Military capabilities and the strategic planning conundrum

• Autorzy: Correia João

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35467/sdq/108667

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper aims to question the military capability concept, as a core element of the strategic military planning process, in order to determine its validity or need for expansion. Thus, based on a deductive approach and qualitative research, we argue that the strategic planning process is a conundrum so dependent on capabilities that it is necessary to analyse this concept per se and, if necessary, expand it on a time and threat basis. Otherwise, the more ambiguous the concept, the more subjective the planning process output and, consequently, the greater likelihood of the Armed Forces not being prepared to face the wide range of future challenges. It concludes by suggesting that the military capability concept should be expanded and more integrated and the strategic defence planning process adapted accordingly.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

military capability; capability-based defence planning

• Wydawca: Akademia Sztuki Wojennej
• Czasopismo: Security and Defence Quarterly
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 24, No. 2
• Strony: 21--50
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 57 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Correia João

• Postgraduate Department, Military University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal

Bibliografia

• 1. ACT_NATO., 2006. TTCP GUIDEx. USA: Allied Command Transformation.
• 2. Anteroinen, J., 2013. Enhancing the Development of Military Capabilities by a Systems.
• 3. Approach. Helsinki: National Defence University.
• 4. Baldwin, C. Y., and Clark, K. B., 2000. Design Rules: Volume 1. The Power of Modularity. USA: MIT Press.
• 5. Bartles, C. K., 2016. Getting Gerasimov Right. Military Review, January-February.
• 6. Bauman, Z., 2001. Modernidade Líquida. Brasil: Jorge Zahar.
• 7. Baxa, F., 2017. Translation of Capability Requirement into Management by Objectives Environment. Czech Republic: Centre for Security and Military Strategy Studies, University of Defence, Brno.
• 8. Berkebile, R. E., 1989. Military Strategy Revisited. A Critique of the Lykke Formulation. Military Review. May.
• 9. Biddle, S., 2006. Military Power. Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle. UK: Princeton University Press.
• 10. Carroll, L., 1998. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Chicago: Volume One Publishing.
• 11. Chivvis, C. S., 2017. Understanding Russian “Hybrid Warfare” and What Can be Done About It. USA: RAND Corporation.
• 12. Davis, P. K., 2002. Analytic Architecture for Capabilities-Based Planning, Mission-System Analysis, and Transformation. USA: RAND Corporation.
• 13. Davis, P. K., 2014. Analysis to Inform Defense Planning Despite Austerity. USA: RAND Corporation.
• 14. Davis, P. K., Shaver, R. D. and Bec, J., 2008. Portfolio-Analysis Methods for Assessing Capability Options. USA: RAND Corporation.
• 15. Defense Acquisition University. 2016 CJCSI 3010.02E - Guidance for Developing and Implementing Joint Concepts. [online]. The official website of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , U.S. Department of Defense Available from: <https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia...> [Accessed 14 Sept 2018].
• 16. Doughty, R., II, L. W. and Hailes, T., 2017. Innovative Learning: A Key to National Security. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: The Army Press.
• 17. Douglas, M., 2003. Risk acceptability according to the Social Sciences. USA: Routledge.
• 18. Drayson, P., 2009. Military Capabilities in the 21st Century. The RUSI Journal, 5(150), 38-43.
• 19. Faber, P., 2003. NATO Long-Term Defense Planning: Implications for the Future. Rome: NATO Defense College.
• 20. Frank, L. and Procházka, J., 2017. Scenarios and Capability Planning: Creation of Scenarios as a Tool for Predicting the Future Operating Environment. Strategos, 1 (1), 69-82.
• 21. Gaffney, H. H., 2004. Capabilities-Based Planning in the Coming Global Security Environment. Monterey: Center for Strategic Studies.
• 22. GAO. ,1986. Measuring Military Capability. Progress, Problems and Future Direction. USA: United States General Accounting Office.
• 23. Gray, C. S., 1999. Why strategy is diffi cult. JFQ, 80-86.
• 24. Gray, C. S., 2014. Strategy and Defence Planning. Meeting the Challenge of Uncertainty (1st ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
• 25. Grunig, R. and Kuhn, R., 2005. Process-based Strategic Planning (3rd ed.). Germany: Springer-Verbg.
• 26. Grunig, R. and Kuhn, R., 2005. Process-based Strategic Planning (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
• 27. Johnson, C. W., 2007. The Paradoxes of Military Risk Assessment: Will the Enterprise Risk Assessment Model, Composite Risk Management and associated Techniques Provide the Predicted Benefi ts? Glasgow: Glasgow Accident Analysis Group.
• 28. Johnson, S., Libicki, M. C. and Treverton, G. F., 2003. New Challenges, New Tools for Defense Decision making. USA: RAND Corporation.
• 29. Kendall, J. B., 2002. Capabilities-Based Military Planning: The Myth. Washington: National War College.
• 30. Kerr, C., Phaal, R. and Probert, D., 2006. A framework for strategic military capabilities in defense transformation. UK: University of Cambridge.
• 31. Kuhn, T., 1996. The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 32. Lacquement-Jr., R. A., 2003. Shaping American military capabilities after the cold war. London: Praeger.
• 33. Liang, Q. and Xiangsui, W., 1999. Unrestricted Warfare. Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House.
• 34. Lykke, A., 2001. Toward an Anderstanding of Military Strategy. In J. Joseph R. Cerami and James F. Holcomb (Ed.), Guide to Strategy. USA: U.S. Army War College.
• 35. Maykish, P. J., 2016. Upstream: How Theory shapes the selection of ways in strategy. Alabama: School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.
• 36. Frederic, M. and Santopinto F., 2017. Permanent Structured Cooperation: national perspectives and state of play. Belgium: European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE).
• 37. McChrystal, S., Collins, T., Silverman, D. and Fussell, C., 2015. Team of Teams: New Rules. of Engagement for a Complex World. USA: Portfolio Penguin.
• 38. NATO, 2000. NATO in the 21st Century: Speech by the Secretary General to the Millennium Year Lord Mayor’s Lecture. [online]. NATO Speeches. Available from: <https://www.nato.int/docu/spee...>. [Accessed 12 Sept 2018].
• 39. NATO 2003a. NATO Research and Technology Board: Panel On Studies Analysis and Simulation (SAS), “Handbook on Long TerHandbook on Long Term Defence Planning- RTO-TR-069 AC/323(SAS-025)TP/41. Belgium: RTO.
• 40. NATO 2003b. Handbook on Long Term Defence Planning (RTO - Technical Report 69). France: Research and Technology Organisation.
• 41. NATO, 2018. Framework for Future Alliance Operations. USA: Allied Command Transformation.
• 42. Norris, D. T., 1987. Strategic Planning: POLARIS and TOMAHAWK. Technological Imperative Hypotheses. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School.
• 43. Ochmanek, D., Wilson, P. A., Allen, B., Meyers, J. S., and Price, C. C., 2017. U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World. Rethinking the U.S. Approach to Force Planning. USA: RAND Corporation.
• 44. Perkins, D. G. and Holmes, J. M., 2018. Multidomain Battle Converging Concepts Toward a Joint Solution. JFQ 88, 54-57.
• 45. Posen, B. R., 2016. Military doctrine and the management of uncertainty. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39 (2), 159-173.
• 46. Rickli, J.-M., 2008, September. European small states’ military policies after the Cold War: from territorial to niche strategies. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21 (3), 307-325.
• 47. Sekiba, C., 1994. The Rise and Fall of the Linkage Theory in American Foreign Policy: The Comparative Studies of Kissinger Method and Shultz Method in America’s Soviet Policy. International Relations, (107), 79–96.
• 48. Stensrud, R., Rutledal, F., Bjørnsgaard, T. and Danjord, F., 2008. A proposal for a Norwegian Defence Conceptual Framework. UK: FFI.
• 49. Stephen Gets A Straight Answer Out Of Donald Rumsfeld 2016 [online]. YouTube. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?...>. [Accessed 12 Sept 2018].
• 50. Stojkovic, D. and Dahl, B. R., 2007. Methodology for long term defence planning. Norway: Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
• 51. Stojković, D. S., Kankaraš, M. S. and Mitić, V. M., 2016. Determination of Defence Capability Requirements. Serbia: Serbian MoD.
• 52. Tellis, A. J., Bially, J., Layne, C., and McPherson, M., 2000. Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age. USA: RAND.
• 53. The Fund for Peace. n.d., Fragile States Index. [online]. Available from: <http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/> [Accessed 12 Sept 2018].
• 54. Department of Defense, 2017. Directive 7045.20: Capability Portfolio Management. USA.
• 55. Yarger, H. R., 2006. Strategic Theory for the 21st Century: The Little Book on Big Strategy. USA: US Gov.
• 56. Yue, Y. and Henshaw, M., 2009. An Holistic View of UK Military Capability Development. Defense & Security Analysis, 25 (1), 53–67.
• 57. Zweibelson, B. E., 2011. Incompatible Systems of Logic: Why Design Should Integrate the Mechanistic, Reductionist, and Linear Logic of Military Detailed Planning. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).