Suchergebnisse

AbstractFew issues are more important yet less understood than outside interventions in intra-state conflicts. Under what circumstances do intervening states further their interests and when, contrarily, do they plunge into quagmires? France is a critical case. It is, statistically, the world's second intervenor and earned the sobriquet of Africa's gendarme through frequent interventions in African wars. The ability of such a medium-sized state to intervene with greater regularity and ostensible success than larger powers raises questions about how France manages its interventions. Do French interventions draw on the French Army's distinctive 'school' of population-centric counterinsurgency, which emphasises the need to militarise governance in pursuit of comprehensive victories? Or do the French Fifth Republic's civil-military institutions encourage policymakers to carefully regulate force's employment in pursuit of limited ends? This study draws on declassified archives to test which approach most characterises French interventions. To preview my conclusions, strategic satisficing – the use of minimal force for short durations to produce satisfactory outcomes – distinguishes the Fifth Republic's interventions from other powers' practices and prior French counterinsurgencies. This particular form of interventionism enables France to influence a large number of intra-state conflicts and maintain a network of security agreements with African states.

AbstractTensions between civil and military authorities over issues such as budgets and strategic posture are unavoidable in pluralistic societies. Scholars of Civil-Military Relations (CMR) have identified a range of practices through which civil-military contestation occurs, and examined their implications for issues such as military effectiveness. This literature, however, has yet to incorporate critical approaches to knowledge into its analysis. Seeking to fill this gap, this article explores how the British military's presentation of its professional knowledge has been increasingly shaped by the political context of British defence policy. More specifically, it argues that the British armed forces' presentation of opaque imaginations of future war in military doctrine has sought to entrench the role of Defence in an environment of increasingly integrated governmental responses to security challenges. To do this, the article focuses specifically on two concepts that have become increasingly significant in the British defence establishment's articulation of its professional authority and strategic purpose – Multi-Domain Integration (MDI) and the Integrated Operating Concept (IOpC). The article therefore contributes to the literature a fresh perspective of the role of military doctrine and epistemic practices in civil-military contestation, as well as a critical account of the politics of knowledge in British defence.

"In a rapidly changing security environment, Guns and Roses offers fresh and insightful analyses that transcend space and time."--Prof. Yuko Kasuya, vice-president of International Political Science Association and professor of political science, Keio University "The book provides a very comprehensive and cutting-edge analysis of the important issue of civil-military relations and a recommended reading for those involved in modern-day security."--Prof. Stephanie Lawson, adjunct professor in politics, Australian National University "Guns and Roses by an exceptional group of expert authors provides a rich comparative analysis of global security dynamics in the challenges of forging new civil military relations in a rapidly changing world." --Prof. Ralph Premdas, professor of public policy, University of the West Indies This edited volume provides a comprehensive and up-to-date account of the latest developments on the relationship between the military and democratization, drawing examples from Asia, Pacific, Africa, Middle East and South America. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, the book covers wide-ranging sub-themes within the broad rubric of military and democratization relating to gender, peace-building, civilian oversight, coups, geopolitical contestation, internal repression, etc. In doing so, the volume has an international comparative coverage with three inter-related levels of analysis--the global, regional and national. Steven Ratuva is director of Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies and professor in the department of anthropology and sociology at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Radomir Compel is associate professor of comparative politics at Nagasaki University, Japan. Sergio Aguilar has a PhD in history and is associate professor in international security at São Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil.--

Structure, politics, and influence -- The Chairman and jointness -- The origins of norms for the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- Creating a stronger Chairman -- Leaving the Cold War behind -- Transformation -- Sequestration -- The Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and civil-military relations.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- 1. A Conceptual Framework for Shared Responsibility -- PART I: UNITED STATES -- 2. From John F. Kennedy through Jimmy Carter -- 3. From Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama -- PART II: GERMANY -- 4. From Konrad Adenauer through Willy Brandt -- 5. From Helmut Schmidt through Angela Merkel -- PART III: CANADA -- 6. From Paul Hellyer through Pierre Trudeau -- 7. From Brian Mulroney through Stephen Harper -- PART IV: RUSSIA -- 8. From Boris Yeltsin through Vladimir Putin -- 9. From Vladimir Putin through Dmitry Medvedev -- 10. The Search for Shared Responsibility -- Notes -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.

This article examines the Turkish case within the framework of theories that explain the impact of transnational factors upon civil-military relations in national contexts. The authors examine the impact of Turkey's European Union (EU) membership candidacy on civil-military relations in Turkey. More specifically, they elaborate on the challenges & prospects for more democratic civil-military relations in Turkey as triggered by the EU candidacy. In this regard, the article examines the notion of guardianship that characterizes the military's traditional role in Turkish politics & its institutional reflections. Adapted from the source document.

 One of the things that I had claimed since 2021's general crisis--Vance, McDonald, and other senior officers being outed for sexual misconduct and abuse of power--is that efforts to change the military would not face as much resistance as in normal times.  These folks had so thoroughly disgraced the military that any resistors would have weak arguments and few allies--who would stand up for rapists and abuses of power?  It took a few years, but we now have an answer: the far right and the Conservative Party of Canada.Aping the far right in the US, the right wing folks in Canada started accusing the military of being too woke.  It is not just one random retired general with poor reading comprehension.  This weekend, a different person, Jamie Sarkonak, wrote a piece at the same outlet--the National Post--arguing that the military is hostile to white men (providing no evidence), that the military should not change (although it is better than the retired general's by recognizing past abuses), and that women who join should just embrace being in a male-dominated/male-defined organization, and Indigenous recruits/officers and people of colour should just accept the military has it has always been.What this person gets wrong and what those who want to keep the military the same is basic math: she wants the military to rely on the traditional pool of recruits: "fit, aged 17 to 20, high-school educated, rural or small-city in origin and Caucasian in background."  The problem is that this pool is shrinking.  So, we need to expand the pool of recruits beyond this group--folks living in cities, non-Caucasians, and women. If you think you can do that while keeping the old culture that was/is hostile to these folks, then you not only suck at math but sociology.The piece is on target when focusing on the consequences of budget cuts--resolving the personnel crisis requires more money, not less.  But culture change is also required.This Tuesday, I am presenting along with several sharp scholars--JC Boucher, Lynne Gouliquer, and Charlotte Duval-Lantoine--some data that shows that scandals about discrimination in the military cause people to lose trust in the CAF and become less supportive of their friends and family joining the CAF.  So, the numbers cited in the op-ed piece about the decline in recruiting and the problem of retention may be more related to the abuses of general and flag officers than to the effort to change the culture.  Of course, correlation is not causation.  But the antiwoke forces don't really have much data, and they have weak arguments based on bad math and bad sociology.  On the bright side, I am getting cited, which is what academics want, and I keep getting alerted to these publications by the hate email I get.