Elizabeth Kier

Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars

~ Offensive military doctrines threaten international stability.’ World War I vividly illustrates how a crisis can spark a major war that might have been avoided if the major players had had defensive rather than offensive doctrines. Similarly, throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Army’s offensive doctrine in Europe fueled the arms race and heightened threat perception. The choice between offensive and defensive military doctrines is at least as important now as during the Cold War. Although restructuring military doctrines along defensive orientations will not erase ethnic hostilities or suspend territorial appetites, it could remove one of the structural impediments to cooperation in the post-Cold War world. Yet an adequate explanation for why states choose offensive or defensive military doctrines remains elusive. Many scholars credit civilian policymakers with formulating doctrine wellsuited to the state’s strategic environment, and blame the armed services’ parochial interests for the sometimes disastrous choice of offensive doctrines.2 However, using illustrations from doctrinal developments in the French army during the 1920s and 1930s, this article challenges this portrait of the role of civilians and military in choices between offensive and defensive military doctrines. Even during times of increased international threat, I argue, the international system is indeterminate of choices between offensive and defensive military doctrines; civilians intervene infrequently in doctrinal develop-

Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness

i D u r i n g the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton pledged to lift the ban on homosexuals in the U.S. armed services. Once in office, he met with enormous resistance from the U.S. military and its congressional allies, and by the summer of 1993, the original policy proposal was dead. Instead, Congress enacted the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy: gays and lesbians can now serve in the military, but they must keep their sexual orientation private. Opponents of the open integration of gays and lesbians have discarded many of the standard justifications for excluding homosexuals from military service. For example, the Pentagon and its allies no longer argue that gays and lesbians are security risks because of the threat of blackmail. As early as 1957, a study commissioned by the U.S. Navy was unable to uncover any evidence that homosexuals were security risks.’ Thirty years later, another Department of Defense (DoD)-commissioned report repeated tlus finding: “Since [1957] no new data have been presented that would refute [the] conclusion that homosexuals are not greater security risks than heterosexuals.”2 Nor do opponents of allowing homosexu-

Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation in Combat? An Old Question with an Old Answer

Based on a new Army War College study of unit cohesion in the Iraq War, Wong et al. argue that successful unit performance is determined by social cohesion (the strength of interpersonal bonds among members) rather than task cohesion (a sense of shared commitment to the unit’s mission). If correct, these conclusions have important implications for scholarship as well as for numerous U.S. military policies such as the Unit Manning System. However, this article disputes their contentions. Wong et al. ignore a large body of empirical research on military and nonmilitary groups showing that social cohesion has no independent impact on performance. They provide no evidence for the representativeness of the interview quotes they cite as evidence for the reliability or validity of their measures. Their methodology fails to meet social science standards for causal inference (e.g., ruling out causal rival factors)

Rights and Fights: Sexual Orientation and Military Effectiveness

ing civil rights. Our contention is that Kier fails to grapple with the central issue of the heterosexist and masculine culture of the U. S. military. Her commitment to the civil rights of gays and lesbians, which we share, must not be allowed to obscure the real obstacles standing in the way of that commitment; civil rights are not advanced by oawed policy analysis. Kier’s thesis is undermined by three problems. First, she pays insufacient attention to the historical and social structural context within which military personnel policy evolves. She fails to appreciate that given the functional imperative of managing violence, even modern high-technology militaries must retain a degree of distinctiveness from civilian society and nonmilitary institutions for purposes of combat effectiveness. Although she draws on a wide variety of data to support her arguments, much of it concerns group formation in civilian settings or is drawn from noncombat elements of the armed forces. This leads to a second problem: her analysis of the relationship between cohesion and homosexuality. Kier does not give sufacient attention to the special nature of cohesion in the combat arms, particularly in ground combat forces, and to the ways in which militaries must produce soldiers from the civilian social context in which they are embedded. The context she focuses on—the U.S. case—however regrettable, is not generally supportive of the open integration of gays and lesbians

Setting Precedents in Anarchy: Military Intervention and Weapons of Mass Destruction

I “A dangerous precedent is being set,” warned a U.S. State Department specialist on Croatia. ”Genocide is taking place again in Europe, yet we, the European Community and the rest of the international community stand by and watch.”’ Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Brent Scowcroft has argued that the international community must be especially vigilant in the early periods of the post-Cold War era: “Success will breed success and deter aggression that might otherwise take place. Early failures would encourage flouting of the world order.”2 Political columnists frequently make the same argument: “The precedent of inaction in the face of ’ethnic cleansing’ will hang over us. Other demagogues are ready to arouse religious and racial passions in many parts of the former Soviet Union and eastern E ~ r o p e . ” ~ Setting precedents may be particularly important in today’s post-Cold War international environment where the rules of the road are under negotiation. Although the Cold War was at times unstable, dangerous, and always financially costly, it came to be characterized by a relatively stable set of expectations. Today, Americans are uncertain about what U.S. interests are and what to expect from others; Cold War rigidity has given way to post-Cold War fluidity. This suggests that actions taken today may establish new under-

Dodging a Bullet

Sometimes, reading is very boring and it will take long time starting from getting the book and start reading. However, in modern era, you can take the developing technology by utilizing the internet. By internet, you can visit this page and start to search for the book that is needed. Wondering this dodging the bullet is the one that you need, you can go for downloading. Have you understood how to get it?

In war’s wake: International conflict and the fate of liberal democracy

1. Introduction: war and democracy in comparative perspective Elizabeth Kier and Ronald Krebs Part I. War and Democratic Transitions: New and Durable Democracies?: 2. Does war influence democratization? Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder 3. Dodging a bullet: democracys gains in modern war Paul Starr 4. Armed conflict and the durability of electoral democracy Nancy Bermeo Part II. War and Democratic Publics: Reshaping Political Participation?: 5. The effects of war on civil society: cross-national evidence from World War II Rieko Kage 6. Veterans, human rights, and the tranformation of European democracy Jay Winter 7. War and reform: gaining labors compliance on the homefront Elizabeth Kier 8. Spinning Mars: democracy in Britain and the United States and the economic lessons of war Mark Wilson Part III. War and Democratic States: Government by the People or over the People?: 9. International conflict and the constitutional balance: executive authority after war Ronald R. Krebs 10. Claims and capacity: war, national policing institutions, and democracy Daniel Kryder 11. War, recruitment systems, and democracy Deborah Avant Concluding reflections: 12. What wars do Miguel Angel Centeno.

Uniform Justice: Assessing Women in Combat

War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. By Joshua S. Goldstein. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 523 pages.

Editors’ introduction to the first EJIS Junior-Senior Dialogue feature.

40.00 cloth.

In War's Wake: International Conflict and the Fate of Liberal

EJIS Junior-Senior Dialogue: Editors’ introduction The European Journal of International Security is pleased to introduce the Junior-Senior Dialogue, a feature designed to showcase the excellent work being produced by early career researchers in Security Studies. The Junior-Senior Dialogue seeks to recognise and highlight the many ways in which new scholars raise new questions, attack old questions in innovative ways, and generally inspire Security Studies to innovate and evolve. The Junior-Senior Dialogue seeks to foster lively intellectual debate between new and established security scholars. We invite early career researchers, including advanced PhD students, to submit provocative, discipline-extending work to EJIS for consideration for the Dialogue. We also invite supervisors and colleagues to identify such cutting-edge work by early career researchers and advanced PhD students and to encourage them to submit that work to the Dialogue. The Dialogue comprises an anchoring article, a critical engagement, and a response. The anchoring article submission by the junior scholar can be identified in one of two ways: it may be explicitly submitted as a potential candidate for the Dialogue by its author through the EJIS online submission portal, or it may be spotted as the potentially fruitful basis for a Dialogue by one of the journal’s editors. The latter mechanism discovered Sarah Bertrand’s (PhD Candidate in International Relations, London School of Economics) fascinating analysis. With input from the junior scholar, the editors approach a senior scholar whose work, or type of work, is at stake, to act both as a reviewer and as a respondent for the Dialogue. In this case, Claudia Aradau (Professor of International Politics, King’s College London) thus agreed both to review Bertrand’s submission and to engage her in debate. Based on an exchange of anchoring article (8,000 words) and response (3,000 words), the junior scholar gets the last word, with a final rejoinder (2,000 words). In this, our inaugural Junior-Senior Dialogue, we are delighted to present a postcolonial and feminist critique of securitization theory by Bertrand, who exposes a significant ‘colonial moment’ in securitization theory. In re-examining securitization theory’s ‘silence problem’, Bertrand demonstrates how that theory actively silences the subaltern, preventing her, through mechanisms of ‘locutionary silencing, illocutionary frustration and illocutionary disablement’, from acting as a securitizing agent. Aradau builds on and contests Bertrand’s focus on speaking and silencing, on binaries of the visible/invisible, heard/unheard, legible/illegible, directing our attention to ‘disputes, controversies and struggles’ as productive analytical foci and to ‘modes of non-knowing’ as fruitful avenues for developing critical epistemologies of in/security. This