"Caveats Emptor: Multilateralism at War in Afghanistan"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been as the most robust alliance in the world, with deeply institutionalized processes, yet it has faced significant problems in running the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Specifically, the coalition effort has been plagued by the problem of caveats. Caveats place restrictions on what coalition militaries can and cannot do, and thereby create resentment within the coalition from countries that must bear a greater share of the burden as a result. In this article, we review key limitations facing military contingents operating in Afghanistan. We consider the sources of these restrictions and evaluate several explanations of the varying level of discretion experienced by deployed military commanders. We focus particular attention on the evolution of Canadian caveats to illustrate the dynamics in play and to generate hypotheses for future research. Finally, we address several strategies that commanders have used to diminish the effects of caveats. We conclude with implications for both research and policy. Acknowledgements: The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has funded much of this project as has the Canada Research Chair program, including the very helpful research assistance of Ora Szekely, Sarah-Myriam Martin-Brule, Mark Mattner, Lauren Van Den Berg, and Bronwen De Sena. Anne Therrien and Jamie Gibson of the Security Defence Forum, a unit of the Directorate of Public Policy within Canada's Department of National Defence, have been instrumental in setting up interviews with Canadian officers. We are very grateful for feedback we received when we presented earlier versions of this paper have been presented at Queen's University, Canada's Department of National Defence's Security and Defence Forum, the University of Ottawa, at the Canadian Political Science Association meeting in Vancouver, the International Studies Association meeting in San Francisco, and the American Political Science Association meeting in Chicago. Michael Tierney provided useful comments along the way.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".