Racial stratification remains critically undertheorized in hierarchy studies. Postcolonial analyses demonstrate how diffuse systems of racial knowledge produce unequal subjectivities in world politics, but they are often criticized for making overdetermined explanations that do not account for agency or contingency. To rectify this theoretical lacuna, I develop a postcolonial-practice theory approach to explain variation in the intensity and duration of governance hierarchies. I argue that racialized discourses constitute the habitualized dispositions of dominant and subordinate actors and make possible specific governance practices. This approach can account for puzzling cases of successful resistance by some subordinates while others languish under intense domination. Two such cases are US state building interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic during the early twentieth century. By using a variety of primary archival and public sources, I demonstrate how ideas about racial differences among Anglo-Americans, Dominicans, and Haitians led US policymakers to enact a more long-term and domineering occupation of Haiti compared to the Dominican Republic. Once Dominican elites articulated a European–Spanish identity in opposition to Blackness, they mobilized support from other Latin American states and made US withdrawal practical. A postcolonial-practice explanation is useful because it addresses the limitations of both narrow and broad approaches to the study of hierarchy. Its focus on the contestation of US hierarchies further contributes to hegemonic-order theory while illustrating how the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion shape imperial rule and strategies of anti-imperial resistance.
{"title":"“The Way of Progress and Civilization”: Racial Hierarchy and US State Building in Haiti and the Dominican Republic (1915–1922)","authors":"Stephen Pampinella","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogaa050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa050","url":null,"abstract":"Racial stratification remains critically undertheorized in hierarchy studies. Postcolonial analyses demonstrate how diffuse systems of racial knowledge produce unequal subjectivities in world politics, but they are often criticized for making overdetermined explanations that do not account for agency or contingency. To rectify this theoretical lacuna, I develop a postcolonial-practice theory approach to explain variation in the intensity and duration of governance hierarchies. I argue that racialized discourses constitute the habitualized dispositions of dominant and subordinate actors and make possible specific governance practices. This approach can account for puzzling cases of successful resistance by some subordinates while others languish under intense domination. Two such cases are US state building interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic during the early twentieth century. By using a variety of primary archival and public sources, I demonstrate how ideas about racial differences among Anglo-Americans, Dominicans, and Haitians led US policymakers to enact a more long-term and domineering occupation of Haiti compared to the Dominican Republic. Once Dominican elites articulated a European–Spanish identity in opposition to Blackness, they mobilized support from other Latin American states and made US withdrawal practical. A postcolonial-practice explanation is useful because it addresses the limitations of both narrow and broad approaches to the study of hierarchy. Its focus on the contestation of US hierarchies further contributes to hegemonic-order theory while illustrating how the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion shape imperial rule and strategies of anti-imperial resistance.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86187882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 9/11 most Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa have introduced anti-terror laws. Are they part of the global-diffusion processes that have spread anti-terrorism legislation worldwide? This paper studies the drivers of anti-terrorism legislation in these Arab states, contributing to the emerging research on authoritarian diffusion. The analysis demonstrates that regional and domestic explanations, rather than diffusion from the international level, are key. This is evident from the chronological order in which anti-terror legislation has appeared, the regionally inspired definitions of terrorism, and the immediate drivers behind such laws. The past few decades have seen two temporal clusters of new anti-terrorism legislation in the Arab world. In the first decade of the new millennium, mainly domestic terror attacks drove the adoption of anti-terror laws. Meanwhile, regional efforts to comply with international counterterrorism efforts after the 9/11 attacks played a subordinate role. In a second wave following the Arab uprisings of 2011, anti-terror legislation was driven increasingly by authoritarian governments’ desire to penalize dissent, as they sought to inhibit the spread of protests on the regional level. A systematic overview of the terrorism definitions contained in the new laws offers evidence for policy convergence. Instead of adhering to internationally recognized understandings of terrorism, the definitions in Arab legislation follow regional examples. The vague definitions of terrorism featured in the new laws allow for repressive measures being taken against challengers of authoritarian rule.
{"title":"What Drives Diffusion? Anti-Terrorism Legislation in the Arab Middle East and North Africa","authors":"Maria Josua","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogaa049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa049","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Since 9/11 most Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa have introduced anti-terror laws. Are they part of the global-diffusion processes that have spread anti-terrorism legislation worldwide? This paper studies the drivers of anti-terrorism legislation in these Arab states, contributing to the emerging research on authoritarian diffusion. The analysis demonstrates that regional and domestic explanations, rather than diffusion from the international level, are key. This is evident from the chronological order in which anti-terror legislation has appeared, the regionally inspired definitions of terrorism, and the immediate drivers behind such laws.\u0000 The past few decades have seen two temporal clusters of new anti-terrorism legislation in the Arab world. In the first decade of the new millennium, mainly domestic terror attacks drove the adoption of anti-terror laws. Meanwhile, regional efforts to comply with international counterterrorism efforts after the 9/11 attacks played a subordinate role. In a second wave following the Arab uprisings of 2011, anti-terror legislation was driven increasingly by authoritarian governments’ desire to penalize dissent, as they sought to inhibit the spread of protests on the regional level.\u0000 A systematic overview of the terrorism definitions contained in the new laws offers evidence for policy convergence. Instead of adhering to internationally recognized understandings of terrorism, the definitions in Arab legislation follow regional examples. The vague definitions of terrorism featured in the new laws allow for repressive measures being taken against challengers of authoritarian rule.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82890023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What is the role of religious identity in states’ decisions to intervene in foreign conflicts? Existing scholarship on external interventions in armed conflict pays little attention to religion, while many studies on religion and conflict give intrinsic importance to actors’ religious beliefs. In this article, we draw on insights from the comparative study of ethnic identity to explain foreign intervention decisions. Ethnic constructivism has been developed to explain domestic and group identity politics, but we demonstrate its utility for explaining state behavior in international politics. Based on the core premise of ethnic constructivism, we argue that coreligionism and coethnicity are poor predictors of states’ foreign policies. Rather, states create narratives of ethnic affinity in the service of political objectives. We use archival and other primary sources to test the theory's expectations through a structured within-case comparative analysis of Iran and its response to violent conflicts in Lebanon, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. Our findings offer robust support for our theory while providing theoretical and methodological implications for the study of “religious” and other identity-based conflicts in international politics.
{"title":"We Are All Coethnics: State Identities and Foreign Interventions in Violent Conflict","authors":"Reyko Huang, M. Tabaar","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogaa047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa047","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 What is the role of religious identity in states’ decisions to intervene in foreign conflicts? Existing scholarship on external interventions in armed conflict pays little attention to religion, while many studies on religion and conflict give intrinsic importance to actors’ religious beliefs. In this article, we draw on insights from the comparative study of ethnic identity to explain foreign intervention decisions. Ethnic constructivism has been developed to explain domestic and group identity politics, but we demonstrate its utility for explaining state behavior in international politics. Based on the core premise of ethnic constructivism, we argue that coreligionism and coethnicity are poor predictors of states’ foreign policies. Rather, states create narratives of ethnic affinity in the service of political objectives. We use archival and other primary sources to test the theory's expectations through a structured within-case comparative analysis of Iran and its response to violent conflicts in Lebanon, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. Our findings offer robust support for our theory while providing theoretical and methodological implications for the study of “religious” and other identity-based conflicts in international politics.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91046683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do we observe mass protest in authoritarian regimes? How can we explain subnational variation within a country? This study provides an institutional approach to explain mass protest in nondemocracies. I propose that the pattern of social protest reflects the intensity of subnational elite competition within authoritarian institutions. In China, the cadre promotion system incentivizes local elites to compete in the fiscal and economic field by extracting local resources, and these efforts often trigger local protest. Using a protest dataset that records large-scale local resistance from China, I find that Chinese social protest is associated with local elite competition in a nonlinear pattern. A rising intensity in local competition encourages greater extraction efforts and triggers more resistance; however, intensified competition does not lead to excessive extraction because officials fear that too much social instability could hurt their careers. I also find that land expropriation by local governments becomes the main extractive mechanism that triggers social grievance in contemporary China. These findings highlight the important role of competitive local politics and how it shapes the subnational variation of protest in authoritarian regimes.
{"title":"Elite Competition, Local Extraction, and Social Unrest: Understanding Mass Protest in Authoritarian Regimes","authors":"Howard Liu","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogaa042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa042","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Why do we observe mass protest in authoritarian regimes? How can we explain subnational variation within a country? This study provides an institutional approach to explain mass protest in nondemocracies. I propose that the pattern of social protest reflects the intensity of subnational elite competition within authoritarian institutions. In China, the cadre promotion system incentivizes local elites to compete in the fiscal and economic field by extracting local resources, and these efforts often trigger local protest. Using a protest dataset that records large-scale local resistance from China, I find that Chinese social protest is associated with local elite competition in a nonlinear pattern. A rising intensity in local competition encourages greater extraction efforts and triggers more resistance; however, intensified competition does not lead to excessive extraction because officials fear that too much social instability could hurt their careers. I also find that land expropriation by local governments becomes the main extractive mechanism that triggers social grievance in contemporary China. These findings highlight the important role of competitive local politics and how it shapes the subnational variation of protest in authoritarian regimes.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88294460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Does ethnic stacking in the armed forces help prevent military defection? Recent research, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, suggests so; by favoring in-groups, regimes can keep in-group soldiers loyal. In-group loyalty comes at the cost of antagonizing members of out-groups, but many regimes gladly run that risk. In this research note, we provide the first large-scale evidence on the impact of ethnic stacking on the incidence of military defection during uprisings from below, using data on fifty-seven popular uprisings in Africa since formal independence. We find clear evidence for the downside: ethnic stacking is associated with more frequent defection if out-group members are still dominant in the armed forces. We find more limited support for the hypothesized payoff. Ethnic stacking may reduce the risk of defection, but only in regimes without a recent history of coup attempts. Future research should therefore trace the solidification of ethnic stacking over time.
{"title":"The Efficacy of Ethnic Stacking: Military Defection during Uprisings in Africa","authors":"Julien Morency-Laflamme, Theodore McLauchlin","doi":"10.1093/JOGSS/OGZ015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JOGSS/OGZ015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Does ethnic stacking in the armed forces help prevent military defection? Recent research, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, suggests so; by favoring in-groups, regimes can keep in-group soldiers loyal. In-group loyalty comes at the cost of antagonizing members of out-groups, but many regimes gladly run that risk. In this research note, we provide the first large-scale evidence on the impact of ethnic stacking on the incidence of military defection during uprisings from below, using data on fifty-seven popular uprisings in Africa since formal independence. We find clear evidence for the downside: ethnic stacking is associated with more frequent defection if out-group members are still dominant in the armed forces. We find more limited support for the hypothesized payoff. Ethnic stacking may reduce the risk of defection, but only in regimes without a recent history of coup attempts. Future research should therefore trace the solidification of ethnic stacking over time.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79332371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do rebel organizations splinter into competing factions during civil war? To explain this outcome, I leverage variation in rebel leadership. I argue that rebel leaders draw on their pre-war experiences—i.e., their military and political experiences—to manage their organizations during conflict. These experiences bear unique patterns of rebel management and, thus, corresponding risks of fragmentation. Empirical evidence comes from a two-stage research design and original data featuring over 200 rebel leaders from 1989 to 2014. In the first stage, I estimate the probability of group fragmentation with a series of logistic regression models. In the second stage, I use Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate leadership effects on the rate of group fragmentation. Results indicate that variation in rebel leadership corresponds with unique risks of fragmentation. In particular, the results suggest that leaders with real military experience are best equipped to maintain group cohesion. This study offers insight into the processes by which rebel groups splinter into armed factions. In addition, it makes an important contribution to the broader discussion on the roles of structure and agency in shaping the dynamics of civil war.
{"title":"A Motion of No Confidence: Leadership and Rebel Fragmentation","authors":"A. Doctor","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogz060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz060","url":null,"abstract":"Why do rebel organizations splinter into competing factions during civil war? To explain this outcome, I leverage variation in rebel leadership. I argue that rebel leaders draw on their pre-war experiences—i.e., their military and political experiences—to manage their organizations during conflict. These experiences bear unique patterns of rebel management and, thus, corresponding risks of fragmentation. Empirical evidence comes from a two-stage research design and original data featuring over 200 rebel leaders from 1989 to 2014. In the first stage, I estimate the probability of group fragmentation with a series of logistic regression models. In the second stage, I use Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate leadership effects on the rate of group fragmentation. Results indicate that variation in rebel leadership corresponds with unique risks of fragmentation. In particular, the results suggest that leaders with real military experience are best equipped to maintain group cohesion. This study offers insight into the processes by which rebel groups splinter into armed factions. In addition, it makes an important contribution to the broader discussion on the roles of structure and agency in shaping the dynamics of civil war.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":"598-616"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91073926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Empirical research has increasingly turned its attention to ways that international phenomena impact the human condition within countries. International influences have been shown to affect human rights, health, and quality of life within societies. They may also impact microlevel phenomena such as violent criminal behavior. In this study, we build on such recent scholarship and research that bridges the theoretical and empirical gap between international relations research and criminology. Our analysis examines the cross-national relationship between interstate small arms transfers and domestic homicide rates. We suspect that some proportion of weapons from the legal small arms trade find their way into the hands of societal actors and that a prevalence of firearms in society may be associated with elevated homicide rates. State strength should mitigate this relationship, as strong states should have greater ability to manage and to control legal arms shipments than their weaker counterparts. Cross-national empirical tests of small arms flows and homicide rates from 2000 to 2014 support our theoretical claims. They also demonstrate that legal small arms transfers impact only certain types of violent crimes.
{"title":"The Human Cost of the Weapons Trade: Small Arms Transfers and Recipient State Homicide","authors":"C. Machain, Jeffrey Pickering","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogz041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz041","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Empirical research has increasingly turned its attention to ways that international phenomena impact the human condition within countries. International influences have been shown to affect human rights, health, and quality of life within societies. They may also impact microlevel phenomena such as violent criminal behavior. In this study, we build on such recent scholarship and research that bridges the theoretical and empirical gap between international relations research and criminology. Our analysis examines the cross-national relationship between interstate small arms transfers and domestic homicide rates. We suspect that some proportion of weapons from the legal small arms trade find their way into the hands of societal actors and that a prevalence of firearms in society may be associated with elevated homicide rates. State strength should mitigate this relationship, as strong states should have greater ability to manage and to control legal arms shipments than their weaker counterparts. Cross-national empirical tests of small arms flows and homicide rates from 2000 to 2014 support our theoretical claims. They also demonstrate that legal small arms transfers impact only certain types of violent crimes.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87114929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Letter to the Editors: Emancipation and Critique in Peace and Conflict Research","authors":"Isak Svensson","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogaa037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":"703-707"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80606587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite an increasing focus on the importance of temporality, time, and timing in international relations (IR) and security studies, there has been relatively less movement toward thinking about the temporal present as a conceptual area of inquiry. This article argues that taking the present seriously as a concept, method, and theoretical area of analysis offers unique value for the study of war. Paying attention to the manner in which the present time of war (wartime) is sociopolitically articulated as a space of temporal exception exposes how it is understood as diverging from representations of politics, past and future. It also foregrounds war's irreducible temporal dimension and exposes the relational bases of wartime's apparent universality. This article uses a close reading of Clausewitz's On War (1832) as generative dialogue and illustrative example, showing how an awareness of the importance of temporal dynamics—particularly, the concept of the present—is both valuable and workable in the study of war. A temporal imaginary of war centered on what Hutchings calls the “heterotemporal” present enhances inquiry into contemporary political violence, the ontology of war, and the emergent attributes of collective violence.
{"title":"Theorizing the Temporal Exception: The Importance of the Present for the Study of War","authors":"C. McIntosh","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogz040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz040","url":null,"abstract":"Despite an increasing focus on the importance of temporality, time, and timing in international relations (IR) and security studies, there has been relatively less movement toward thinking about the temporal present as a conceptual area of inquiry. This article argues that taking the present seriously as a concept, method, and theoretical area of analysis offers unique value for the study of war. Paying attention to the manner in which the present time of war (wartime) is sociopolitically articulated as a space of temporal exception exposes how it is understood as diverging from representations of politics, past and future. It also foregrounds war's irreducible temporal dimension and exposes the relational bases of wartime's apparent universality. This article uses a close reading of Clausewitz's On War (1832) as generative dialogue and illustrative example, showing how an awareness of the importance of temporal dynamics—particularly, the concept of the present—is both valuable and workable in the study of war. A temporal imaginary of war centered on what Hutchings calls the “heterotemporal” present enhances inquiry into contemporary political violence, the ontology of war, and the emergent attributes of collective violence.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79935823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article introduces a new theory of military innovation, military realism, which argues that senior military leaders spearhead major changes in military doctrine when existing doctrinal mission priorities and theories of victory do not address the most dangerous threats. What I call the military realist perspective drives this doctrinal innovation. Through a case study of change and continuity in US Army doctrine under President Kennedy, this article challenges bureaucratic, military cultural, and civilian realist theories of military innovation. Military realism provides a powerful explanation of a hard case, while the other theories struggle with what should be an easy case.
{"title":"Military Realism and Doctrinal Innovation in Kennedy's Army: A New Perspective on Military Innovation","authors":"Peter Campbell","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogz067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz067","url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces a new theory of military innovation, military realism, which argues that senior military leaders spearhead major changes in military doctrine when existing doctrinal mission priorities and theories of victory do not address the most dangerous threats. What I call the military realist perspective drives this doctrinal innovation. Through a case study of change and continuity in US Army doctrine under President Kennedy, this article challenges bureaucratic, military cultural, and civilian realist theories of military innovation. Military realism provides a powerful explanation of a hard case, while the other theories struggle with what should be an easy case.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"780 1","pages":"675-694"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83136545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：