8 Critiques of Strategic Studies and 8 Responses

Strategic Studies, as a field of intellectual inquiry, has garnered both praise and criticism over the years. It is situated within the broader realm of social sciences, strategic studies occupies a central position between security studies and international relations. Scholars like Buzan argue that the boundaries between international relations and strategic studies are blurred, with the former encompassing the latter. However, there is an ongoing struggle to safeguard the uniqueness and importance of strategic studies from encroachment by neighbouring disciplines, such as national security studies.

Critique 1: Lack of Intellectual Rigor and Overemphasis on Empiricism

Critics argue that strategic studies lack intellectual curiosity and primarily rely on empiricism, neglecting the potential for theoretical exploration and innovation. They contend that the field is too focused on historical data and experiences, limiting its ability to engage in forward-thinking intellectual inquiries.

Response

Proponents of strategic studies counter this critique by emphasizing the field's grounding in real-world phenomena. They argue that strategic studies are not merely an application of theories but have a strong empirical foundation rooted in social and existential realities. This empirical approach allows for a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances of strategic decision-making.

Example

About the Russian-Ukrainian issue, strategic studies focus on the historical context of Russia-Ukraine relations, the military capabilities of both nations, and the economic implications of the war. While these empirical factors are undoubtedly important, they may not fully capture the complexity of the situation. Critics advocating for more intellectual rigor may argue that this empirical approach neglects potential theoretical exploration and innovation. For example, they may suggest that the conflict could be better understood through the lens of political theory, sociology, or even psychology. They might argue for a more forward-thinking approach that considers potential future scenarios and their implications, rather than solely relying on past data and experiences. In this way, the Russia-Ukraine war serves as an example of a geopolitical issue that reflects the critique of a lack of intellectual rigor and overemphasis on empiricism in strategic studies. It highlights the need for a balance between empirical analysis and theoretical exploration in understanding complex geopolitical issues.

Critique 2: the dilution of the term "strategy" itself

Critics argue that contemporary usage of the word strategy often divorces it from its military origins, rendering it interchangeable with policy or business tactics. This semantic shift has weakened the conceptual clarity and precision associated with the term, according to these authors. They advocate for a restoration of the original meaning and context of strategy, particularly in political and military contexts.

Response

Restoring the original meaning of strategy, with its emphasis on military preparedness and the careful consideration of force application, would provide a clearer framework for analyzing and addressing such complex geopolitical situations. By avoiding semantic ambiguity and employing strategy in its proper context, policymakers can enhance communication, reduce the risk of miscalculation, and develop more effective strategies for maintaining regional stability.

Example

A contemporary geopolitical issue where this critique becomes relevant is the strategic ambiguity surrounding the defense policies of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. Critics argue that the U.S. policy of maintaining strategic ambiguity regarding its response to potential conflicts involving Taiwan has created uncertainty and heightened tensions in the region. This ambiguity leaves room for misinterpretation and increases the risk of unintended escalation, as parties involved may make assumptions about the U.S. level of commitment and willingness to intervene.

Critique 3: The Role of Strategists and Policymakers

Advocates of the critique centred on the relation between strategists and policymakers contend that strategists should have the freedom to employ military means to achieve political objectives, with transparent communication from the government. The best methods for accomplishing these objectives should be determined by military leaders. However, critics argue that strategic decisions must align with political will and adhere to policy directives. The interplay between strategy and policy formation is complex, with the former serving as a bridge between national policy and the tactical execution of war.

Response

The critique highlights the tension between the autonomy of strategists in implementing military tactics and the need for alignment with political objectives and policy directives. While strategists require a certain degree of freedom to make tactical decisions based on their expertise, it is essential for strategic decisions to remain grounded in political will and policy frameworks. By recognizing the need for both strategic autonomy and political alignment, policymakers and military leaders can develop more effective strategies that balance the requirements of military operations with the broader political context. This approach enhances the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes and minimizes the risk of unintended consequences.

Example

The U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan provides an illustrative example of the importance of aligning strategic actions with political objectives. Initially, the U.S. military achieved significant success in toppling the Taliban regime. However, the subsequent nation-building efforts and counterinsurgency operations faced challenges due to a lack of clear political objectives and a misalignment between military tactics and long-term political goals. To address these issues, the U.S. adopted a revised strategy that focused on a more nuanced approach, emphasizing the protection of civilians, the training of Afghan security forces, and the promotion of governance and development. This revised strategy better aligned military actions with political objectives, resulting in improved effectiveness and a more sustainable path towards stability in Afghanistan, although, everything changed with the termination of the mission.

Critique 4: Adaptation to Change

Strategic studies face the challenge of adapting to rapidly changing geopolitical landscapes. The emergence of non-state actors, shifts in power dynamics, and the impact of globalization demand a more inclusive approach. Critics urge strategic studies to move beyond the state-centric perspective and incorporate non-state actors in a structured manner. Additionally, the need for swift adaptations in strategy, particularly in response to unconventional warfare and terrorism, highlights the importance of agility and flexibility in the discipline.

Response

Strategic studies must adapt to these changing dynamics by considering the interests, objectives, and strategies of these various actors to understand the evolving regional landscape. By embracing a more inclusive approach that incorporates non-state actors and adapting to swift geopolitical changes, strategic studies can provide valuable insights and policy recommendations for addressing complex challenges in the Middle East and other regions.

Example

The Middle East provides a compelling example of the challenges and opportunities associated with adapting to rapid geopolitical changes. The region has witnessed the emergence of non-state actors, such as the Islamic State, which have significantly influenced regional and global security. Strategic studies must account for the complex interactions between state and non-state actors, including their motivations, capabilities, and strategies, to develop effective responses to emerging threats. The region has experienced rapid shifts in power dynamics, with the rise of regional powers like Iran and Turkey, as well as the evolving role of the United States.

Critique 5: Geopolitical-Cultural Biases

Critics highlight the Western-centric bias prevalent in strategic studies. The discipline's focus on Europe and the United States, its limited theoretical paradigms (such as realism), and its historical emphasis on military monopolization have drawn reproach. Scholars from emerging economies often find little resonance with these restrictive doctrines. The lack of a universal objective and the underrepresentation of voices from diverse regions undermine the discipline's global relevance.

Response

Strategic studies practitioners acknowledge the need to address geopolitical-cultural biases and strive for greater inclusivity. Efforts are being made to broaden the scope of research and incorporate diverse perspectives from different regions. This involves recognizing and valuing the contributions of scholars from emerging economies, as well as incorporating their theoretical frameworks and empirical insights into the field. To achieve this, strategic studies practitioners are engaging in collaborative research projects, organizing international conferences and workshops, and promoting the publication of scholarly works from diverse backgrounds. By fostering a more inclusive environment, strategic studies can enhance its global relevance and produce more comprehensive and nuanced analyses of geopolitical issues.

Example

The Asia-Pacific region is an example of where the convergence of geopolitical, economic, and technological factors is shaping strategic dynamics. The region has witnessed the rise of China as a major economic and military power, challenging the traditional dominance of the United States. This shift in power dynamics has led to increased competition and tensions in the region, particularly in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. There has been also an increased activity of multilateral institutions and regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to provide platforms for dialogue and cooperation on various issues, including security, trade, and development.

Critique 6: Ethical Considerations

Critics raise concerns about the ethical dimensions of strategic studies. The use of military force, particularly in the context of intervention and preemptive strikes, has ethical implications that need to be carefully examined. Critics argue for a more robust integration of ethical frameworks within strategic studies to guide decision-making processes and ensure responsible and justifiable actions.

Response

The critique rightly emphasizes the importance of ethical considerations in strategic studies. The use of military force, intervention, and preemptive strikes raises complex ethical dilemmas that require careful examination and ethical frameworks to guide decision-making processes. Strategic studies practitioners acknowledge this responsibility and are taking steps to integrate ethical considerations more robustly into their research and analysis.

Example

One area where ethical considerations are particularly relevant is counterterrorism. The fight against terrorism often involves difficult choices, including the use of force, surveillance, and detention. To ensure that these actions are conducted ethically and in accordance with international law, strategic studies practitioners can employ ethical frameworks such as:

Just War Theory: This framework assesses the morality of using military force based on criteria such as just cause, proportionality, and discrimination. It provides a set of principles to guide decision-making and ensure that military actions are justified and proportionate to the threat posed.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P): This principle, adopted by the United Nations, emphasizes the responsibility of states to protect their population.

Critique 7: Insufficient Attention to Terrorism and Urban Conflict

Critics argue that strategic studies have not adequately addressed the challenges posed by terrorism and urban conflict. They contend that the field has traditionally focused on conventional warfare and state-on-state conflicts, neglecting the complexities of asymmetric warfare and the unique dynamics of urban environments.

Response

Strategic studies scholars acknowledge the importance of terrorism and urban conflict and emphasize that these areas have received significant attention in recent years. Research on terrorist organizations as political actors, the strategies employed by non-state groups, and the implications of urban warfare have expanded the scope of strategic studies to encompass these critical contemporary issues.

Example

The city of Baghdad has been a focal point of urban conflict and terrorism for many years, with numerous attacks carried out by non-state actors. Similarly, the city of Aleppo has seen intense urban warfare during the Syrian Civil War. Despite the significant impact of these conflicts on global geopolitics, critics argue that strategic studies have not adequately addressed these issues. They contend that the field has been too focused on state-on-state conflicts and has neglected the complexities of asymmetric warfare and urban conflict.

Critique 8: Limited Cross-Pollination with Other Disciplines

Critics suggest that strategic studies have been resistant to cross-pollination with other disciplines, particularly security studies. This isolation, they argue, has resulted in theoretical sterility and a lack of innovative thinking.

Response

Proponents of strategic studies highlight the increasing interdisciplinary nature of the field. They point to collaborations with disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and economics, which have enriched strategic analyses by incorporating insights from diverse perspectives. This cross-disciplinary approach enhances the field's ability to address complex strategic challenges.

Example

Climate change is a complex issue that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. It involves aspects of environmental science, economics, politics, sociology, and more. However, strategic studies have often been criticized for their limited cross-pollination with these other disciplines. For instance, the geopolitical implications of climate change are vast and varied, affecting everything from international relations to national security. However, these implications are often not fully explored in strategic studies, which tend to focus more narrowly on traditional geopolitical issues. Polar regions are experiencing the largest temperature changes, with the Arctic heating up about twice as quickly as the global average. Polar regions are also becoming potential trade routes because of the melting of the ice cap, and, traditionally, they have been a matter of territorial disputes among a large community of claimant states.

Material I have used

Books

Buzan, b. (1991), An Introduction to Strategic Studies – Military Technology and International Relations, Basingstoke: McMillan

Collins, J. M., (1921), Military strategy: principles, practices, and historical perspectives Washington, DC: Brassey's 1st ed

Strachan, H. (2014) The Direction of War:?Contemporary Strategy in Historical Perspective,?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

?

Chapters in Books

Buzan, B. Change and Insecurity: A Critique of Strategic Studies' in (1981) Buzan B. and Jones, J. R. (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension, London: Pinter

Jakobsen P. V, Coercive Diplomacy: Countering War-Threatening Crises and Armed Conflicts, in (2013), Collins A. (editor), Contemporary Security Studies fourth edition, Oxford: University Press

Moodie, M.,?in (2009) Arnas, N. (editor), Fighting Chance: Global Trends and Shocks in the National Security Environment, Washington:?Potomac Books

Smith, E., The traditional routes to security - Realism and Liberalism, in (2015) Hough, P. (editor) International security studies: theory and practice

?

Journals

Blatt, C. F. (2017), Operational success, strategic failure: Assessing the 2007 Iraq Troop Surge. (After 15 Years of Conflict)(Operation Fardh al-Qanoon), Parameters, 2017, Vol.47 (1)

Bull H. (1968), Strategic Studies and Its Critics, World Politics, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Jul., 1968), pp. 593-605 Published by: Cambridge University Press

Buzan, B. (1999) ‘Change and insecurity’ reconsidered, Contemporary Security Policy, 20:3, 1-17, DOI: 10.1080/13523269908404228

Cockayne, J. (2013) Chasing Shadows, The RUSI Journal, 158:2, 10-24, DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2013.787729

Darby, P, (2003), Reconfiguring "the International": Knowledge Machines, Boundaries, and Exclusions, Alternatives 28 (2003), 141-166

Domingo, F. C. (2015), The Problem of Expertise in Strategic Studies, Strategic Analysis August 2015

Duyvesteyn, I., Worrall, E. J. (2017) Global strategic studies: a manifesto, Journal of Strategic Studies, 40:3, 347-357, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2016.1269228

Ellis S, Futter A. (2015) Iranian Nuclear Aspirations and Strategic Balancing in the Middle East, Middle East Policy, Vol. XXII, No. 2, Summer 2015

Evans, M (2016), Future war in cities: Urbanization’s challenge to strategic studies in the 21st century, International Review of the Red Cross, 98 (1), 37–51. doi:10.1017/S1816383117000066

Honig, J. W. (2016), The Tyranny of Doctrine and Modern Strategy: Small (and Large) States in a Double Bind, Journal of Strategic Studies, 39:2, 261-279, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2015.1115036

Neumann, P. R. and Smith, M. L. R. (2005) Strategic terrorism: The framework and its fallacies, Journal of Strategic Studies, 28: 4, 571- 595

Newman, D, Paasi, A. (1998) Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary Narratives in Political Geography, Progress in Human Geography 22,2

Sagan, S. D. Waltz, K. N. (2010), Is nuclear zero the best option? The Great Debate, The National Interest, Sept-Oct, 2010, Issue 109

Sauer, T. (2009) A Second Nuclear Revolution: From Nuclear Primacy to Post-Existential Deterrence, Journal of Strategic Studies, 32:5, 745-767, DOI: 10.1080/01402390903189402

Vennesson, P. (2017), Is strategic studies narrow? Critical security and the misunderstood scope of strategy, Journal of Strategic Studies, 40:3, 358-391, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2017.1288108

?

Other Sources

HM Government, National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 - A Secure and Prosperous United Kingdom, OGL Crown Copyright 2015

Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard, OJ L 251/1 16.9.2016

Robinson, L., Miller, D. P., Gordon, J. I. V. Decker, J., Schwille, M., Raphael S. Cohen, S., R., (2014), European Security and counter Terrorism, RAND study, Improving Strategic competence

The Schengen Acquis as referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999, OJ L 176, 10.7.1999