The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation: Canada in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation: Canada in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan By Christopher Ankersen New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 248 pages. $100.00 [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Civil-military is hallmark of contemporary military operations in the twenty-first century. Yet, as Christopher Ankersen articulates in his book The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation, little has been written about this important concept/idea from theoretical perspective. Ankersen's book concentrates on civil-military from the military's point of view. According to the author, this focus is warranted for several reasons. First, while civil-military is the product of Trinitarian relationship within given society, it is largely carried out by only one of those actors--the military. Second, there are some indications that this may be beginning to change, but in the time period under examination (1999-2007), military cooperation is military practice. Ankersen's operational definition of civil-military is long one but worth quoting verbatim: All measures undertaken between commanders and national authorities, civil, military, and para-military, which concern the relationship between (military forces), the national governments and civil populations in an area where ... military forces are deployed or plan to be deployed, supported, or employed. Such measures would also include and co-ordination of activities between commanders and non-governmental or international agencies, organizations and authorities. While Ankersen's operational definition of civil-military is useful, there are problems with it. First, the term is value-laden one, in that it assumes degree of or partnership that is by no means universally present. (3) Second, the term connotes collaboration or coordination of, not necessarily direct involvement in, range of activities. Ankersen's The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation most important contribution to the civil-military debate is his Clausewitzian framework. By examining Canada's civil-military efforts in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan through the lens of Clausewitz's Remarkable Trinity, Ankersen shows that military action is the product of influences from the government, the Armed Forces, and the people at home. As Clausewitz pointed out in his seminal work On War, a theory that ignores any of them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone it would be totally useless. Ankersen also argues that, Clausewtiz tells us that war (and by extension, all military operations) is not purely military activity. Rather, it is the result of inputs from all aspects of state. The people contribute passion; the government provided direction; and the military applies its skill within the realm of chance to affect result. (69) In chapter 5 (The People); chapter 6 (The Government); and chapter 7 (the Military), Ankersen examines each of the three elements of the Clausewitzian holy trinity. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".