RESEARCH PAPER
ON THE VARIABLE OF STRATEGIC CULTURE: MODUS OPERANDI OF MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Gen. Jonas Žemaitis Lithuanian Military Academy, Political Science Department
Online publish date: 2019-03-07
Publish date: 2019-03-07
 
Security and Defence Quarterly 2019;23(1):97–125
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The research subject of this article is the variable of strategic culture that has been subjected to some academic inertia since the Cold War period. The aim of this article is to define practical implications of the strategic culture through the prism of the neoclassical realist theory. It supports the argument that military interventional precedents in the Middle East since 2011 have been revealing adaptive considerations of the strategic culture as an intervening variable that implies interventional military decisions by the U.S. and its coalition partners.

The first part of the article defines the precise role of this intervening variable as military interventional precedents are researched. This task is conducted by defining the general understanding of interventional initiatives, revealing structured assumptions of the neoclassical realist theory, and reconsidering the role of the strategic culture within that theoretical framework.

The second part of the article shifts the attention to supportive empirical considerations regarding the strategic culture and perception of operational ideas – two specifi cally highlighted neoclassical realist assumptions. The article discloses that Western strategic culture is a changing intervening variable with a different level of permissiveness. A changing continuum of permissiveness is implied by interventional experiences that shape perception of the structural environment and dictate preferences for the power scale of interventional decisions. From this, the level of the structural environment’s permissiveness is defined. This permissiveness is associated with capabilities for implementing political objectives without further escalations of military power. Once the systemic environment becomes more permissive, the possibility of activating military intervention of various force-escalation becomes more conceivable.
 
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Alden, C., Aran, A., 2012. Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Routledge, London.
 
2.
Barr, K., Mintz, A., 2017. “Did Groupthink or Polythink Derail the 2016 Raqqa Off ensive? The impact of group dynamics on strategic and tactical level decision making”, Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, February 2017, [online] Available from: https://www.idc.ac.il/en/schoo... ensive.pdf [Accessed 14 Aug 2018].
 
3.
Booth, K., 1990. The Concept of Strategic Culture Affirmed. In C. G. Jacobsen (ed.) Strategic Power: USA/USSR, pp. 121-128Palgrave Macmillan, London.
 
4.
Chivvis, C., 2015. Strategic and Political Overview of the Intervention. In K. Mueller (ed.), Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War, pp. 11-42. RAND Corporation.
 
5.
Clarke, M., Combat Airpower and Political Effect. Lecture delivered at multinational conference “Airpower and National Security”, Riga, Latvian National DefenseAcademy, 9 March 2018.
 
6.
Clausewitz, C., 2006. Selections from On War. Sweetwater Press.
 
7.
Cook, S., 2017. False Dawn: Protest, Violence and Democracy in the New Middle East. Oxford University Press, New York.
 
8.
Connaughton, R., 2008. A Brief History of Modern Warfare. Robinson, London.
 
9.
Danilovic, V., 2003. The Rational-Cognitive Debate and Poliheuristic Theory. In A. Mintz (ed.) Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making, pp. 127-138. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
 
10.
Desch, M., 2002. Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters. International Security, 27 (2), pp. 5-47.
 
11.
Dueck, C., 2015. The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today. Oxford University Press, New York.
 
12.
Echevarria, A., 2014. Reconsidering the American Way of War. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC.
 
13.
Frowe, H., 2017. War in Political Philosophy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. [online] Available from: politics.oxfordre.com [Accessed 11 Nov 2017].
 
14.
Galula, D., 1964. Counter-Insurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.
 
15.
Goldberg, J., 2016. The Obama Doctrine. The Atlantic, April, [online] Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag..., [Accessed 25 Apr 2016].
 
16.
Gordon, M., Trainor, B., 2006. Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.Pantheon Books, New York.
 
17.
Hoffman, S., 2006. The Debate about Intervention. In P. Williams, D. Goldstein, J. Shafritz (eds) Classical Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations, pp. 667-670. Thomson Wadsworth, CA.
 
18.
Johnston, A., 1995. Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security, 19 (4), pp. 32-64.
 
19.
Kagan, F., Kagan, K., Carafella, J., et al., 2016. Competing Visions for Syria and Iraq: The Myth of Anti-ISIS Grand Coalition. Institute for the Study of War, Washington, D.C.
 
20.
Kitchen, N., 2010. Systemic Pressures and Domestic Ideas: A Neoclassical Realist Model of Grand Strategy Formation. Review of International Studies, 36, pp. 117-143.
 
21.
Lambeth, B., 2017. American and NATO Airpower Applied: From Deny Flight to Inherent Resolve. In J. Olsen (ed) Airpower Applied: US, NATO and Israeli Combat Experience, pp. 124-204. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.
 
22.
Lehmann, I., 2009. Managing Public Information in a Mediation Process. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC.
 
23.
Lewis, B., 1993. Islam and the West. Oxford University Press, New York.
 
24.
Lewis, B., 2011. The End of Modern History in the Middle East. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA.
 
25.
Lock, E., 2011. Strategic Culture Theory: What, Why, and How. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, [online] Available from: politics.oxfordre.com [Accessed 11 Nov 2017].
 
26.
McCants, W., 2015. The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
 
27.
Michaels, J., 2014. Able but Not Willing: A Critical Assessment of NATO’s Libya Intervention. In K. Engelbrekt, M. Mohlin, C. Wagnsson (eds) Th e NATO Intervention in Libya: Lessons Learned from the Campaign. Routledge, London and New York.
 
28.
Mintz, A., ed., 2003. Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
 
29.
Mintz, A., Wayne, C., 2016. Polythink Syndrome: U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and ISIS. Stanford University Press, CA.
 
30.
Porter, P., 2009. Military Orientalism: Eastern War Through Western Eyes. Columbia University Press, New York.
 
31.
Quintana, E., Eyal, J., (eds), 2015. Inherently Unresolved: Th e Military Operation Against ISIS. Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies, London.
 
32.
Rathbun, B., 2008. A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism. Security Studies, 17, pp. 294-321.
 
33.
Rose, G., 2010. How Wars End. Simon & Schuster, New York.
 
34.
Rose, G., 1998. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51 (1), pp. 144-172.
 
35.
Ripsman, N., Taliaferro, J., Lobell, S., 2016. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. Oxford University Press, New York.
 
36.
Sadat, K. and McChrystal, S., “Staying the Course in Afghanistan: How to Fight the Longest War”, Foreign Aff airs, vol. 96, no. 6, November/December 2017, p. 2-8.
 
37.
Skocpol, T., 2015. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 
38.
Sky, E., 2017. Mission Still Not Accomplished in Iraq. Foreign Aff airs, 96 (4), pp. 9-15.
 
39.
Snyder, J., 1977. Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations. RAND Corporation, [online] Available from: https://www.rand.org/content/d... [Accessed 19 Oct 2018].
 
40.
Taliaferro, J., 2006. State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource – Extractive State. Security Studies, 15 (3), pp. 464-495.
 
41.
Valasek, T., 2011. What Libya Sais About the Future of the Transatlantic Alliance. Center for European Reform Essays, [online] Available from: http://www.cer.eu/sites/defaul... les/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/essay_libya_july11-146.pdf [Accessed 5 May].
 
42.
Zyla, B., 2015. Untying the Knot? Assessing the compatibility of the American and European strategic culture under President Obama. Innovation: Th e European Journal of Social Science Research, 2015, pp. 104-126.
 
eISSN:2544-994X
ISSN:2300-8741