From the editors

As this issue goes to print, the global security order faces a series of challenges. The territorial defeat of ISIS raises questions about the future size and scope of that organisation and emerging trends in combating and resolving transnational jihadist movements. ISIS’ reverses on the battlefield will conversely accelerate the erosion of the tenuous coalition that defeated it, and alliance dynamics may again influence the ongoing war in the Levant. Nuclear proliferation remains at the forefront of global attention, with the promise of new negotiations with North Korea and the challenge of new efforts to revise the Iran nuclear deal. This issue’s articles examine a range of concerns in the emerging security environment in 2018.

Ruike Xu and Wynn Rees of the University of Nottingham examine the unusual durability of some partnerships in the international system.¹ In ‘Comparing the Anglo-American and Israeli-American Special Relationships in the Obama Era: An Alliance Persistence Perspective’, they examine the impact of shared interests, sentiment and institutionalised security relations on each of these alliances. They theorise that the divergence of security interests in the Israeli–American case helps explain the tensions in that relationship during the Obama administration and assesses the likelihood of continuing divergence in the future.

Mark Erbel and Christopher Kinsey, of the Royal Military Academy and King’s College London respectively, focus on the logistics-strategy nexus in ‘Think Again: Reappraising Military Logistics and Its Centrality to Strategy and War’.² Analysing British military operations in the twenty-first century, they argue that logistics needs to be considered at every stage of geostrategic, operational and tactical analysis because of the stark constraints it imposes at all levels of warfare.

Stephen Tankel, of American University, examines Pakistan’s complex relationships with the dozens of militant groups located in or adjacent to the state. In ‘Beyond the Double Game: Lessons from Pakistan’s Approach to Islamist Insurgency’, he develops a taxonomy of groups based on sectarian alignment, loci of interest and utility to the state which helps explain when and why the Pakistani authorities change their relationship with various groups.³ Pakistani and regional security will remain closely linked to Pakistan’s relationships with, and control over, its militant proxies and other groups in the region.⁴

Thomas P. Cavanna, of Southern Methodist University, examines the reasons that a US geostrategic focus on non-proliferation was ultimately unsuccessful in one of its most important test cases – South Asia. In ‘Geopolitics over Proliferation: the Origins of the Grand Strategy and the Implications for the Spread of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia’, Cavanna uses recently declassified documents to argue that non-proliferation efforts were consistently subordinated to other strategic goals, and that this inconsistency made both India and Pakistan feel less secure and encouraged each to continue its pursuit of the nuclear option.⁵ Nuclear proliferation continues to shape the emerging regional security environment in South Asia.⁶

Emil Aslan Souleimanov, of Charles University, examines the transformation of some of Dagestan’s jihadist groups.⁷ In ‘Making Jihad or Making Money? Understanding the Transformation of Dagestan’s Jamaats into Organized Crime Groups’, he assesses the reasons that some formerly revolutionary jihadist groups have become organised crime syndicates working in de facto cooperation with the government. The explanation in this case lies in local corruption, kinship ties between jihadists and some local officials and the reliance of both authorities and jihadists on local extortion for income. Understanding the vulnerabilities of armed groups remains critical in finding ways to effectively combat them.⁸

Notes

¹ Ruike Xu and Wyn Rees, ‘Comparing the Anglo-American and Israeli-American Special Relationships in the Obama Era: An Alliance Persistence Perspective’, Journal of Strategic Studies 41/4 (June 2018).

² Mark Erbel and Christopher Kinsey, ‘Think Again: Reappraising Military Logistics and Its Centrality to Strategy and War’, Journal of Strategic Studies 41/4 (June 2018).

³ Stephen Tankel, ‘Beyond the Double Game: Lessons from Pakistan’s Approach to Islamist Insurgency’, Journal of Strategic Studies 41/4 (June 2018).

⁴ C. Christine Fair, ‘Insights from a Database of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Militants’, Journal of Strategic Studies 37/2 (April 2014), 259–90; Kersti Landsdotter, ‘Regional Support for Afghan Insurgents: Challenges for Counterinsurgency Theory and Doctrine’, Journal of Strategic Studies 37/1 (February 2014), 135–62.

⁵ Thomas P. Cavanna, ‘Geopolitics over Proliferation: The Origins of the Grand Strategy and the Implications for the Spread of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia’, Journal of Strategic Studies 41/4 (June 2018).

⁶ Evan Braden Montgomery and Eric S. Edelman, ‘Rethinking Stability in South Asia: India, Pakistan, and the Competition for Escalation Dominance’, Journal of Strategic Studies 38/1–2 (February 2015), 159–82.

⁷ Emil Aslan Souleimanov, ‘Making Jihad or Making Money? Understanding the Transformation of Dagestan’s Jamaats into Organized Crime Groups’, Journal of Strategic Studies 41/4 (June 2018).

⁸ James Cockayne, ‘The Futility of Force? Strategic Lessons for Dealing with Unconventional Armed Groups from the UN’s War on Haiti’s Gangs’, Journal of Strategic Studies 37/5 (October 2014), 736–69; Eric A. Souleimanov and Husayn Aliyev, ‘Asymmetry of Values, Indigenous Forces, and Incumbent Success in Counterinsurgency: Evidence from Chechnya’, Journal of Strategic Studies 38/5 (August 2015), 678–703.