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?