美国北极安全战略:平衡战略和行动层面

IF 0.8 Q2 AREA STUDIES Polar Journal Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045
T. Bouffard, Lindsay L. Rodman
{"title":"美国北极安全战略:平衡战略和行动层面","authors":"T. Bouffard, Lindsay L. Rodman","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To date, the American Arctic approach is mostly geostrategically focused, to the exclusion of operational and tactical considerations. Moreover, the strategic components often work towards identifying and defining the problem while offering little in the way of solutions. As a result, Department of Defense (DOD) Arctic policies represent strategic thinking that is reflective of the national discourse, but lacking in doctrinal, Service-level or COCOM direction needed to establish operational and tactical guidance. Aside from the U.S. Coast Guard, DOD joint and service components – especially those with published Arctic policies – have had no national direction to do otherwise than to focus on geopolitical framing. In this article, we suggest that the United States should seek more balance between strategic imperatives and operational requirements and activities. This article begins with a discussion of the theory and doctrine addressing the relationship between the operational and strategic levels. We then survey relevant strategic documents from the U.S. government, seeking to find guidance that would inform both the American strategic approach to arctic security and any operational requirements that result from the strategic approach. Ultimately, we conclude that prioritisation of the Arctic will become apparent when and if the United States sends a demand signal vis-à-vis the National Security Strategy and subsequently establishes clear defence and fiscal mandates in support of stable, programmatic requirements towards operationally defined missions and capabilities.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"160 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"U.S. Arctic security strategies: balancing strategic and operational dimensions\",\"authors\":\"T. Bouffard, Lindsay L. Rodman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT To date, the American Arctic approach is mostly geostrategically focused, to the exclusion of operational and tactical considerations. Moreover, the strategic components often work towards identifying and defining the problem while offering little in the way of solutions. As a result, Department of Defense (DOD) Arctic policies represent strategic thinking that is reflective of the national discourse, but lacking in doctrinal, Service-level or COCOM direction needed to establish operational and tactical guidance. Aside from the U.S. Coast Guard, DOD joint and service components – especially those with published Arctic policies – have had no national direction to do otherwise than to focus on geopolitical framing. In this article, we suggest that the United States should seek more balance between strategic imperatives and operational requirements and activities. This article begins with a discussion of the theory and doctrine addressing the relationship between the operational and strategic levels. We then survey relevant strategic documents from the U.S. government, seeking to find guidance that would inform both the American strategic approach to arctic security and any operational requirements that result from the strategic approach. Ultimately, we conclude that prioritisation of the Arctic will become apparent when and if the United States sends a demand signal vis-à-vis the National Security Strategy and subsequently establishes clear defence and fiscal mandates in support of stable, programmatic requirements towards operationally defined missions and capabilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52117,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polar Journal\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"160 - 187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polar Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polar Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

迄今为止,美国的北极策略主要侧重于地缘战略,而排除了作战和战术考虑。此外,战略组件通常致力于识别和定义问题,而很少提供解决方案。因此,国防部(DOD)北极政策代表了反映国家话语的战略思维,但缺乏建立作战和战术指导所需的理论、服务水平或COCOM方向。除了美国海岸警卫队之外,国防部的联合和服务部门——尤其是那些公布了北极政策的部门——除了关注地缘政治框架之外,没有任何国家方向可做。在这篇文章中,我们建议美国应该在战略要求和作战要求和活动之间寻求更多的平衡。本文首先讨论了解决作战和战略层面之间关系的理论和理论。然后,我们调查了美国政府的相关战略文件,试图找到指导方针,既可以为美国对北极安全的战略方针提供信息,也可以为战略方针产生的任何操作要求提供信息。最终,我们得出结论,当美国向-à-vis国家安全战略发出需求信号,并随后建立明确的国防和财政授权,以支持稳定的、程序化的、可操作的任务和能力要求时,北极的优先次序将变得明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
U.S. Arctic security strategies: balancing strategic and operational dimensions
ABSTRACT To date, the American Arctic approach is mostly geostrategically focused, to the exclusion of operational and tactical considerations. Moreover, the strategic components often work towards identifying and defining the problem while offering little in the way of solutions. As a result, Department of Defense (DOD) Arctic policies represent strategic thinking that is reflective of the national discourse, but lacking in doctrinal, Service-level or COCOM direction needed to establish operational and tactical guidance. Aside from the U.S. Coast Guard, DOD joint and service components – especially those with published Arctic policies – have had no national direction to do otherwise than to focus on geopolitical framing. In this article, we suggest that the United States should seek more balance between strategic imperatives and operational requirements and activities. This article begins with a discussion of the theory and doctrine addressing the relationship between the operational and strategic levels. We then survey relevant strategic documents from the U.S. government, seeking to find guidance that would inform both the American strategic approach to arctic security and any operational requirements that result from the strategic approach. Ultimately, we conclude that prioritisation of the Arctic will become apparent when and if the United States sends a demand signal vis-à-vis the National Security Strategy and subsequently establishes clear defence and fiscal mandates in support of stable, programmatic requirements towards operationally defined missions and capabilities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Polar Journal
Polar Journal Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Antarctica and the Arctic are of crucial importance to global security. Their governance and the patterns of human interactions there are increasingly contentious; mining, tourism, bioprospecting, and fishing are but a few of the many issues of contention, while environmental concerns such as melting ice sheets have a global impact. The Polar Journal is a forum for the scholarly discussion of polar issues from a social science and humanities perspective and brings together the considerable number of specialists and policy makers working on these crucial regions across multiple disciplines. The journal welcomes papers on polar affairs from all fields of the social sciences and the humanities and is especially interested in publishing policy-relevant research. Each issue of the journal either features articles from different disciplines on polar affairs or is a topical theme from a range of scholarly approaches. Topics include: • Polar governance and policy • Polar history, heritage, and culture • Polar economics • Polar politics • Music, art, and literature of the polar regions • Polar tourism • Polar geography and geopolitics • Polar psychology • Polar archaeology Manuscript types accepted: • Regular articles • Research reports • Opinion pieces • Book Reviews • Conference Reports.
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on the economic and political history of the Ross Sea Globalised imaginaries, Arctification and resistance in Arctic tourism – an Arctification perspective on tourism actors’ views on seasonality and growth in Ylläs tourism destination Experiencing Svalbard sustainably? Reflecting on what we can learn about polar cruise tourism from the SEES expedition The Antarctic Peninsula: Argentina and Chile in the era of global change Committing to the Antarctic: values, ecological beliefs, and social identity in national perception
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1