The London School of Economics and Political Science Civil-Military Cooperation in the Canadian Army Christopher Ankersen A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, January 2008 UMI Number: U615747 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615747 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 'TK<LS*-S f art»^Ltora2 and Eoono"* Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Abstract The aim of my thesis is to explain why civil-military cooperation is practiced the way that it is by the Canadian Army. Civil-military cooperation (the practice by military forces of engaging with civilian actors in order to improve the relationship between the civilian populace and the military forces), largely in the form of relief and reconstruction activities, has come to be a hallmark of contemporary military interventions, both in war and peace support situations. My thesis looks at civil military cooperation as it is actually performed and includes not only an examination of doctrine, but also of practice. In determining why civil-military cooperation is practiced in the way that it is, I use Clausewitz’s Trinity as the basis for my explanation. I focus on the secondary aspect of the Trinity; namely, its actors: the People, the Government, and the Military. By doing so, and including an analysis of the relationships between these actors, it is possible to see that civil-military cooperation is a product of the combination the people’s passion (which is ambivalent), the government’s direction (which is ambiguous), and the army’s skills (which they apply antagonistically). This resulting context is sufficiently indeterminate as to require significant interpretation on the part of those individuals conducting civil-military cooperation activities in the field. This runs counter to most established theories of civil military relations, which expect that government direction should determine military activity. 3 Acknowledgements This thesis has taken too long to complete and that has been my fault. In taking so long, I have exhausted the patience of my long-suffering supporters, who have been steadfast and legion. My thanks to all those friends and family who have provided me with accommodation, encouragement, ideas, and money. A short list would include Jean Traynor, Henry and Tracy Szelecz, Dave and Taisha Betz, Charles and Lynn Barlow, Richard and Leslie Round, Ebeneezer Obadare, James Boutilier, Mark Hoffman, Laurie Nathan, Losel and Kristi Tethong, Devon Curtis, Mike and Janna Coltart. Special mention must go to my parents and my parents-in-law for tolerating the stress and worry that a PhD brings in its wake. Thanks to the various institutions that have supported me during my studies: the Department of International Relations and the Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics and Political Science gave me space, in the many meanings of the word, to work. The Centre for Civil Society also gave me a Dahrendorf Fellowship, enough money to fund the first part of my thesis research. I also received financial support from the Canadian Security and Defence Scholarship Fund. Thank you to both those institutions for believing in me. I have gone through several supervisors along this journey. It has been my good fortune to arrive at the end with Professor Christopher Coker by my side. He has treated me with more respect than I deserve, and I have abused his good nature on many occasions. I thank him profusely for his guidance and support. Special thanks goes to my two examiners, Professor Mats Berdal and Dr. Stuart Gordon. Their thorough critique of my work has served to improve the final product immensely. I appreciate the time and energy they devoted to their part of the project. The ones who have invested the most, and suffered the most, and through it all, supported me the most, have been my family. My wife Denise has given me something far more precious than money, and something I will be repaying for the rest of my life: her unconditional support and love. I have not deserved what she has given. I only hope that I can find a way to make restitution. This thesis is dedicated to her. 4 Table of Contents Introduction The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation 7 Chapter 1 Missing Pieces: The State of the Literature 28 Chapter 2 The Evolution of Civil-Military Cooperation in Peace and War 57 Chapter 3 A Clausewitzian Framework for Analysis 82 Chapter 4 The People: Ambivalent Support 111 Chapter 5 The Government: Delicious Ambiguity 129 Chapter 6 The Military: Ambitious Institution, Ad lib Individuals 159 Chapter 7 Putting it all Together: Building an Effective Strategic Narrative 207 Conclusion The Many Whys of Civil-military Cooperation 234 Annex A Research Design and Methodology 254 Bibliography 269 5 Table of Figures Figure 1.1 National Perspectives and CIMIC Mission Interpretation 14 Figure 4.1 Public Opinion Spending 115 Figure 4.2 Support for the Military 117 Figure 4.3 Public Approval of Defence Policy 118 Figure 4.4 Public Priority Issues 119 Figure 4.5 Foreign and Defence Policy Priorities 119 Figure 4.6 Most Important Issues Facing Canadians 120 Figure 4.7 Public Priorities 2002-2003 121 Figure 4.8 Main Role for CF Overseas 122 Figure 4.9 Role of the CF 123 Figure 4.10 Canada's Contribution Overseas 124 Figure 4.11 Public Preferences on Defence Spending 125 Figure 4.12 Canadian Defence Expenditure 126 Figure 4.13 Public Support for Afghanistan Mission 127 Figure 6.1 Army Stakeholders 171 6 Introduction: The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation “We had the experience but missed the meaning, And approach to the meaning restores the experience In a different form... T.S.” Eliot, The Dry Salvages “There is no irony,” declared The Times editorial, “in the fact that those who are so supremely competent at war should also prove so adept at picking up the pieces after the conflict.”1 Speaking of the efforts of the British army following the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom (the U.S. led coalition’s intervention into and occupation of Iraq), the stoic editors captured, but failed to adequately resolve, the tension inherent in contemporary military ‘stability’ operations. There is something ironic in having soldiers act as peacebuilders, calling upon them to combine the management of violence with humanitarian relief, social development, and economic renewal. An earlier war occasioned a similar juxtaposition. In 1999, during Operation Allied Force (NATOs bombing campaign over Serbia) Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the Alliance headquarters to see the staff and thank them for their efforts. He wanted to let the officers know that he appreciated not just “the military actions, but also the humanitarian work”2 that NATO was conducting in Kosovo, Serbia, and Albania. What an odd thing to say—the juxtaposition of high-level bombing and caring for refugees jangles our senses. How could the occasion arise whereby an organization designed with warflghting in mind, was not only carrying out so-called “humanitarian tasks”, but doing so while applying overwhelming and destructive military force at the same time? 1 The Editor, “Paradox of Peace: The Army is an instrument of welfare as well as warfare,”The Times, 26 December 2003. 2 W esley Clark, Waging Modern War. (New York: Public Affairs Press, 2001): xx. 7 In Afghanistan, as a way of extending Western military control over the country, several Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) have been established, each comprised of civilian development experts and military personnel. Jointly these professionals engage in a variety of activities, ranging from monitoring the security situation, to (re)building infrastructure, to advising on matters of governance and security sector reform. These civil-military teams are seen as a vital component of success within Afghanistan, achieving the dual aim of improving the situation of the local population, as well as overseeing and pacifying them. However, the controversy surrounding civil- military cooperation has reached new heights in Afghanistan. During the air campaign of early 2002, American forces were chastised for dropping food as well as ordnance; much of the food was unsuited to the needs of the Afghan population and the yellow colour of the packages could be confused with unexploded components from cluster bomb units (CBU), often with catastrophic results. Furthermore, in a press release explaining their withdrawal from Afghanistan, the international relief NGO Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) blamed US civil-military cooperation practices for an increase in the level of violence against aid workers in the country.