击败歌利亚:为什么叛乱会赢

Q3 Arts and Humanities Parameters Pub Date : 2008-09-22 DOI:10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170230054
M. W. Markel
{"title":"击败歌利亚:为什么叛乱会赢","authors":"M. W. Markel","doi":"10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170230054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. By Jeffrey Record. Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007.192 pages. $24.95. Beating Goliath attempts to answer an interesting and important question: Is there some dynamic at work that explains why insurgents are capable of defeating larger, stronger powers? As a historian, this reviewer is inclined to deny that an infinitely complex human endeavor like warfare can be reduced to a simple model, preferring instead to explain the results of particular conflicts in terms of contingent circumstances. That inclination may be misplaced. Recently, insurgents have prevailed over major powers often enough to make one suspect the existence of some underlying dynamic. Similar outcomes in such disparate circumstances seem unlikely to be the result of sheer coincidence. The mantra that \"every war is different\" is singularly unhelpful to statesmen who cannot hope to master the social intricacies of every possible arena of conflict, or to the military bureaucracy which develops forces for those wars. Jeffrey Record does us all a service by raising the question in such a concise and readable form. The author does a good job of assessing previous attempts to articulate that dynamic. Early on, he makes the point that most insurgencies fail, something we should all remember. The major schools of thought on why insurgencies succeed or fail include asymmetry of commitment (Andrew Mack), strategic interaction (Ivan Arreguin-Toft), and democracies' inability to employ sufficient brutality in an effort to win (Gil Merom). There are significant theoretical and empirical shortcomings with each theory, which Record ably and dispassionately identifies. The biggest shortcoming, in Record's view, is their failure to accord the factor of external support its due weight. As the author puts it, \"There are few if any examples of colonial or post-colonial insurgencies that prevailed without foreign help.\" He illustrates the importance of such help with brief but pithy analyses of prominent insurgent victories, including the American Revolution, the Spanish guerrillas against Napoleon, the Chinese Civil War, France and America in Indochina, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In each of these cases, external support sustained the insurgency and sometimes, as the French, Spanish, and Dutch war against Britain during the American Revolution, subsumed it. Record reminds us that external help can be indirect, often in the form of exerting military pressure on the stronger power in other theaters. These analyses amply support Record's argument that the role of external assistance has to be considered along with Arreguin-Toft's theory of strategic interaction and Mack's thesis of disparity of interests. Unfortunately for Record, his analysis of the current war in Iraq is a \"snapshot in time\" and no longer up to date. Beating Goliath was published in the spring of 2007, when conventional wisdom held that the situation there was an irredeemable mess. One need not contend that the war is virtually won to maintain that conditions have substantially changed. …","PeriodicalId":35242,"journal":{"name":"Parameters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win\",\"authors\":\"M. W. Markel\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170230054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. By Jeffrey Record. Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007.192 pages. $24.95. Beating Goliath attempts to answer an interesting and important question: Is there some dynamic at work that explains why insurgents are capable of defeating larger, stronger powers? As a historian, this reviewer is inclined to deny that an infinitely complex human endeavor like warfare can be reduced to a simple model, preferring instead to explain the results of particular conflicts in terms of contingent circumstances. That inclination may be misplaced. Recently, insurgents have prevailed over major powers often enough to make one suspect the existence of some underlying dynamic. Similar outcomes in such disparate circumstances seem unlikely to be the result of sheer coincidence. The mantra that \\\"every war is different\\\" is singularly unhelpful to statesmen who cannot hope to master the social intricacies of every possible arena of conflict, or to the military bureaucracy which develops forces for those wars. Jeffrey Record does us all a service by raising the question in such a concise and readable form. The author does a good job of assessing previous attempts to articulate that dynamic. Early on, he makes the point that most insurgencies fail, something we should all remember. The major schools of thought on why insurgencies succeed or fail include asymmetry of commitment (Andrew Mack), strategic interaction (Ivan Arreguin-Toft), and democracies' inability to employ sufficient brutality in an effort to win (Gil Merom). There are significant theoretical and empirical shortcomings with each theory, which Record ably and dispassionately identifies. The biggest shortcoming, in Record's view, is their failure to accord the factor of external support its due weight. As the author puts it, \\\"There are few if any examples of colonial or post-colonial insurgencies that prevailed without foreign help.\\\" He illustrates the importance of such help with brief but pithy analyses of prominent insurgent victories, including the American Revolution, the Spanish guerrillas against Napoleon, the Chinese Civil War, France and America in Indochina, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In each of these cases, external support sustained the insurgency and sometimes, as the French, Spanish, and Dutch war against Britain during the American Revolution, subsumed it. Record reminds us that external help can be indirect, often in the form of exerting military pressure on the stronger power in other theaters. These analyses amply support Record's argument that the role of external assistance has to be considered along with Arreguin-Toft's theory of strategic interaction and Mack's thesis of disparity of interests. Unfortunately for Record, his analysis of the current war in Iraq is a \\\"snapshot in time\\\" and no longer up to date. Beating Goliath was published in the spring of 2007, when conventional wisdom held that the situation there was an irredeemable mess. One need not contend that the war is virtually won to maintain that conditions have substantially changed. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":35242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parameters\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parameters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170230054\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parameters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170230054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

击败歌利亚:为什么叛乱会赢。杰弗里·Record著。杜勒斯,弗吉尼亚州:波托马克出版社,2007.192页。24.95美元。《击败歌利亚》试图回答一个有趣而重要的问题:是否有某种动力在起作用,解释了为什么叛乱分子能够击败更大、更强大的力量?作为一名历史学家,笔者倾向于否认像战争这样无比复杂的人类活动可以被简化为一个简单的模型,而倾向于用偶然情况来解释特定冲突的结果。这种倾向可能是错位的。最近,叛乱分子常常凌驾于大国之上,足以让人怀疑其中存在某种潜在的动力。在如此截然不同的情况下,类似的结果似乎不太可能是纯粹巧合的结果。“每一场战争都是不同的”这句口头禅,对于那些不能指望掌握每一个可能的冲突领域的社会复杂性的政治家来说,或者对于为这些战争发展力量的军事官僚来说,都是毫无帮助的。Jeffrey Record以如此简明易懂的形式提出了这个问题,这对我们所有人都是有益的。作者很好地评估了之前阐明这种动态的尝试。一开始,他就指出,大多数叛乱都失败了,这一点我们都应该记住。关于叛乱成功或失败的主要思想流派包括承诺的不对称(安德鲁·麦克),战略互动(伊万·阿雷金-托夫特),以及民主国家在争取胜利的过程中无法使用足够的暴力(吉尔·梅洛姆)。每一种理论都有重大的理论和经验上的缺陷,这是Record巧妙而冷静地指出的。在Record看来,最大的缺点是他们没有给予外部支持的因素应有的重视。正如作者所说,“没有外国帮助,殖民或后殖民时期的叛乱几乎没有任何例子。”在每一个例子中,外部支持维持了叛乱,有时,如法国、西班牙和荷兰在美国独立战争期间对英国的战争,将其纳入其中。历史记录提醒我们,外部帮助可以是间接的,通常是在其他战场上对更强大的国家施加军事压力。这些分析充分支持了Record的观点,即外部援助的作用必须与阿雷金-托夫特的战略互动理论和麦克的利益差异理论一起考虑。不幸的是,他对当前伊拉克战争的分析是“及时的快照”,不再是最新的。《击败歌利亚》出版于2007年春天,当时的传统观点认为,那里的情况是一个不可挽回的烂摊子。人们不必争辩说战争实际上已经胜利,就可以认为情况已经发生了实质性的变化。...
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
Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win
Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. By Jeffrey Record. Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007.192 pages. $24.95. Beating Goliath attempts to answer an interesting and important question: Is there some dynamic at work that explains why insurgents are capable of defeating larger, stronger powers? As a historian, this reviewer is inclined to deny that an infinitely complex human endeavor like warfare can be reduced to a simple model, preferring instead to explain the results of particular conflicts in terms of contingent circumstances. That inclination may be misplaced. Recently, insurgents have prevailed over major powers often enough to make one suspect the existence of some underlying dynamic. Similar outcomes in such disparate circumstances seem unlikely to be the result of sheer coincidence. The mantra that "every war is different" is singularly unhelpful to statesmen who cannot hope to master the social intricacies of every possible arena of conflict, or to the military bureaucracy which develops forces for those wars. Jeffrey Record does us all a service by raising the question in such a concise and readable form. The author does a good job of assessing previous attempts to articulate that dynamic. Early on, he makes the point that most insurgencies fail, something we should all remember. The major schools of thought on why insurgencies succeed or fail include asymmetry of commitment (Andrew Mack), strategic interaction (Ivan Arreguin-Toft), and democracies' inability to employ sufficient brutality in an effort to win (Gil Merom). There are significant theoretical and empirical shortcomings with each theory, which Record ably and dispassionately identifies. The biggest shortcoming, in Record's view, is their failure to accord the factor of external support its due weight. As the author puts it, "There are few if any examples of colonial or post-colonial insurgencies that prevailed without foreign help." He illustrates the importance of such help with brief but pithy analyses of prominent insurgent victories, including the American Revolution, the Spanish guerrillas against Napoleon, the Chinese Civil War, France and America in Indochina, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In each of these cases, external support sustained the insurgency and sometimes, as the French, Spanish, and Dutch war against Britain during the American Revolution, subsumed it. Record reminds us that external help can be indirect, often in the form of exerting military pressure on the stronger power in other theaters. These analyses amply support Record's argument that the role of external assistance has to be considered along with Arreguin-Toft's theory of strategic interaction and Mack's thesis of disparity of interests. Unfortunately for Record, his analysis of the current war in Iraq is a "snapshot in time" and no longer up to date. Beating Goliath was published in the spring of 2007, when conventional wisdom held that the situation there was an irredeemable mess. One need not contend that the war is virtually won to maintain that conditions have substantially changed. …
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
Parameters
Parameters Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Was the Russian Invasion of Ukraine a Failure of Western Deterrence? Contributor's Guidelines From the Editor in Chief Ukraine’s Lessons for Future Combat: Unmanned Aerial Systems and Deep Strike Parameters 2023-24 Winter Demi-Issue
×
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