The Experts below are selected from a list of 273 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Robert Albro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • writing culture doctrine public anthropology Military Policy and world making
    Perspectives on Politics, 2010
    Co-Authors: Robert Albro
    Abstract:

    concur with Michael Mosser that bridge-building between academic and Military Policy communities should be an important priority. I also agree that this is a challenging task. But my sense of why this is both important and challenging differs from Mosser s in some key respects. Despite qualifications along the way, Mosser's account suggests that academia has a particular responsibility to make itself legible and available to Military Policy makers, but not the other way around. As he explains, his topic grew from a project concerned about "whether the academy is asking militarily interesting questions." And he proceeds by thinking about how academic scholarship might be "more tightly integrated" with the doings of Military Policy and planning. Undertaking bridge-building by firstly asking how the US academy can be more effectively leveraged to support national security goals sets up a largely one-sided and unilateral engagement, where the burden is primarily on academia to explain itself to the Military Policy community, and probably to do so within a frame of reference sensible to the Policy crowd but not necessarily vice-versa. This sets up, in short, a scenario making it less likely for Policy makers to listen to what academics might be saying, particularly whenever this appears to complicate established agendas. From my point of view, the best mutual outcomes flow from a more balanced dialogue. This includes Policy makers taking academic frames at least as seriously when talking with them, so that greater clarity can be reached about how, and under what circumstances, scholarship might contribute to Policy concerns, but also when academic contributions might be inappropriate, irrelevant, or even impossible. Unlike Mosser, I also suggest that, however imperfectly, diverse forms of Military-academic engagement have been almost a permanent fixture in higher education since at

  • Writing Culture Doctrine: Public Anthropology, Military Policy, and World Making
    Perspectives on Politics, 2010
    Co-Authors: Robert Albro
    Abstract:

    I concur with Michael Mosser that bridge-building between academic and Military Policy communities should be an important priority. I also agree that this is a challenging task. But my sense of why this is both important and challenging differs from Mosser's in some key respects. Despite qualifications along the way, Mosser's account suggests that academia has a particular responsibility to make itself legible and available to Military Policy makers, but not the other way around. As he explains, his topic grew from a project concerned about “whether the academy is asking militarily interesting questions.” And he proceeds by thinking about how academic scholarship might be “more tightly integrated” with the doings of Military Policy and planning. Undertaking bridge-building by firstly asking how the US academy can be more effectively leveraged to support national security goals sets up a largely one-sided and unilateral engagement, where the burden is primarily on academia to explain itself to the Military Policy community, and probably to do so within a frame of reference sensible to the Policy crowd but not necessarily vice-versa. This sets up, in short, a scenario making it less likely for Policy makers to listen to what academics might be saying, particularly whenever this appears to complicate established agendas. From my point of view, the best mutual outcomes flow from a more balanced dialogue. This includes Policy makers taking academic frames at least as seriously when talking with them, so that greater clarity can be reached about how, and under what circumstances, scholarship might contribute to Policy concerns, but also when academic contributions might be inappropriate, irrelevant, or even impossible.

Stuart J. Kaufman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Organizational Politics and Change in Soviet Military Policy
    World Politics, 1994
    Co-Authors: Stuart J. Kaufman
    Abstract:

    This article uses two puzzles from the Brezhnev period to test competing models of Soviet Military Policy and of innovation in Military “doctrine.” An organizational model of Soviet Military Policy offers the best explanation of both cases: why the Soviet Union's Brezhnevera Military strategy contradicted the Politburo's priorities (to prevent any war from escalating to nuclear use) and why the Soviet Union agreed to the ABM treaty. The ABM case shows that civilian leaders can force change in Military “doctrine” when they have a Policy handle–a way of redefining the issue to remove it from the Military's exclusive area of competence. When civilians lack a Policy handle, as in the Military strategy case, they are unable to force innovation if the Military is unwilling. The Russian government now faces the task of finding effective Policy handles that will institutionalize civilian control of Military Policy. The fate of Russia's reforms may depend on it.

David F. Burrelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": Military Policy and the Law on Same-Sex Behavior
    2010
    Co-Authors: David F. Burrelli
    Abstract:

    This report describes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Military Policy, which holds that the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in same-sex acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of Military capability. Under this Policy, but not the law, service members are not to be asked about nor allowed to discuss their "same-sex orientation." This report also describes recent efforts by certain Members of Congress to amending this Policy.

  • “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior
    2010
    Co-Authors: David F. Burrelli
    Abstract:

    This report describes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Military Policy, which holds that the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in same-sex acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of Military capability. This report also describes recent efforts by certain Members of Congress to amending this Policy.

  • don t ask don t tell the law and Military Policy on same sex behavior
    2010
    Co-Authors: David F. Burrelli
    Abstract:

    This report describes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Military Policy, which holds that the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in same-sex acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of Military capability. This report also describes recent efforts by certain Members of Congress to amending this Policy.

  • Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues
    2005
    Co-Authors: David F. Burrelli, Charles V. Dale
    Abstract:

    This report discusses Policy towards homosexuals in the U.S. Military service. In 1993, new laws and regulations pertaining to homosexuals and U.S. Military service came into effect reflecting a compromise in Policy. This compromise, colloquially referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” holds that the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of Military capability. Service members are not to be asked about nor allowed to discuss their homosexuality. This compromise notwithstanding, the issue has remained politically contentious.

Eric A. Heinze - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy
    Perspectives on Politics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Eric A. Heinze
    Abstract:

    Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy. By William C. Martel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 436p. $35.00. With the United States currently fighting protracted wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the question of what it means to achieve victory in war has never been more important for U.S. foreign Policy. While Policymakers, scholars, and Military strategists have studied for millennia how to achieve victory in armed conflict, Victory in War seeks to provide an answer to a more fundamental question: What precisely is the meaning of victory in war and how do we know when victory is achieved? William C. Martel begins this book with the basic premise that there is currently no theory, framework, or set of organizing principles for understanding victory, yet paradoxically, “the implicit assumption [is] that the unalloyed purpose of [war] strategy is to achieve it” (p. 3). To address this glaring omission, the author sets out to develop a “pretheory” of victory, which entails the organization of principles about victory that can provide an analytic foundation for examining the concept of victory more systematically.

Patricia M. Shields - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.