|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
127810
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Taking as a starting point the case of Iraq, it is argued that the administration of this country by the Coalition from May 2003 onward, is an American example of a culture-bound type of occupation. Already in the early eighteenth-century international differences in occupation regimes between France, England, and the Dutch Republic are discernable. Therefore, in all likelihood, the United States also developed in the course of their history a characteristic pattern of controlling foreign territories. This American modus occupandi could very well stem from the English style of occupying, but may differ in two important respects: it usually is a "short-winded affair," and it can either come down to a rather peaceful "laissez-faire" or to a war-like type of occupation. Finally, the question is discussed in how far such a style of occupation can result in a more or less "constructive" form of foreign domination. In the author's impression, occupational "success" or "failure" probably depends as much, if not more, on the state of the occupied system-to wit, the degree of unison between native elites-as on the strategy of the occupant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
127811
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the basis of military leadership preferences toward war termination, and thus the basis of the associated civil-military divide, within the context of protracted small war. The conventional wisdom posits military leadership preferences as a near-constant in favor of persistence and thus expects a dominant pattern of military obstructionism. However, such a pattern does not hold empirically across the population of small wars. This gap between expectation and evidence derives at least in part from the limits of the bureaucratic-organizational model, focused on the military's desire for resources, autonomy, and influence, that underlies the conventional wisdom. In contrast, this article suggests an alternative model privileging the demands of institutional legitimacy. The legitimacy motive as conceptualized here is particularly salient to the small war context. It accordingly provides a foundation for better understanding variation in military leadership preferences toward war termination and thus variation in the direction and intensity of the civil-military divide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
127814
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to outline a model of cohesion useful for assessing military arbitration of revolutions. Current approaches to the study of revolution are not able to adequately integrate the military into their analysis. To remedy the lack of appropriate tools, this article outlines a model of cohesion that may be useful for conceptualizing and examining the behavior of military forces during domestic political crises. Building on the so-called standard model of cohesion, the article develops a cohesion-coordinated action model that incorporates a structural social cohesion element and a voluntarist-coordinated action element, both of which also capture the relations and interactions between the military, the regime, and the opposition. It thereby fulfils the requirements that a model must possess but where other approaches fall short. The article concludes by outlining how this model can be used in further research in order to advance the study of the military's role in revolutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
127813
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines recent cultural adaptations in the contemporary emergent postmodern American armed forces' culture. First, the piece provides a concise working definition for culture, including a beneficial cultural toolkit concept. Second, the article discusses the concept of postmodernism and then explores applicable examples of contested, divergent, fragmented, and complementary cultural changes, currents, and new tools in US military culture. This study explains cases of cultural innovation linked to the global growth of ambiguity, movement toward greater multiculturalism, impact of the information age, growth of military civilians, increasing questioning of authority and ideas, and the emergence of a multimission military. This project illuminates the stark oppositional qualities and cultural tools of two currently prominent and highly relevant cultural orientations-the warrior and the peacekeeper-diplomat-which, along with other conflicted and necessary cultural spheres, ultimately coalesce and comprise emergent postmodern US military culture. Finally, the article argues that the postmodern military theory requires a new military culture variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
127812
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
From a theory on occupying regimes and from traditional concepts of counterinsurgency theory, the author traces back the development of the Dutch discourse regarding present day missions. The genesis of the so-called Dutch approach is studied, and the case of Uruzgan is reviewed by scrutinizing political, security, economic, and governance aspects of the use of the military in the aforementioned province of Afghanistan. The case is studied to determine whether there really is something Dutch about this approach. We learn that the "Dutch approach" is predominantly a narrative whose main objective is the appeasement of Dutch public opinion and the legitimation of Dutch policy making. At the same time and even though more comparative case studies are necessary, it seems plausible that the Dutch approach is different. But the difference is not typical Dutch; it lies in the manner of collaborating with and co-opting indigenous elites. Studying the genesis of the "Dutch approach" is therefore an analysis of a discourse and a study in operational effectiveness at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
127809
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
"Globalized" low-intensity conflicts renew debates about how leading world powers contend with evolving complexities in unconventional warfare. The "foreign entanglements" of America's imperial present have been compared with the "savage wars of peace" from Britain's colonial past.1 Beyond the template of Anglo-American civilization, however, military, economic, and cultural manifestations of power must be set in their systemic and structural context for more meaningful comparison. Britain's variegated experience of unconventional warfare stemmed from its vast colonial milieu of "small wars" and "imperial policing." America's experience reflects transformational civil-military responses to both existential and ideological threats, reinforcing the evolution of a massive "way of war" over persistent frontier warfare. Integral to reading these small war traditions is the historical method, emphasizing particularity of causation while underscoring the value of flexible, hybrid approaches against overinstitutionalized "ways in warfare."2 Operational success, delivered by blending military skills with political savvy and cultural sensitivity, not only secured populations but support and legitimacy, without which even global powers risked defeat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
127815
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
One of the defining features of Turkish politics has been the strong influence of the military in civilian politics. However, since the early 2000s, we have seen unprecedented developments, substantially constraining the political powers of the military. How can we interpret this period from a historical perspective? What are the continuities and discontinuities in Turkish civil-military relations? Do these developments mark the end of military guardianship in the country? Employing the principal-agent framework, this study shows that the path of Turkish civil-military relations has been cyclical, where the status of the military has swung between agent and principal. Such swings have led to a significant degree of variance in the nature of the military guardianship. Thus, this study identifies two distinct stages of military tutelage during the Republican period: symbolic (1924-1960) and overt/assertive (1960-2001). It is further argued that the recent reversion of the military back to agent of the civilian principals has initiated a post-guardianship era in Turkey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
127808
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Small wars" have returned to the international political agenda in the early twentieth century with almost a vengeance. Leaving aside the factors of social media and satellite television today, the nature of small wars has adhered to its politicized, xenophobic, and asymmetrical characteristics. The latter were predicted by British and American military manuals produced in the early to middle twentieth century. This special issue aims to revisit the nature of small wars in the era of great power interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in the 2000s. It will be apparent that two further characteristics need to be appended to small wars: chameleonic missions and virtual aggression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|