erin Graham, Eric Grynaviski, Josh Kertzer, Julia MacDonald, Sebastien Mainville, Eleonora Mattiacci, Josh Shifrinson, Caitlin Talmadge, Jane Vaynman, and Tristan Volpe. v My journey included a fairly abrupt left turn in the direction of Washington, D.C in 2011. Two institutions provided invaluable support that made my circuitous route to degree an asset rather than burden. The Ohio State University’s Political Science Department and George Washington University’s Institute for Security and Conflict Studies (ISCS) in the Elliott School of International Affairs deserve eternal gratitude. I am thankful for the resources and opportunities provided by both, especially from two department chairs at Ohio State (Herb Weisberg; Rick Herrmann) and the leadership duo at ISCS (Charlie Glaser; Rose Kelanic). Most importantly, Sarah Bryner’s companionship was the steady rock that helped me through the vicissitudes of graduate school. Her love is the most valuable gift the Buckeye State has provided. As always, I alone am responsible for any shortcomings in what follows that the wisdom of others could not root out. vi Vita 2003................................................................B.A. International Relations, James Madison College, Michigan State University 2003-2005 ......................................................Research Assistant, Center for Strategic & International Studies 2009................................................................M.A. Political Science, Ohio State 2012-2013 ......................................................Predoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for Security and Conflict Studies, George Washington University Publications “Political Irrelevance, Democracy, and the Limits of Militarized Conflict”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Volume 55, No. 2, April 2011, 292-320 (with Bear Braumoeller). Fields of Study Major Field: Political Science vii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v Vita .................................................................................................................................... vii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 The Public and Private Lives of States............................................................................ 6 Theorizing Secrecy .......................................................................................................... 8 Theory, Part 1: Secrecy in Impression Management ................................................... 12 Theory, Part 2: Impression Management in Intervention Scenarios ............................ 13 Empirical Analysis: An Overview ............................................................................... 15 Chapter Summaries ....................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 2: Secrecy’s Continuity and Change in International Affairs ............................ 24 Three Forms of Secrecy ................................................................................................ 27 Historical Context: Continuity and Change ................................................................. 31 Continuity ...................................................................................................................... 32 Change ........................................................................................................................... 42 Why Change? ................................................................................................................ 54 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 62 Chapter 3: Theory ...........................................................................................................