A Starter Reading List on Civil-Military Relations

While at NPS I took an excellent Civil-Military Relations Course from Dr. Tom Bruneau--many of these books come from his course.  The part that I enjoyed most about his course was that he distanced himself from the love affair with Huntington.  

Resolving Ethnic Conflict: Creating a New I Am

IMPORTANT NOTE: DON'T CHEAT. DON'T PLAGIARIZE. Notes and Papers are shared here for reference and for studying. Footnote as appropriate.

Below is a paper I wrote arguing on a multi-pronged approach to resolving ethnic conflict--one that accepts short term violence for the sake of long-term reconciliation.  My complete collection of grad school notes and paper can be found here.

Resolving Ethnic Conflict: Creating a New I Am

For most Americans more comfortable with the concept of civic nationalism, ethnic conflict is a difficult concept to understand comprehensively.  This contemporary American mindset cannot (and should not) mask, however, the bloody primordial relationship between ethnic nationalism and global conflict.  If one is to believe structuralists such as Mueller, these ethnic conflicts will be a regular (if not increasing) occurrence throughout the 21^st century as third world nations continue to modernize.  A united international community with unlimited resources might be able to prevent many of these conflicts, however, fiscal realities—and a public reticent to intercede—more often dictate post-conflict recommendations than pre-emptive military action.  What then is the best way to resolve these ethnic conflicts?  Is total resolution an impossible ideal?  How does one define the term best way, as well as its parameters?  In this essay I argue that the best way is an approach that takes the long view—that accepts a short period of violence and instability for the sake of long-term peace and reconciliation.  The approach best suited to do this is a multi-pronged one that emphasizes a liberal democracy tailored to respond to real or perceived ethnic grievances, and an intentional peace-building process that recognizes the nature of group identities as dynamic and incorporates them in the creation of a new worldview.  I begin by discussing the importance of an ethnic conflict’s origin as well as the state’s role in responding to it in determining a solution.  Then I discuss modernity’s role in state formation and its relevance to conflict resolution.  Finally, I analyze the roles of a liberal democracy, civic nationalism and psychocultural interpretation in creating an enduring cessation of ethnic conflict.  

The Samaritans Trailer-A 'mockumentary' on NGOs

Heard about this on the always interesting Africa's a Country blog.  You will be MDR (mort-de-rire, i.e., the french version of LOL) after watching the trailer for an upcoming Kenyan 'mockumentary' on NGOs.

The Samaritans Trailer (2013) from Xeinium Productions on Vimeo.

Juliet's Lament: An Argument for Partition

Below is paper I wrote examining the methods by which a multi-ethnic democratic state can reconcile different identities during after ethnic conflict arises.  My complete collection of grad school notes and paper can be found here.

Juliet's Lament: An Argument for Partition

          Were the terms state and nation always synonymous there might be far fewer 

incidences of intrastate ethnic conflict. International conflict, of course, would still flourish but 

it would not stem from ethnic heterogeneity within a state. This observation is offered to 

demonstrate the myriad challenges of state governance. With few exceptions, most states 

contain multiple ethnic identities that compete for power and control. A state’s primary duty 

remains the maintenance of its sovereignty (its stateness) through the governance of its territory. 

When ethnic conflict arises, this governance comes down to choices—of reconciling lines on a 

map to accommodate realities on the ground, or reconciling the identities of the population on 

the ground to the arbitrary lines on a map. Poor choices in this process have caused millions of 

deaths—sometimes intentionally but often as an after effect of well-intentioned state responses. 

In examining the reconciling of a state’s options, one must ask how a state can best respond to 

problematic ethnic populations? Is there an ideal best response? Does it address the origins of 

the conflict? In this essay I argue that democratic multi-ethnic states must balance the 

requirement for their own self-preservation with the needs and rights of its people. Ideally, the 

most comprehensive and widely employable balance for a state can be found in partition. This 

method addresses the primordialist origin of ethnic conflict. Ethnic bonds are not something that 

can be easily broken through assimilation or integration. Respecting the innate nature of ethnic 

affiliation produces an approach that seeks to preserve ethnic identity. This approach must be a 

holistic one—while it must originate within the sovereign state—it then requires cooperation 

(not intervention) by the international community in ensuring that refugee relocation does not 

turn into ethnic cleansing, nor is it perceived as indiscriminate expulsion. I begin the essay by 

distinguishing between nationalism, nations, and states, as well as between partition and 

secession. Then I describe that which is never a viable option—genocide—highlighting 

preconditions that a state must avoid to guard against it. Next, I provide a brief analysis of 

common criticisms of partition. Finally, I address the advantage of partition as well as the 

supplementary responses necessary once a state makes the decision to make a fresh cut.

More than words: An Argument for Primordialism

Below is a short paper I wrote examining the origins of nations and ethnic conflict.  The first paragraph is below and the entire paper is embedded afterwards.  My complete collection of grad school notes and paper can be found here.

More than words: An Argument for Primordialism

                Ethnic conflict is responsible for a countless number of deaths throughout history.
Records of these conflicts span as far back as biblical times in the book of Genesis when God
gave the Jewish leader Jacob the name Israel, telling him, “a nation and a company of nations
shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body.” Much of the remainder of the Old Testament is the bloody story of this nationalist struggle told through the guise of
ethnic conflict. This intersection of nations and ethnicity continues to be one rife with conflict
today. Academics have devoted entire careers to the study of the origins of nations, producing
an expansive array of explanations from primordialist to constructivist. Which school best
explains where nations come from? Does one theoretical approach provide better insight into the
base origins of ethnic conflict? In this essay I argue that while some schools may have limited
utility, only primordialism offers a comprehensive explanation for the origin of nations and their
associated inherent ethnic conflict. Understanding primordialism can help prevent future ethnic
conflicts through the identification of common mobilizing catalysts. I begin by discussing the
definitions of nations, nationalism, ethnicity and ethnic conflict. I then provide a brief analysis
of the prominent theoretical schools. Finally, I closely examine primordialism, in particular
showing its utility in identifying the origins of ethnic conflict.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4BE1_xKfeEUM1dTa2VIai0zeTA/edit?usp=sharing