DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategic Studies Ronald HATTO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategic Studies Ronald HATTO Année universitaire 2013/2014 Collège universitaire Semestre d’automne Strategic Studies Ronald HATTO Syllabus Course Description and Objectives The course examine the theories and concepts that form the basic of strategic studies as a distinct subfield of international relations (IR). The course presents the key ideas and themes of strategic studies, which deals with the preparation and use of military power to serve the ends of politics but also what are the means to avoid the use of force. Please note that the course is NOT directly interested in ethical and normative problems linked to the use of force. To adopt Robert Cox’s terminology, the lecture is much more Problem-Solving than Critical. That is why we do not really address notions like just wars or democratic peace.The course aims to guide students through a wide-ranging survey of theoretical and practical aspects of strategic studies. It will include sections on the uses of strategic theory, instruments of war - land, sea, and air power - and their evolution, nuclear strategy, limited war, small wars and counter-insurgency, arms control, and war termination. The course tries to strike a balance between theoretical works and case studies. The goal is thus to link the study of strategy with the realities of modern politics. The ultimate aim is to help students practice the skills that are critical to success in public service as well as the private sector—deep intellectual knowledge of the core issues of our time; analytical thinking and effective writing skills. Students are also expected to engage the readings fully and actively participate in seminar discussions and debates in the limits of the format of a lecture. Course validation 1) A Midterm Take-Home Exam (50%) 2) A Final Take-Home Exam (50%) 27, rue Saint-Guillaume 75007 Paris France T/ +33 (0)1 45 49 50 51 - F/ +33 (0)1 42 22 39 64 www.sciences-po.fr 1. Introduction: The importance of the use of force and coercive diplomacy in world politics + What are Strategic Studies? Reading: BETTS, Richard K., “Is Strategy an Illusion?”, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2000, pp. 5-50. Part. 1 Evolution and Types of Warfare 2. Land Warfare Reading: SHIMSHONI, Jonathan, “Technology, Military Advantage, and World War I: A Case for Military Entrepreneurship”, International Security, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1990- 1991, pp. 187-215. 3. Naval Warfare Reading: LAUTENSCHLAGER, Karl, “Technology and the Evolution of Naval Warfare”, International Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1983, pp. 3-51. 4. Air Warfare Reading: PAPE, Robert A., “The True Worth of Air Power”, Foreign Affairs Vol. 83, No. 2, 2004, pp. 116-130. 5. Weapons of Mass Destruction/Unconventional Weapons Reading: McNAUGHER, Thomas L., “Ballistic Missiles and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy of the Iran-Iraq War”, International Security, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1990, pp. 5-34. Part. 2 Strategic Issues of the 21st Century 6. Asymmetric Wars and Counterinsurgency Reading: MAZZAR, Michael J. “The Folly of ‘Asymmetric War’”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.31, No. 3, 2008, pp. 33–53. 7. Nuclear Deterrence and Proliferation Reading: GRAY, Colin S., “To Confuse Ourselves: Nuclear Fallacies” in The Second Nuclear Age, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1999. 27, rue Saint-Guillaume 75007 Paris France T/ +33 (0)1 45 49 50 51 - F/ +33 (0)1 42 22 39 64 www.sciences-po.fr 8. Arms Control and Disarmament Reading: JERVIS, Robert, “Arms Control, Stability, and Causes of War”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2, 1993, pp. 239-253. 9. Peace Operations and Privatization of Security Reading: TARDY, Thierry, “A Critique of Robust Peacekeeping in Contemporary Peace Operations”, International Peacekeeping, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2011, pp.152-167. 10. The Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and Communication Technology Reading: TOGUCHI, Robert M. & RINALDO, Richard J., “Land Warfare in the Information Age”, The Land Warfare Paper, No. 47, September 2004. Part. 3 Conclusions 11. The New Agenda for Strategic Studies Reading: BRIGGS, Chad M. “Environmental Change, Strategic Foresight, and Impacts on Military Power”, Parameters, Vol. 40, Autumn 2010, pp. 76-90. 12. What Future for Strategy and Strategic Studies? Reading: GRAY, Colin S., “New Directions for Strategic Studies? How Can Theory Help Practice?”, Security Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4,1992, pp.610-635. 27, rue Saint-Guillaume 75007 Paris France T/ +33 (0)1 45 49 50 51 - F/ +33 (0)1 42 22 39 64 www.sciences-po.fr Bibliography Please note that some journals are available online and the following links can also be useful: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/ http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/ http://www.iiss.org/ http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=947 http://www.defencetalk.com/ http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers.html http://www.combat.ws/S4/MILTERMS/INDEX.HTM http://www.internationalpeacekeeping.org/links.html http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair.html http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Centers/CCC/Publications/index.html http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/missiledefense/ ARON, Raymond (1984) Paix et guerre entre les nations, 8ème édition, Paris, Calmann-Lévy. ARON, Raymond (1976) Penser la guerre (2 vol.), Paris, Gallimard. BALDWIN, David A. (1997) “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, Pp. 5-26. BANEGAS, Richard (1998) « Le nouveau business mercenaire : de la guerre au maintien de la paix », Critique Internationale, No. 1. BATTISTELLA, Dario (2009) Théories des relations internationales, 3ème édition, Paris, Presses de Sciences-Po. BAUD, Jacques (2003) La guerre asymétrique ou la défaite du vainqueur, Monaco, Éditions du Rocher. BAYLIS, John (2001) “International Security and Global Security in the Post-Cold War Era” in BAYLIS, John & SMITH, Steve (dir.), The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Pp. 253-276. BAYLIS, John et WIRTZ, James J. (2002) “Introduction” in BAYLIS, J., WIRTZ, J., COHEN, E. & GRAY, C. S. (dir.) (2002) Strategy in the Contemporary World. An Introduction to Strategic Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Pp. 1-14. 27, rue Saint-Guillaume 75007 Paris France T/ +33 (0)1 45 49 50 51 - F/ +33 (0)1 42 22 39 64 www.sciences-po.fr BAYLIS, J., WIRTZ, J., COHEN, E. & GRAY, C. S. (dir.) (2002) Strategy in the Contemporary World. An Introduction to Strategic Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press. BYMAN Daniel & VAN EVERA Stephen (1998) “Why They Fight: Hypothesis on the Causes of - Contemporary Deadly Conflict”, Security Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, Pp. 1-50. BEAUFRE, André (1963) Introduction à la stratégie, Paris, Hachette. BELLAMY, A. J., WILLIAMS, P. et GRIFFIN, S. (2004) Understanding Peacekeeping, Cambridge, Polity Press. BELLAMY, Christopher (1996) Knights in White Armour. The New Art of War and Peace, Londres, Hutchinson. BETTS, Richard K. (2000) “Is Strategy an Illusion?”, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2, Pp. 5-50. BETTS, Richard K. (1997) “Should Strategic Studies Survive?”, World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 7-33. BIDDLE, Stephen (2007) “Iraq, Afghanistan, and American Military Transformation” in BAYLIS, J., WIRTZ, J., COHEN, E. & GRAY, C. S. (Ed.) Strategy in the Contemporary World. An Introduction to Strategic Studies, 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Pp. 274-294. BIDDLE Stephen (1998) “The Past as Prologue: Assessing Theories of Future Warfare”, Security Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. 1-74. BIGO, Didier (1998) « Nouveaux regards sur les conflits » in SMOUTS, Marie-Claude (dir.), Les nouvelles relations internationales. Pratiques et théories, Paris, Presses de Sciences-Po, Pp. 309-354. BOYER, Yves (dir.) (1998) Une Révolution dans les Affaires Militaires ?, Cahier No. 13, Paris, Fondation pour les Études de Défense. BRODIE, Bernard (1949) “Strategy as a Science”, World Politics, Vol. 1, No. 4, Pp. 467-488. BULL, Hedley (1983) “Strategic Studies and its Critics” in KNORR, Klaus (dir.), Power, Strategy, and Security, Princeton, Princeton University Press, Pp. 68-80. BUZAN, Barry (1991) People, States & Fear. An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Boulder, Lynne Rienner. 27, rue Saint-Guillaume 75007 Paris France T/ +33 (0)1 45 49 50 51 - F/ +33 (0)1 42 22 39 64 www.sciences-po.fr BUZAN, Barry & HERRING, Eric (1998) The Arms Dynamic in World Politics, Boulder, Lynne Rienner. BUZAN, Barry, WAEVER, Ole & de WILDE, Jaap (1998) Security. A New Framework of Analysis, Boulder, Lynne Rienner. BYMAN Daniel et WAXMAN, Matthew (2002) The Dynamics of Coercion. American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. BYMAN Daniel et VAN EVERA Stephen (1998) “Why They Fight: Hypothesis on the Causes of Contemporary Deadly Conflict”, Security Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, Pp. 1-50. CHALIAND, Gérard (1990) Anthologie mondiale de la stratégie. Des origines au nucléaire, Paris, Robert Laffont. CHALIAND, Gérard (1988) Terrorismes et guérillas, Bruxelles, Éditions Complexe. CHALIAND, Gérard (1984) Stratégies de la guérilla. Guerres révolutionnaires et contre-insurrections. Anthologie historique de la Longue Marche à nos jours, 2ème édition, Paris, Gallimard. CIRINCIONE, Joseph, WOLFSTAL, Jon B. & RAJKUMAR, Miriam (2005) Deadly Arsenals. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats, 2nd edition, Washington D.C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. CLAUSEWITZ, Carl Von (1955) De la guerre, Paris, Éditions de Minuit. COHEN, Eliot A. (1996) “Military Power and International Order. Is Force Finished?” in C.A. CROKER, F.O. HAMPSON et P. AALL (dir.), Managing Global Chaos. Sources and Responses to International Conflict, Washington, United States Institute of Peace Press, Pp. 223-236. COKER, Chistopher (2001) Humane Warfare, Londres Routledge. CONNAUGHTON, Richard (1992) Military Intervention in the 1990’s. A New Logic of War, Londres, Routledge. CRENSHAW, Martha (2007) “Terrorism and Global Security in CROCKER, C., HAMPSON, F.O. et AALL, P. (dir.), Leashing the Dogs of War. Conflict Management in a Divided World, Washington, US Institute of Peace Press, Pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Strategy: a Primer Edited by Nathan K. Finney
    Cover design by Dale E. Cordes, Army University Press On Strategy: A Primer Edited by Nathan K. Finney Combat Studies Institute Press Fort Leavenworth, Kansas An imprint of The Army University Press Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Finney, Nathan K., editor. | U.S. Army Combined Arms Cen- ter, issuing body. Title: On strategy : a primer / edited by Nathan K. Finney. Other titles: On strategy (U.S. Army Combined Arms Center) Description: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas : Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center, 2020. | “An imprint of The Army University Press.” | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2020020512 (print) | LCCN 2020020513 (ebook) | ISBN 9781940804811 (paperback) | ISBN 9781940804811 (Adobe PDF) Subjects: LCSH: Strategy. | Strategy--History. Classification: LCC U162 .O5 2020 (print) | LCC U162 (ebook) | DDC 355.02--dc23 | SUDOC D 110.2:ST 8. LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020020512. LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020020513. 2020 Combat Studies Institute Press publications cover a wide variety of military topics. The views ex- pressed in this CSI Press publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Depart- ment of the Army or the Department of Defense. A full list of digital CSI Press publications is available at https://www.armyu- press.army.mil/Books/combat-studies-institute. The seal of the Combat Studies Institute authenticates this document as an of- ficial publication of the CSI Press. It is prohibited to use the CSI’s official seal on any republication without the express written permission of the director. Editors Diane R.
    [Show full text]
  • Geostrategy and Canadian Defence: from C.P. Stacey to a Twenty-First Century Arctic Threat Assessment
    Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 20, ISSUE 1 Studies Geostrategy and Canadian Defence: From C.P. Stacey to a Twenty-First Century Arctic Threat Assessment Ryan Dean and P. Whitney Lackenbauer1 “If some countries have too much history, we have too much geography.” -- Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1936 Geostrategy is the study of the importance of geography to strategy and military operations. Strategist Bernard Loo explains that “it is the influence of geography on tactical and operational elements of the strategic calculus that underpins, albeit subliminally, strategic calculations about the feasibility of the use of military force because the geographical conditions will influence policy-makers’ and strategic 1 An early version of some sections of this article appeared as “Geostrategical Approaches,” a research report for Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) project on the Assessment of Threats Against Canada submitted in 2015. We are grateful to the coordinators of that project, as well as to reviewers who provided feedback that has strengthened this article. Final research and writing was completed pursuant to a Department of National Defence MINDS Collaborative Network grant supporting the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (NAADSN). ©Centre of Military and Strategic Studies, 2019 ISSN : 1488-559X JOURNAL OF MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES planners’ perceptions of strategic vulnerabilities or opportunities.”2 By extension, the geographical size and location of a country are key determinants
    [Show full text]
  • Yuri M. Zhukov As of Aug 25, 2020
    Yuri M. Zhukov as of Aug 25, 2020 Contact Department of Political Science Information University of Michigan e-mail: [email protected] 5700 Haven Hall, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1045 www: sites.lsa.umich.edu/zhukov Research Substantive: civil conflict (causes, dynamics, consequences), interstate conflict, political Interests communication, historical legacies, military effectiveness, state repression, Russia Methodological: applied statistics, formal theory, spatial/network analysis, text analysis Education Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (Government) 2014 M.A., Georgetown University, Washington, DC (National Security Studies) 2007 A.B., Brown University, Providence, RI (International Relations) 2003 Academic Employment University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Department of Political Science Associate Professor 2020 { Assistant Professor 2014 { 2020 Institute for Social Research, Center for Political Studies Faculty Associate 2014 { Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies Faculty Associate 2014 { Peer-Reviewed 22. \Mass Repression and Political Loyalty: Evidence from Stalin's `Terror by Hunger'" Journal [with Arturas Rozenas], American Political Science Review 113, no. 2 (2019): Articles 569-583. 21. \Introducing xSub: A New Portal for Cross-National Data on Sub-National Violence" [with Christian Davenport and Nadiya Kostyuk], Journal of Peace Research 56, no. 4: 604-614. 20. \Until the Bitter End? The Diffusion of Surrender Across Battles" [with Todd Lehmann], International Organization 73, no. 1 (2019): 133-169. 19. \Media Ownership and News Coverage of International Conflict” [with Matthew Baum], Political Communication 31, no. 1 (2019): 36-53. 18. \Invisible Digital Front: Can Cyber Operations Shape Battlefield Events?" [with Nadiya Kostyuk], Journal of Conflict Resolution 63, no. 2 (2019): 317-347. • Press: Washington Post / Monkey Cage.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter I Geostrategic and Geopolitical Considerations
    Geostrategic and geopolitical Chapter I considerations regarding energy Francisco José Berenguer Hernández Abstract This chapter analyses the peace and conflict aspects of the concept of “energy security” its importance in the strategic architecture of the major nations, as well as the main geopolitical factors of the current energy panorama. Key words Energy Security, National Strategies, Energy Interests, Geopolitics of Energy. 45 Francisco José Berenguer Hernández Some considerations about the “energy security” concept Concept The concept of energy security has been present in publications for a cer- tain number of years, including the press and non-trade media, but it is apparently a recent one, or at least one that has not enjoyed the popular- ity of others such as road, workplace, social or even air security. However, it has taken on such importance nowadays that it deserves a specific section in the highest-level strategic documents of practically all of the nations in our environment, as will be seen in a later section. This is somewhat different from the form of security of other sectors that include the following in more generic terms: “well-being and progress of society”, “ensuring the life and prosperity of citizens” and other simi- lar expressions, with the exception of economic security. The latter, as a consequence of the long and deep recession that numerous nations, in- cluding Spain, have been suffering, has strongly emerged in more recent strategic thinking. Consequently, it is worth wondering the reason for this relevance and leading role of energy security in the concerns of the high- est authorities and institutions of the nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Never Again: International Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina1
    Never again: 1 International intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina July 2017 David Harland2 1 This study is one of a series commissioned as part of an ongoing UK Government Stabilisation Unit project relating to elite bargains and political deals. The project is exploring how national and international interventions have and have not been effective in fostering and sustaining political deals and elite bargains; and whether or not these political deals and elite bargains have helped reduce violence, increased local, regional and national stability and contributed to the strengthening of the relevant political settlement. This is a 'working paper' and the views contained within do not necessarily represent those of HMG. 2 Dr David Harland is Executive Director of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. He served as a witness for the Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the cases of The Prosecutor versus Slobodan Milošević, The Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadžić, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladić, and others. Executive summary The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the most violent of the conflicts which accompanied the break- up of Yugoslavia, and this paper explores international engagement with that war, including the process that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Sarajevo and Srebrenica remain iconic symbols of international failure to prevent and end violent conflict, even in a small country in Europe. They are seen as monuments to the "humiliation" of Europe and the UN and the
    [Show full text]
  • International Decision-Making in the Age of Genocide: Srebrenica 1993-1995
    International Decision-Making in the Age of Genocide: Srebrenica 1993-1995 Rapporteur Report The Hague June 29-July 1, 2015 International Decision-Making in the Age of Genocide: Srebrenica 1993-1995 Conference in The Hague, June 29 – July 1, 2015 Executive Summary Leading decision-makers from more than a dozen countries gathered in The Hague from June 29 to July 1, 2015, to consider the failure of the international community to protect the United Nations “safe area” of Srebrenica, resulting in the largest massacre in Europe since World War II. Participants included three former members of the UN Security Council, senior government and UN officials, peacekeepers, and eyewitnesses to the Srebrenica tragedy. Over the course of four working sessions, a public event, and numerous informal meetings, conference participants focused on a disastrous two-year chain of events that culminated in the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. They examined the origins of the “safe area” policy, beginning with the March 1993 visit to Srebrenica by French General Philippe Morillon, and disagreements on how to implement frequently impractical Security Council resolutions. The discussion revealed sharp disconnects between the policy-makers in New York, the peacekeepers on the ground, and the people the “safe areas” were ostensibly designed to keep safe. “I saw this conference as a kind of truth commission,” said Srebrenica survivor Muhamed Duraković. “Twenty years on, we cannot bring back the dead, but we can learn from what went wrong in Srebrenica. If we are not able to go through the process of fact-finding, truth, and reconciliation, we may be creating problems for future generations.” At the heart of the international failure in Srebrenica in July 1995 was the inability of the major powers to devise and implement an agreed strategy for ending the defining conflict of the immediate post-Cold War era.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utility of Military Force and Public Understanding in Today's Britain
    EUROPE HEW STRACHAN, RUTH HARRIS The Utility of Military Force and Public Understanding in Today’s Britain For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA213-1 The Global Strategic Partnership (GSP), a consortium of research, academic and industry organisations that is led by RAND Europe, provides ongoing analytical support to the UK Ministry of Defence. Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.randeurope.org Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Importance of Military Studies Module - I Military Studies
    Importance of Military Studies Module - I Military Studies 1 Note IMPORTANCE OF MILITARY STUDIES Military Studies is also known by various names like defence and strategic studies, military science, war and national security studies, war and strategic studies etc. Military Studies is currently taught only in a handful of colleges / universities in India. This raises two questions. One, what is the importance of Military studies? Two, why should you as young students study this subject? As you would have studied in history mankind always suffered from wars but never gave up the need to fight wars. In the modern world, the need to wage wars has changed and the methods of fighting too have changed. The importance of having strong armed forces and the need to protect the people against various threats is a constant feature of our life. Knowledge of military security, how armed forces are organised to fight a war and what is the art of warfare are questions, which get answered by studying military studies. By learning about the military, the Government and the armed forces the people become more awakened and can handle situations better. The military study helps the leaders to understand the importance of Armed Forces in defending our motherland. Objectives After studying this lesson, you will be able to: • explain the meaning and importance of military studies; • describe the curriculum of military studies for soldiers and • emphasise the need for studying military studies. 1. 1 Introduction to Military Studies Military studies from ancient times, deals with all subjects pertaining to the military and how soldiers and kings are trained in the art of fighting.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There a European Way of War?: Role Conceptions, Organizational Frames, and the Utility of Force Pascal Vennesson, Fabian Breuer, Chiara De Franco and Ursula C
    Armed Forces & Society http://afs.sagepub.com Is There a European Way of War?: Role Conceptions, Organizational Frames, and the Utility of Force Pascal Vennesson, Fabian Breuer, Chiara de Franco and Ursula C. Schroeder Armed Forces & Society 2009; 35; 628 originally published online May 8, 2008; DOI: 10.1177/0095327X08317994 The online version of this article can be found at: http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/628 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society Additional services and information for Armed Forces & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://afs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/4/628 Downloaded from http://afs.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on October 7, 2009 Armed Forces & Society Volume 35 Number 4 July 2009 628-645 © 2009 Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Is There a European Society. All rights reserved. 10.1177/0095327X08317994 Way of War? http://afs.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com Role Conceptions, Organizational Frames, and the Utility of Force Pascal Vennesson Fabian Breuer Chiara de Franco Ursula C. Schroeder European University Institute—Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Europe is the region of the world where the network of security institutions is the densest. Yet, these institutions did not erase differences about conceptions of force employment among European countries and between European countries and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Are the Armed Forces Understood and Supported by the Public?
    Original Article Armed Forces & Society 1-26 ª The Author(s) 2014 Are the Armed Forces Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0095327X14559975 Understood and afs.sagepub.com Supported by the Public? A View from the United Kingdom Lindsey A. Hines1, Rachael Gribble2, Simon Wessely2, Christopher Dandeker2 and Nicola T. Fear2 Abstract Despite the importance of public opinion in supporting the military and their missions, little is known about how the UK public perceive their Armed Forces. This article reviews and evaluates available research and opinion poll data of public attitudes toward the UK military and situates the evidence within the civil–military gap literature. Current evidence suggests public regard for the UK Armed Forces is high despite low levels of support for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. Public understanding of the work of the Armed Forces is limited. Nonetheless, the United Kingdom’s long history of military deployments may have given the public an ‘‘intuitive understanding’’ of the basic realities of the military compared with other European states. There are indications of differences in attitudes between the UK Armed Forces and wider British society, but no firm evidence that the civil–military ‘‘gap’’ has become a ‘‘gulf’’ as claimed by some military leaders. Keywords public opinion, UK armed forces, civil–military gap 1 King’s College London, London, UK 2 King’s Centre for Military Health Research (KCMHR), King’s College London, UK Corresponding Author: R. Gribble, King’s Centre for Military Health Research, Weston Education Centre, 10 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK. Email: [email protected] Downloaded from afs.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 4, 2015 2 Armed Forces & Society Introduction The UK Armed Forces have a well-established tradition of engagement in military operations that extends back into Britain’s imperial past.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utility of Force Is Contextual Written by Andreas Aagaard Nohr
    The Utility of Force is Contextual Written by Andreas Aagaard Nohr This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. The Utility of Force is Contextual https://www.e-ir.info/2012/04/06/the-utility-of-force-is-contextual/ ANDREAS AAGAARD NOHR, APR 6 2012 Nothing New Under the Sun: The Utility of Force is Contextual ‘With the advent of each new revolution in the art of war men have predicted the collapse of contemporary civilization or the end of war itself.’ William W. Kaufmann (1956)[1] When new weaponry technology, in combination with other organizational, systematic and technical changes, is introduced onto the battlefield, it often brings about a transformation of the very conduct of war; what scholars have conceptualised as a ‘revolution of military affairs.’[2] Despite the free usage of the word ‘revolution’, what Robert Jervis calls the ‘nuclear revolution’ brings about ‘a change that turns established truths about the relationship between force and statecraft on their heads.’[3] The ‘established truth’ Jervis talks about is that force, as it was known before the nuclear age, has utility. What does it mean to say that force has utility? To give a Clausewitzian answer, we should emphasize two central points: First, the very definition of war, that ‘War is … an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.’[4] Second, that ‘war is merely the continuation of policy by other means.’[5] Thus, the two points imply that war is a clash of political wills and that force is a tool of policy that has utility to the extent that it can compel our enemy to do our will.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia–Pakistan Strategic Relations an Emerging Entente Cordiale
    FEATURE Russia–Pakistan Strategic Relations An Emerging Entente Cordiale FEROZ HASSAN KHAN ince the famous American raid in 2011 that killed Osama bin Laden and given the US exceptional favor to India’s nuclear ambitions, Islamabad has gradually moved away from the United States, deepened Pakistan’s relations Swith China, and sought rapprochement with Russia. While Pakistan’s strategic relations with China have been developing for more than five decades, Islamabad’s relations with Moscow are new, evolving for less than a decade. Russia has always preferred India to Pakistan and shied away from any proactive role in conflict reso- lution between India and Pakistan. Additionally, Russia has been unsure of Paki- stan’s future and its strategic direction. In South Asia, Moscow seems to balance Russia’s interests proportionate to the strategic importance and economic advan- tage that each nation offers. Pakistan is a relatively small power undergoing internal and economic perils. It cannot match India’s power potential and offer the same scope of political, strategic, and economic influence that India wields in its rela- tions with major powers. Yet, Pakistan is a very important piece in the emerging geopolitical chessboard in Eurasia. Notwithstanding the handicap of perpetual asymmetry vis- à- vis India, Pakistan leverages its geophysical location, strong mili- tary with advancing nuclear capability, and considerable influence in the Islamic world in its conduct of international relations. In the past, Pakistan and Russia could not develop close ties because neither country fully trusted the other. However, given the mutual benefits to building relations, as discussed in this article, both countries are trying to move forward past lingering mistrust.
    [Show full text]