Civil Military Relations and Shared Responsibility A Four Nation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY: A FOUR-NATION STUDY Dale R. Herspring Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University' Press, 2013 368 pages, hardback, $65.00Dale Herspring's book comes at a perfect moment as we are witnessing instances of healthy frictions in American civil-military relations (CMR). This time bone of contention is Obama administration's strategy towards Afghanistan and ISIS threat in Syria. Herspring, a reputable scholar of CMR, broaches subject by inviting us to stop employing a binary view of separate and military spheres and competences. He asks his readers to rather pay attention to the interactive nature of political-military decision-making process (p.3) because it is too simplistic to think of civilian-military relationship in terms of a zero-sum game as if civilians win and generals lose when their preferences diverge. This is why he puts forward notion of civilian direction instead of civilian/political control. He employs a new conceptual framework of shared responsibility in a comparative study of four cases-United States, Germany, Canada, and Russia-where conflicts between civilians and soldiers occur but dictum of civilian has been accepted and upheld.The book deserves special praise in terms of its purposeful effort to consider civil-military nexus from point of view of men in uniform, as against treatment of military officers as objects or agents. This perspective may help politicians glean a few important lessons from conditions, as provided by author, to elicit military's most effective participation in an understanding of shared responsibility. The method employed by author warrants compliments as well, since lack of comparative case studies in CMR literature has been a nagging problem. Unfortunately, students of CMR rarely studied more than two cases comparatively to come up with more comprehensive generalizations and build stronger hypotheses.1 Janowitz's assessment regarding absence of comparative studies of armies in Muslim world is still valid and is indicative of larger problem in literature. According to him, scholarship on Muslim military institutions has been mainly descriptive... field of Middle Eastern studies generally is characterized by particular outstanding monographic contributions and a growing body of highly competent writings. Analytic and comparative studies have not been pursued with vigor or intensity.. .2There are, however, a few issues that may be raised. The Russian case studied in light of shared responsibility appears problematic for two reasons. The author warns in early pages of book that notion of shared responsibility may only be applied to countries where supremacy is firmly established. Yet, Herspring does not show reader that it was so in time of Soviets in order to justify his selection of Russian case. Add to that coup attempt in Russian Federation in 1991, in which the military played a critical role, one that was far more important than Trudeau's use of CF [Canadian Forces] in Quebec in 1970 (p. 212). That coup attempt and following events during Yeltsin and Putin periods may cast doubt on claims of unquestioned superiority in Russia. The selection of post-Cold War period to study Russian case as opposed to covering rest of cases (Germany, Canada, and U.S.) from aftermath of World War II requires justification as well. If military largely stayed out of politics and embraced supremacy while Soviet generals resisted or party interference in what senior officers considered military decisions (p.263) at same time, we are left in dark as to why Herspring omitted discussing CMR in Soviets during Cold War? It may be just because of practical concerns, but it still needs to be stated. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».