Cultural theories supplement, not supplant realism

Michael C. Desch, "Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies," International Security 23, no. 1 (Summer 1998), 141-170.

Desch discusses culturalism in security studies. In this nicely organized article he reviews three waves of cultural theories, three problems with assessing the explanatory power of current cultural theories, and three ways culture can supplement (not supplant, as he says quite emphatically) existing theories in national security. While the common thread of these cultural theories seems to be a repudiation of realism, Desch points out that many critiques of realism come from its own adherents, citing Schweller, in an article on bandwagoning vs. balancing (unrelated, but looks like a good discussion of Walt's "balance-of-threat" theory).

Wave I contains little detail; Wave II (Cold War) has a few interesting details. Of interest is the view at the time that the U.S. was cultural inept when it came to strategy, in contrast with the "Clausewitzian" Soviets. Vietnam was used to illustrate this criticism (there does seem to be some merit if you look at McNamara and the whiz kids trying to apply cutting-edge capabilities in a context bereft of cultural understanding). However, Desch points out the similarities between Vietnam and the Soviets' experiment in Afghanistan; and if we look at failure from a relative standpoint, we didn't come out quite as bad as the Soviets did. Wave III, being in full-swing at the time of writing, is where most of the time is spent. Question: have any of the 3rd wave views/concepts gained traction over the last decade? Faded? What is the current cultural contribution to national security studies?

Joint publications, field manuals and systems of systems

Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Planning and Operations, chs IV and V

Thanks to Matt Williams' emailed link, here's the Joint Publication 3-0 in its entirety.

Chapter IV discusses joint operational planning, operational art and design, and assessment. The level of command examined here is the joint force commander (JFC). A few misc. highlights/observations:

Joint Op Planning - uses two processes, JOPES and JOPP (Chapter III).

Interesting paper out of the U.S. Army War College on the JP 5-0 definition of CoGs, how it applies to a nonconventional warfare environment, and the relationship between operational net assessment and CoG analysis. The author has also identifed quite a few sources on the topic of CoGs in joint planning today, also useful.

Chapter V discusses planning for stability operations concurrently with joint ops planning (V-2). Is this basically an introduction to full-spectrum operations from a different angle (the planning?)

This week's Afghanistan fray

The Washington Post has a redacted, unclassified copy of Gen. McChrystal's assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. There's a text searchable version here.
Of note recently, Paul Pillar's commentary on what really constitutes a safehaven and whether Afghanistan is worth the cost to prevent from becoming one. On the other side of the spectrum, John Nagl's call for more troops.

Goldwater-Nichols and Civ-Mil Relations

Cohen, Eliot. "A Theory of Civilian Control," in Supreme Command.

Cohen reviews the main body of thought behind U.S. civil-military relations - Samuel P. Huntington (The Soldier and the State). In his work, Huntington identified a distinctive military mindset; a distinct definition of military officers as a unique profession - directly relating to the management and application of force; and two forms of civilian control over this fighting force - subjective and objective. Objective control, Huntington said, is necessary for a professional, apolitical military. Cohen summarizes the major arguments for and against this theory and offers a slightly more fluid/hybrid take on Huntington's principles, calling for a more nuanced definition of objective control.

Interesting point Cohen makes is the influence of Huntington views on the Goldwater-Nichols legislation. Question: while the intent of Goldwater-Nichols was to solidify an objective control approach to civ-mil relations, did it in fact undermine civilian control? Christopher Bourne seemed to think so in 1998, after the 10-year anniversary of the legislation, when he wrote in Joint Force Quarterly that the consequences were "reducing the checks and balances within and between the executive and legislative branches."

Another question is ... how does the structure of the officer and NCO corps affect the value set, distinctive culture, etc that Cohen discusses? For example, the structure of the NCO corps in the IDF is vastly different (well, non-existent in some lines) according to Patrick Lang's blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis. Leading to a relative breakdown of internal control, particularly on the tactical end of the stick. Sounds a little like Tolstoy's strategic nihilism.

Penguin wisdom