Critically engaging the concept of joint operations: origins, reflexivity and the case of Sweden

References

• Agrell, W. 2010. Fredens Illusioner: Det Svenska Nationella Försvarets Nedgång Och Fall 1988–2009 [Illusions of Peace: The Decline and Downfall of Swedish National Defense 1988–2009]. Stockholm: Atlantis.
   Google Scholar
• Åselius, G. 2005. “Swedish Strategic Culture after 1945.” Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 40 (1): 25–44. doi:10.1177/0010836705049732.
   Google Scholar
• Bailes, A. J. K., B. A. Thayer, and B. Thorhallsson. 2016. “Alliance Theory and Alliance ‘Shelter’: The Complexities of Small State Alliance Behaviour.” Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 1 (1): 9–26. doi:10.1080/23802014.2016.1189806.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Ari, E. 2014. “Reflexivity: Potentially ‘Dangerous Liaisons’.” In Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies, edited by Soeters, J., P. M. Shields, and S. Rietjens, 29–39. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., and L. Wacquant. 1999. “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture & Society 16 (1): 41–58. doi:10.1177/026327699016001003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulmer, S., and D. Jackson. 2016. “You Do Not Live in My Skin: Embodiment, Voice, and the Veteran.” Critical Military Studies 2 (1–2): 25–40. doi:10.1080/23337486.2015.1118799.
   Google Scholar
• Carafano, J. J. 2017. America’s Joint Force and the Domains of Warfare. Heritage, October 4, 2017. https://www.heritage.org/military-strength-topical-essays/2018-essays/americas-joint-force-and-the-domains-warfare.
   Google Scholar
• Carreiras, H., and A. Caetano. 2016. “Reflexivity and the Sociological Study of the Military.” In Researching the Military, edited by Carreiras, H., C. Castro, and S. Frederic, 8–22. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, R. H. 1997. Operation Urgent Fury Grenada. Joint History Office. Washington: Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
   Google Scholar
• Cunliffe, A. L. 2003. “Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilities.” Human Relations 56 (8): 983–1003. doi:10.1177/00187267030568004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danielsson, Anna. 2020. “Knowledge in and of military operations: enriching the reflexive gaze in critical research on the military.” Critical Military Studies (online first). doi:10.1080/23337486.2020.183534.
   Google Scholar
• Dyvik, S. L. 2016. “Of Bats and Bodies: Methods for Reading and Writing Embodiment.” Critical Military Studies 2 (1–2): 56–69. doi:10.1080/23337486.2016.1184471.
   Google Scholar
• Eagleton-Pierce, M. 2011. “Advancing a Reflexive International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 805–823. doi:10.1177/0305829811402709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engvall, J., E. H. Frisell, and L. Madelene 2018. Nordiskt Operativt Försvarssamarbete: Nuläge Och Framtida Utvecklingsmöjligheter [Nordic Operational Defence Cooperation: Current Situation and Future Development Opportunities]. FOI-R–4628—SE.
   Google Scholar
• Finlan, Alastair. 2009. Special Forces, Strategy and the War on the Terror: Warfare By Other Means. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Finlan, Alastair. 2014. Contemporary Military Strategy and the Global War on Terror: US and UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq 2001-2012. New York: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Fravel,, M. T. 2020. “China’s ‘World-class Military’ Ambitions: Origins and Implications.” The Washington Quarterly 43 (1): 85–99. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2020.1735850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, E. O. 2006. “Cultural Foundations of Military Diffusion.” Review of International Studies 32 (1): 69–91. doi:10.1017/S0260210506006930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government Offices of Sweden. 2018a. Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden on Defence Cooperation. https://www.government.se/49fcef/globalassets/government/dokument/forsvarsdepartementet/2018/mou-finnish-swedish-defence-cooperation-20180625-signerad.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Government Offices of Sweden. 2018b. Trilateral Statement of Intent among the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Finland and the Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Sweden. https://www.regeringen.se/49a82a/globalassets/regeringen/dokument/forsvarsdepartementet/soi/trilateral-statement-of-intent-20180508.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Government Offices of Sweden. 2020a. Totalförsvaret 2021–2025 [Total Defence 2021 – 2025]. Prop. 2020/21:30. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/proposition/2020/10/prop.-20202130/.
   Google Scholar
• Government Offices of Sweden. 2020b. Statement of Intent on Enhanced Operational Cooperation among the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Finland and the Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Norway and Ohe Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Sweden. https://www.regeringen.se/4a7675/globalassets/regeringen/dokument/forsvarsdepartementet/soi/trilateral-statement-of-intent-on-enhanced-operational-cooperation-200923.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, H. 2016. “Researching from the Spaces in Between? the Politics of Accountability in Studying the British Military.” Critical Military Studies 2 (1–2): 70–83. doi:10.1080/23337486.2016.1127554.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, S. 2005. Joint Operations: A Short History. London: MoD.
   Google Scholar
• Hamre, J. J. 2016. Reflections: Looking Back at the Need for Goldwater Nichols. CSIS Commentary, January 27.
   Google Scholar
• Heinecken, L. 2016. “Reflections on Insider-Outsider Experiences of Military Research in South Africa.” In Researching the Military, edited by Carreiras, H., C. Castro, and S. Frederic, 36–48. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Herodotus. 2003. The Histories Translated by Aubrey de Selincourt with an introduction by John Marincola. London: Penguin, Kindle Edition.
   Google Scholar
• Higate, P., and A. Cameron. 2006. “Reflexivity and Researching the Military.” Armed Forces and Society 32 (2): 219–233. doi:10.1177/0095327X05278171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Igityan, N. 2020. Total Defence 2021–2025: Sweden Wants To Increase Military Spending By 40%. Finabel, October 29. https://finabel.org/total-defence-2021-2025-sweden-wants-to-increase-military-spending-by-40/.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. P. 2017. “Innovative within the Paradigm: The Evolution of the Australian Defence Force’s Joint Operational Art.” Security Challenges 13 (1): 59–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, P. V., and S. Rynning. 2019. “Denmark: Happy to Fight, Will Travel.” International Affairs 95 (4): 877–895. doi:10.1093/ia/iiz052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janowitz, M. 1971. The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kania Elsa, B., and J. Costello. 2020. “Seizing the Commanding Heights: The PLA Strategic Support Force in Chinese Military Power.” Journal of Strategic Studies 35 (5): 1–47. doi:10.1080/01402390.2020.1747444.
   Google Scholar
• Kier, E. 1997. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine between the Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langer, S. K. 1979. Philosophy in A New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leirner, P. C. 2016. “Irregular Anthropology: Researching for the Military.” In Researching the Military, edited by Carreiras, H., C. Castro, and S. Frederic, 74–86. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Libel, T. 2019. “From the Sociology of the (Military) Profession to the Sociology of (Security) Expertise: The Case of European National Defence Universities.” Defence Studies 19 (1): 62–84. doi:10.1080/14702436.2018.1562910.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist, S., 2020. “Jointly Navigating the Baltic-Arctic Strategic Space: The Case of Sweden and Finland”. In: 2020 Cutting the Bow Wave, edited by T. Guy, T. Bonnar, and J. Garza, 23–26. Norfolk: Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Centre of Excellence
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. 2000. “Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge.” Theory, Culture & Society 17 (3): 26–54. doi:10.1177/02632760022051202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire, P. 2018. Leave No Man Behind: The Truth about the Mayaguez Incident. The Diplomat, June 19. https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/leave-no-man-behind-the-truth-about-the-mayaguez-incident.html.
   Google Scholar
• Marquis, S. L. 1997. Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operation Forces. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, G. 2017. “Of Garbage Cans and Paradox: Reflexively Reviewing Design, Mission Command, and the Gray Zone.” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 17 (4): 194–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, R. 2019. Russia Rehearses Multi-Platform Warfare in the Baltic Sea. RealClear Defense, August 7. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/08/07/russia_rehearses_multi-platform_warfare_in_the_baltic_sea_114647.html.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, P. T. 2017. “Stumbling into Design: Action Experiments in Professional Military Education at Canadian Forces College.” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 17 (4): 84–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NATO. 2017. Allied Joint Doctrine. AJP-01, Edition E, Version 1.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. 2018. The NATO Command Structure. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_02/1802-Factsheet-NATO-Command-Structure_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. 2019. Allied Joint Doctrine for the Planning of Operations. AJP-5, Edition A, Version 2.
   Google Scholar
• Paparone, C. 2013. The Sociology of Military Science. Prospects for Postinstitutional Military Design. New York, London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Philippe, B.-B., and P. Dufort. 2017. “Conclusion: Researching the Reflexive Turn in Military Affairs and Strategic Studies.” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 17 (4): 273–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierre, B., and L. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Posen, B. R. 1984. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Posen, B. R. 2016. “Foreword: Military Doctrine and the Management of Uncertainty.” Journal of Strategic Studies 39 (2): 159–173. doi:10.1080/01402390.2015.1115042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prime Minister´s Office Sweden. 2013. Future Challenges for Sweden: Final Report of the Commission on the Future of Sweden. Translation of Ds 2013:19. https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/389793d478de411fbc83d8f512cb5013/future-challenges-for-sweden–final-report-of-the-commission-on-the-future-of-sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Office Sweden. 2017. Inriktningen Av Totalförsvaret Och Utformningen Av Det Civila Försvaret 2021–2025 [Resilience. Focussing Swedish Total Defence Efforts and Development of Civil Defence in 2021–2025. DS 2017:66. 2017. https://www.regeringen.se/4b02db/globalassets/regeringen/dokument/forsvarsdepartementet/forsvarsberedningen/ds-2017-66-motstandskraft-inriktningen-av-totalforsvaret-och-utformningen-av-det-civila-forsvaret-2021-20252.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pyykönen, J. 2016. Nordic Partners of NATO: How Similar are Finland and Sweden within NATO Cooperation?. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, FIIA Report 48.
   Google Scholar
• Quellet, E., Ed. 2005. New Directions in Military Sociology. Whitby, Ontario: de Sitter Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Rowlett, R. 2017. “Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations.” Joint Forces Quarterly 86 (3): 122–123.
   Google Scholar
• Strachan, H. 2009. “One War: Joint Warfare.” The RUSI Journal 154 (4): 20–24. doi:10.1080/03071840903216437.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF). 2005. Doktrin För Gemensamma Operationer 2005 [Joint Operations Doctrine 2005] 2005. Stockholm: Försvarsmakten.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF). 2020. Doktrin För Gemensamma Operationer 2020 [Joint Operations Doctrine 2020]. M7739–354030. https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteassets/4-om-myndigheten/dokumentfiler/doktriner/doktrin-for-gemensamma-operationer.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Symonds, C. L., ed. 2010. Union Combined Operations in the Civil War. New York: Fordham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• The Holloway Report. August 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, S., and Y. Palle. 2016. “The Norwegian Joint Operational Doctrine as a Case: Heritage, Content, Process.” Journal of Strategic Studies 39 (2): 297–314. doi:10.1080/01402390.2015.1115043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. 2014. Joint Doctrine Publication 01. UK Joint Operations Doctrine, JDP 01.
   Google Scholar
• United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (U.S. TRADOC). 2017. Multi-Domain Battle: Evolution of Combined Arms for the 21st Century. https://www.tradoc.army.mil/Portals/14/Documents/MDB_Evolutionfor21st%20(1).pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Defense (U.S. DoD). 2018. Summary of the National Defense Strategy. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Defense (U.S. DoD). 2020. DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, June. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/dictionary.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. 1993. Joint Publication. Doctrine for Joint Operations. JP 3–0.
   Google Scholar
• United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. 2017. Joint Publication. Joint Operations. JP 3–0.
   Google Scholar
• United States Joint Chiefs of Staff (U.S. JCS). 2018. Joint Operations. Joint Publication 3–0. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_0ch1.pdf?ver=2018-11-27-160457-910.
   Google Scholar
• Vego, M. 2009. Joint Operational Warfare. Newport: U.S. Naval War College.
   Google Scholar
• Villumsen Berling, T., and C. Bueger. 2017. “Expertise in the Age of Post-factual Politics: An Outline of Reflexive Strategies.” Geoforum 84: 332–341. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walt, S. M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K. N. 2010[1979]. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press .
   Google Scholar
• Watling, J., and D. Roper. 2019. European Allies in US Multi-Domain Operations. RUSI Occasional Paper, October.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist, Stefan and J.J. Widen.  2016. “Swedish–Finnish Naval Cooperation in the Baltic Sea: Motives, Prospects and Challenges.” Defence Studies 16 (4): 346–373. doi:10.1080/14702436.2016.1220805.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. H. 2018. Great Battles: Lützen. Oxford: OUP, Kindle Edition.
   Google Scholar
• Winiarski, M. 2016. Om Sverige Går Med I Nato Kommer Vi Att Vidta Nödvändiga Åtgärder [If Sweden Joins NATO, We Will Take Necessary Measures]. DN, April 28. https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sergej-lavrov-om-sverige-gar-med-i-nato-maste-vi-vidta-nodvandiga-atgarder/.
   Google Scholar
• Woodall, S. R. 2000. “Self-jamming Behavior: Joint Interoperability, Root Causes, and Thoughts on Solutions.” Comparative Strategy 19 (4): 309–317. doi:10.1080/01495930008403218.
   Google Scholar
• Finlan 2009. Special Forces, Strategy and the War on the Terror: Warfare by Other Means. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Finlan 2014. Contemporary Military Strategy and the Global War on Terror: US and UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq 2001-2012. New York: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist, Stefan 2017. Continuity and Change in post-Cold War Maritime Security: A Study of the Strategies Pursued by the US, Sweden and Finland 1991–2016 [PhD diss]. Åbo Akademis förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Danielsson, Anna. 2020a. “Knowledge in and of Military Operations: Enriching the Reflexive Gaze in Critical Research on the Military.” Critical Military Studies. online first. 10.1080/23337486.2020.1835341
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist, Stefan. 2020b. “Jointly Navigating the Baltic-Arctic Strategic Space: The Case of Sweden and Finland.” In 2020 Cutting the Bow Wave, edited by Guy, T., T. Bonnar, and J. Garza, 23–27. Norfolk, VA: NATO CJOS COE.
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. 2015. “One Piece at a Time: Why Linear Planning and Institutionalisms Promote Military Campaign Failures.” Defence Studies 15 (4): 360–374. doi:10.1080/14702436.2015.1113667.
   Google Scholar