From the Editors

International coalitions and partnerships remain a staple of international security in the modern era, particularly for states in uncertain security environments with constrained resources. ¹ In this issue's lead article, Magnus Petersson and Hakon Lunde Saxi of the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies examine the alliance policies of smaller powers in the Cold War and post-Cold War periods. ‘Shifted Roles: Explaining Danish and Norwegian Alliance Strategy 1949—2009’ looks at the alliance roles and strategies of Norway and Denmark as part of the NATO alliance. The authors stress the importance of proximity to the Soviet Union (now Russia) and the role of domestic politics in explaining the differences between the two states in living up to Cold War NATO commitments and later in agreeing to participate in out of area operations in a post-Cold War world.

Interest in maritime warfare, and particularly anti-commerce campaigns, has increased in the last two years, primarily in the context of strategies for persuading or defeating Chinese aggression in the Pacific Rim. Richard Hammond, of the University of Wolverhampton, contributes to this debate with his assessment of British policy and strategy in World War II. ‘British Policy on Total Maritime Warfare and the Anti-Shipping Campaign in the Mediterranean, 1940--1944’ examines the evolution of British efforts from an initially constrained approach hoping to maintain global adherence to interwar norms into what he refers to as ‘a unique combined arms offensive’. Britain's adaptation to a changing environment and a protracted war offer important insights for analysts considering ‘total maritime warfare’ in the future – whatever form that warfare may take. ²

Students of history recognize the importance of individuals in shaping events, but often fail to consider the role of individuals in shaping the historical record of those events. Ken Young, of King's College London, examines the importance of Lewis Strauss in the historiography of the Cold War, and in particular of the US decision to pursue thermonuclear weapons. In ‘The Hydrogen Bomb, Lewis L. Strauss, and the Writing of Nuclear History’, Young examines the importance of Strauss not only in the decision process itself, but also in the way that decision process was portrayed after the fact. As Young notes: ‘Were it not for Strauss and his journalist allies, it is unlikely that the narrative of a reluctant, foot-dragging science community, organized in secret cabals and orchestrated by Oppenheimer against the visionary Teller would have gained popular credence.’ He also notes, however, that if Strauss’ version had not gained significant attention, then the actors would have been less likely to speak openly to historians about their views and perspectives.

Continuing concern over Iran and Syria demonstrates that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and particularly of nuclear weapons remains a major international priority. Sébastien Miraglia, of the Department of Civil-Military Relations at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, examines specific difficulties new nuclear states face once their weapons are actually developed. ‘Deadly or Impotent? Nuclear Command and Control in Pakistan’ assesses the problems that Pakistan faces in creating reliable and flexible command and control (C2) structures. He notes the significant barrier Pakistan's civil-military relations and domestic politics pose in creating a command and control system with civilian control, and the potential destabilizing role that military autonomy might play in an atmosphere of rising tensions. ³ He concludes that the characteristics of Pakistan's C2 structure provides for safe operations in peacetime, but is vulnerable to inadvertent or unauthorized nuclear release when deploying. This increases the risk of escalation and/or loss of control of weapons during the early stages of a crisis – a possibility that should affect the responses of the US and international community in times of potential friction in the subcontinent.

Our final submission is an article and interchange on the issue of national operational styles in war. T.W. Brocades Zaalberg, of the Netherlands Institute of Military History, opens the dialogue with a critique of the concept of a Dutch ‘style’ of counterinsurgency (COIN). ‘The Use and Abuse of the “Dutch Approach” to Counterinsurgency’ argues that the evidence for a unique Dutch approach to COIN rooted in national culture and the historical Indonesia experience is dubious, and that proponents of this assessment have distorted history for domestic political purposes. Joseph Soeters of the Netherlands Defence Academy and Tilburg University counters in ‘Do Distinct (National) Operational Styles of Conflict Resolution Exist?’ Soeters argues that dismissing the notion of national style may be premature, and certainly deserves further study. Zaalberg then replies in ‘The Pitfalls of Cross-National Comparison in Conflict Research’. He agrees that there is important room for study of culture and national behavior, but argues that ‘true causal links between on the one hand strategic culture and the resulting strategic narratives – the way that conflicts are presented or ‘framed’ – and actual tactical behaviour by (military) personnel on the ground need yet to be established in future research’. This issue of national style and strategic culture, particularly in irregular warfare and conflict termination, remains a topic of great interest and attention. ⁴

The team at the Journal of Strategic Studies would like to thank our readers, reviewers, and contributors. With your support, the Journal of Strategic Studies continues to publish an expanding range of relevant and scholarly articles, to encourage and enhance interdisciplinary study and debate, and to increase its reputation as the leading journal in the field of Strategic Studies.

Notes

1 Steven E. Lobell, ‘Bringing Balancing Back In: Britain's Targeted Balancing, 1936--1939’, Journal of Strategic Studies 35/6 (Nov./Dec. 2012), 747--73; Dag Henriksen, ‘Inflexible Response: Diplomacy, Airpower and the Kosovo Crisis, 1998--1999’, Journal of Strategic Studies 31/6 (Nov./Dec. 2008), 825--58; Philip G. Dwyer, ‘Self-Interest versus the Common Cause: Austria, Prussia and Russia against Napoleon’, Journal of Strategic Studies 31/4 (July/Aug. 2008), 605--32.

2 Sean Mirski, ‘Stranglehold: The Context, Conduct and Consequences of an American Naval Blockade of China’, Journal of Strategic Studies 36/3 (May/June 2013), 385--421; Evan Braden Montgomery, ‘Reconsidering a Naval Blockade of China: A Response to Mirski’, Journal of Strategic Studies 36/4 (July/Aug. 2013), 615--23; Duncan Redford, ‘Inter and Intra-Service Rivalries in the Battle of the Atlantic’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/6 (Nov./Dec. 2009), 899--928.

3 C. Christine Fair, ‘Feroz Khan, Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb’, Journal of Strategic Studies 36/4 (July/Aug. 2013), 624--30 and Feroz Hassan Khan, ‘Response to C. Christine Fair’, Journal of Strategic Studies 36/4 (July/Aug. 2013), 630--4; C. Christine Fair and Shuja Nawaz, ‘The Changing Pakistan Army Officer Corps’, Journal of Strategic Studies 34/1 (Jan./Feb. 2011), 63--94; Tom Sauer, ‘A Second Nuclear Revolution/ From Nuclear Primacy to Post-Existential Deterrence’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/5 (Sept./Oct. 2009), 745--67.

4 Jan Angstrom and Jan Willem Honig, ‘Regaining Strategy: Small Powers, Strategic Culture, and Escalation in Afghanistan’, Journal of Strategic Studies 35/5 (Sept./Oct. 2012), 663--87; Martin Kitzen, ‘Close Encounters of the Tribal Kind: The Implementation of Co-option as a Tool for De-Escalation of Conflict – The Case of the Netherlands in Afghanistan's Uruzgan Province’, Journal of Strategic Studies 35/5 (Sept./Oct. 2012), 713--34; Bruno C. Reis, ‘The Myth of British Minimum Force in Counterinsurgency Campaigns during Decolonisation (1945-1970)’, Journal of Strategic Studies 34/2 (March/April 2011), 245--279; Theo Farrell and Sten Rynning, ‘NATO's Transformation Gaps: Transatlantic Differences and the War in Afghanistan’, Journal of Strategic Studies 33/5 (Sept./Oct. 2010), 673--99; Jacqueline Newmyer, ‘The Revolution in Military Affairs with Chinese Characteristics’, Journal of Strategic Studies 33/4 (July/Aug. 2010), 483--504; Ljell Inge Bjerga and Torunn Laugen Haaland, ‘Development of Military Doctrine: The Particular Case of Small States’, Journal of Strategic Studies 33/4 (July/Aug. 2010), 505-33; Rudra Chaudhuri, ‘Why Culture Matters: Revisiting the Sino-Indian Border War of 1962’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/6 (Nov./Dec. 2009), 841--69; General Sir Mike Jackson GCB CBE DSO DL, ‘British Counter-Insurgency’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/3 (May/June 2009), 347--51; Paul Dixon, ‘Hearts and Minds’? British Counter-Insurgency from Malaya to Iraq’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/3 (May/June 2009), 353-381; Karl Hack, ‘The Malayan Emergency as Counter-Insurgency Paradigm’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/4 May/June 2009), 383-414. Gil-li Vardi, ‘Pounding Their Feet’: Israeli Military Culture as Reflected in Early IDF History’, Journal of Strategic Studies 31/2 (March/April 2008), 295--324.