OXFORD An Introduction to Strategic Studies / JOHN BAYLIS, JAMES WIRTZ, ELIOT COHEN, COLIN S. GRAYIntroduction John Baylis and James J. Wirtz What is strategic studies? 3 What criticisms are made of strategic studies? 8 What is the relationship between strategic studies and security studies? " Although the threat of nuclear Armageddon weighed heavily on everyone's mind during the Cold War, by the 1970s the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union was well organized. Alliances (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact) allowed both superpowers to order relations within their respective camps, preventing outbreaks of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, or even organized crime that could have diverted resources away from the Cold-War competition. If they were not formal allies, most states also could be counted as a client of one of the superpowers, which further helped to moderate international conflict. Financial or military aid to clients was based on the preferences of the superpower patron; if clients engaged in non-sanctioned initiatives, they ran the risk of being left alone to face regional competitors that still enjoyed the support of their superpower. Nuclear deterrence, which produced a situation of mutual assured destruction, moderated superpower behaviour, while arms control negotiations allowed Soviet and American policymakers at least to exchange views on their security objectives and concerns. When conflict did erupt between the competing blocs, it often occurred on ‘the periphery’ (e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan), reducing the like- lihood that the security of either the United States or the Soviet Union would be directly threatened. ‘The Cold War was extremely unpleasant, extraordinarily costly, and downright danger- ous, but it presented strategists with a relatively simple problem: a political-military standoff between two competing camps. Because policymakers expected the Cold War to continue indefinitely, the conflict itself became institutionalized as both sides created bureaucracies and transnational organizations to deal with recurring problems. Strategic studies helped to channel superpower competition from outright war to more benign forms of competition, towards ‘peaceful coexistence’, to borrow an old Soviet phrase; strategic studies developed theories, policies, and operations that reduced the risk of war. But now that more than a decade has passed since the end of the Cold War, it is clear that the slow pace and relatively predictable nature of international relations has changed.2. JOHN BAYLIS AND JAMES J. WIRTZ Everywhere one turns, international politics and military affairs seem to be in a state o¢ flux. ‘A challenging set of strategic, military, arms control, technology, economic, q » and sues have come to preoccupy policymakers in the twenty-first cent, human rights is for instance concerns about international terrorism, ethnic cong ict, Some of these issues, the spread of disease across borders, or the impact of new technology on the conduct of war, have been around for centuries. They now have emerged in new or more intense form. The simultaneous attacks of 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. were the worst terrorist attacks in history ang demonstrated the vulnerability of even the United States to actions taken by wel). organized fanatics who were prepared to commit suicide for their cause. Other problems, however, are distinctly twenty-first-century issues: the proliferation of chemical, bio. logical, and nuclear weapons might change the nature of global politics, while cyber. terrorism raises the possibility that individuals or small groups might be able to wreak enormous damage on national economies. Moreover, these issues are emerging at a time when new strategic relationships are beginning to take shape as one great power (Russia) is losing status while other centres of power (China and an increasingly united Europe) seem to be on the rise. New threats also are giving rise to new coalitions and alliances as former adversaries recalculate their common interests. Further complicating matters is the fact that these changes are now taking place before a worldwide audience drawn ever closer by globalization. People are being empowered by the information revolution, Strategists now have a dizzying array of complex and interconnected security issues to deal with, a far cry from the days when security was often measured by estimates of ‘the nuclear balance of terror’ between the United States and the Soviet Union. Given this emerging global security agenda, it is surprising that some observers suggest that strategic studies has outlived its usefulness. Strategic studies was the dominant sub- field in the study of international politics from the 1950s to the 1980s. But with the easing of East-West tension in the early 1990s it came to be regarded by some as a ‘Cold War subject’ which was no longer relevant to the new developments in world politics, Critics have argued that the use of force is losing its utility in world politics and that attention should be shifted to new issues associated with the processes of globalization. As the conflicts that have occurred since the end of the Cold War testify, however, the role of force remains a significant feature of world politics. Strategy continues to be important in the study of international relations. This was vividly highlighted by the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the response by the United States and the coalition against international terrorism. Unlike the glacial pace of change during the Cold Wet things are happening quickly in the world today. Both practitioners and students of strategy have their work cut out for them. The purpose of this volume is to identify, update, and apply traditio / strategy to an emerging security environment characterized by globalization, the ilo mation revolution, the new threats posed by international terrorism, the spread © weapons of mass destruction, and a host of ethnic and regional conflicts. All ee contributors place their consideration of today’s issues in historical context bY Cae a the intellectual, military, or political evolution of their topic. This background allo" contributors and readers to take a critical view of much of the hyperbole that surrou! nal concepts