Robert Egnell

Laudable, ahistorical and overambitious: security sector reform meets state formation theory.

Security sector reform (SSR) is a concept that is highly visible within policy and practice circles and that increasingly shapes international programmes for development assistance, security co-operation and democracy promotion. This paper examines the concept and practice of SSR using theories of the state and state formation within a historical-philosophical perspective. The paper recognises that the processes of SSR are highly laudable and present great steps forward towards more holistic conceptions of security and international development. However, the main argument of the paper is that we should be careful of having too high expectations of the possibility of SSR fulfilling its ambitious goals of creating states that are both stable and democratic and accountable. Instead, we should carefully determine what level of ambition is realistic for each specific project depending on local circumstances. A further argument of this paper is that legitimate order and functioning state structures are prerequisites and preconditions for successful democratisation and accountability reforms within the security sector.

Winning ‘Hearts and Minds’? A Critical Analysis of Counter-Insurgency Operations in Afghanistan

This article conducts a critical analysis of the historical lessons, the assumptions and the conduct of ‘hearts and minds’ approaches to counter-insurgency. This results in challenges. Theoretically the ‘hearts and minds’ approach is rooted in modernisation theory and a normative Western approach to legitimacy that fails to live up to the expectations of the local population. The approach is also based on lessons from past successes such as the British 1950s campaign in Malaya. However, a great contextual shift has taken place since then and the relevance of past experiences is therefore questionable in a context of complex state-building in the wake of intervention. This also has practical consequences as we seek to rectify the often misapplied approaches of today.

Between reluctance and necessity: the utility of military force in humanitarian and development operations

The civil-military interface in peace support operations is changing due to increasingly overlapping tasks, increased military involvement in humanitarian activities, and increased integration of all involved actors, not least through various current strategic concepts. This article not only describes these trends, but also, more importantly, analyses certain consequences in terms of mission effectiveness. The focus of the analysis is the ideas of ‘militarisation of humanitarian aid’ and the reverse ‘humanitarianisation of the military’. The main arguments of this contribution are that the assumptions of increased effectiveness stemming from civil-military integration cannot be taken for granted and that there are harmful consequences stemming from blurring the lines between civilian, humanitarian and military actors. There is, in other words, a need to better specify and explain the causal mechanisms that lead to effectiveness in complex peace support operations.

The organised hypocrisy of international state-building

This paper uses the concept of ‘organised hypocrisy’ as a means of making sense of the inconsistencies and contradictions in contemporary theory and practice of international state-building. While organised hypocrisy in international politics allows states and organisations to maintain systemic stability and legitimacy by managing irreconcilable pressures that might otherwise render them unable to operate effectively, this paper argues that organised hypocrisy also has negative impacts on the operational effectiveness of state-building. It allows organisations to engage in operations without sufficient resources, thereby seriously undermining operational effectiveness and the credibility of international state-building as a legitimate political tool. Organised hypocrisy also creates false expectations among the local and global populations and thereby decreases the credibility of the strategic narrative that is supposed to explain and make sense of the transformation processes to the general public. The paper also explores a number of options for dealing with organised hypocrisy in a way that could improve the effectiveness of international state-building.

Explaining US and British performance in complex expeditionary operations: The civil-military dimension

Abstract A nations structure and culture of civil-military relations are important and largely overlooked factors in explaining the performance of armed forces involved in complex expeditionary operations. The US model of ‘Huntingtonian’, divided civil-military structures and poor interagency cooperation, makes the US military less suited for complex expeditionary operations. British civil-military relations involve a Defence Ministry that conscientiously integrates military and civilian personnel, as well as extensive interagency cooperation and coordination. This ‘Janowitzean’, integrated form of civil-military relations makes the British military more likely to provide for the planning and implementation of comprehensive campaigns that employ and coordinate all instruments of power available to the state, as well as troops in the field displaying the flexibility and cultural and political understanding that are necessary in complex expeditionary operations.

Civil–military coordination for operational effectiveness: Towards a measured approach

The last decade has witnessed a cascading proliferation of strategic concepts that emphasise the importance of civil–military cooperation, coordination, or integration for effectiveness in complex operations. These efforts nevertheless often lack an appreciation for why, where, and how such integration and coordination should take place to achieve the desired outcomes. This article introduces a new approach to civil–military coordination that incorporates the challenges and possibilities at both the national/strategic level and the tactical level in field of operations. By integrating and coordinating these efforts at the strategic level, this approach allows policymakers to achieve separation of actors and responsibilities in the field of operations. By doing so, the proposed approach seeks to answer more specific questions about when coordination is necessary for effectiveness, what its aims are, what actors need to be involved, and to what extent and at what level of command the actors need to be coordinated.

Contextualising international state-building

Weak or failing states are among the greatest concerns of the contemporary strategic context. Not only are they the causes of humanitarian disasters, human rights abuses, economic grievances and waves of refugees, weak and failing states are also seen as security problems internally, regionally and, after the terror attacks on 11 September 2001, globally. In the words of Francis Fukuyama: ‘[s]tate-building is one of the world’s most important issues for the world community because weak or failed states are the source of many of the world’s greatest problems, from poverty to AIDS to drugs to terrorism’. Enhancing developing states’ capacities for security governance, and control over their territories and populations, has become an important security interest of Western states. According to David Chandler, different forms of state-building activities have therefore come to dominate Western security activities towards the developing world. However, the results of past international state-building operations have been mixed at best. Despite the wealth of activity and research, critical engagement with these practices is necessary as current perspectives and policies oversimplify the problems and complexities at hand. State-building is too often reduced to issues of technocratic management and handbook solutions. Because of the urgency, gravity and scale of state-building, more sophisticated analyses and methods are required. One way to achieve this is through

Cancer - An Insurgency of Clones

Oncological therapy resembles a military force that eliminates the central power of a country (dominant clone of a cancer) to create a vacuum where insurgents (subclones) thrive and instigate rebellion (relapse). We suggest that military counterinsurgency doctrine can inspire a discussion of cancer that uniquely embraces both cancer cell evolution and tumour microenvironment.

The Implementation and Impact of a Gender Perspective in Operations

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was comprehensive in its approach to women, peace, and security, and called for implementation in individual states and organizations, as well as in the conduct of international operations for peace, security, and development. Despite the processes described in the previous chapter, the focus of the Swedish Armed Forces has mainly been on the latter — implementing a gender perspective in the field of operations. In this pursuit, the organization has both integrated a gender perspective in operations with a mainstreaming ambition, as well as developed specific gender functions in international operations. These two areas cannot, however, be separated as two entirely distinct things.

Introduction: The Accomplishments and the Challenges

Why are issues of gender and military effectiveness featured in the same book? It is often assumed that gender awareness and women’s rights have no place in the brutal and hypermasculine world of the battlefield — or even military peace operations. Indeed, military organizations are more often seen as the problem rather than the potential solution to the processes of implementing a gender perspective or promoting women’s rights.