Romanian Military Thinking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

82 Romanian Military Thinking ~ 4/2007 power decreases quantitatively, and, on the other hand, he believes that in the European postmodern area, this competency clearly belongs to the European Union. Still, we can notice that he does not overlook this issue of the international life, once he accuses Europe of neglecting its defence. The author considers the premodern world chaos as a major threat, augmented by the rebirth of the American appetite (after September 2001) for the use of military force in defending its interests against any threat or risk. Moreover, the risk of the weapons of mass destruction, posed by the modern world, is very significant. Yet, the hegemonic-type American approach is based on the control exerted over the foreign policies of some threatening states, including or even primarily through military means. In this field, through NATO, Europe has a structure with cooperative character and relative power at its disposal, which may be a solution to this issue for the time being. Thus, the author accepts the necessity of this “military muscle”. The necessity of military interventions in certain theatres of operations is justified, and at world level, the author says that the “American military muscle itself” is indispensable. This situation poses the danger of a vicious circle that may lead to returning at the level of the modern world, in which the temporary secure status may degenerate into war and cause the collapse into the premodern world. To avoid this vicious circle, the author considers that another solution should be sought, after noticing that neither force balancing nor the hegemony are valid solutions to provide security. The alternative is, of course, one developed in the post-war Europe, namely a community of post-national and post-imperial states, which live together in a stable and secure environment that has no historic precedent. This solution could be embraced at world level, and may even mark the beginning of a postmodern international society. This is the global postmodern perspective. However, the “objective of foreign policy should be peace and prosperity, instead of power and prestige”. Power should remain vital for the peacekeeping process; it should be regarded as a means and not as an objective. Otherwise, the mistakes made in foreign policies may persist and remain as disastrous as the ones regarding the war. Further on, it could sometimes be even difficult for someone to operate a clear distinction between the two types of mistakes. In this perspective, the soldiers and the diplomats who are asked to respond to the question: “Who are you ?”, on which the future peace building process depends, must take their roles seriously. They should significantly contribute to reconfiguring and redefining the community identity, within a world that has been divided between Him and Us, to learn the way to know strangers and understand that they are different. In this respect, the next step would be to develop a larger identity, to build an international community, which should allow people to peacefully cohabitate, without a war. On long term, the solution rests on establishing a common legitimacy, while focusing the effort on changing the meaning of the word “foreign”. Here, we may suggest that a complementary solution would be the “praxeology” (the general theory of efficient action), with its negative cooperation. It could also be an alternative to the author’s solution,
Opinions • Arguments • Certitudes • Perspectives involving two sources of power: force and legitimacy. “People obey rules either out of fear or out of respect for authority. Civilisation and order are build on placing the force in the service of legitimate authority”. It is only in this point that we are able to grasp the arguments of the author’s option for the “military muscle”, for the “American military muscle”, as he states: “… both force and legitimacy remain essential to maintain order. Force without legitimacy produces chaos while legitimacy without force will be overthrown”. To conclude, we would like to add another comment, in the same comparative manner of the author. In our opinion, Robert Cooper’s ideas are similar to the cooperative security model promoted by Richard Cohen and Michael Mihalka, from George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies 15 . Less rigorously than the two researchers, Cooper also offers a model for cooperative security. There are a lot of resemblances between the two models. Both plead for the importance of Europe’s role and its cooperative instruments from structures such as NATO and the European Union. Moreover, both studies present the world as divided in three segments. The comments on the Unites States’ role are also similar. But, in point of difference, while the Cohen – Mihalka model places NATO in the centre of the cooperative system, in Robert Cooper’s vision, the central point is the European Union. While the former model is a promoter of the American hegemonic position, the latter only suggests the importance of the “American military muscle”, drawing attention to the fact that the world should not be left in American’s hands too long. Furthermore, another difference lies in the fact that Cooper’s model highlights the image of an imperial world order that is centred on Europe. To build the security system, the first model presents a ring-shaped architecture: a European, a Eurasian and a global system, whereas Cooper’s world model is of three types: premodern, modern and postmodern. As for the common element – the individual as a primordial entity, the Cohen – Mihalka model approaches it directly. In the structure suggested by them regarding the two concepts that developed in the last century, “individual security” and “collective defence”, “individual security” is directly connected to it, as well as “promotion of security”, nevertheless, the ring of individual security lies in the centre of this architectural system, while all the other rings are circumscribed to it. Personally, I reckon that both studies are extremely interesting, as they have significantly contributed to the field of cooperative security research, and are therefore recommended for further reading. 15 Cohen Richard, Mihalka Michael, Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, no. 3, May 2001. The model promoted by this center is also approached in Securitate pentru cooperare, solu]ia stabilit`]ii regionale, Centrul Tehnic-Editorial al Armatei, Bucure[ti, 2005, pp. 25-64. 83
Page 1 and 2:
4 Romanian Romanian Military Milita
Page 3 and 4:
Romanian Military Thinking Military
Page 5 and 6:
The Soldier Col. Costinel PETRACHE,
Page 7 and 8:
Europe Facing Terrorist Threat ~ an
Page 9 and 10:
Tendances dans l’évolution des g
Page 11 and 12:
The The Soldier Soldier The The The
Page 13 and 14:
among fighters who, as he was to be
Page 15 and 16:
CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS CONSI
Page 17 and 18:
Conceptual Projections • Theoreti
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE UNCONVENTIONAL
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34: Conceptual Projections • Theoreti
Page 41 and 42: HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE
Page 49 and 50: For this reason, the availability o
Page 51 and 52: Investment Running Personnel IN REA
Page 55 and 56: Opinions • Arguments • Certitud
Page 65 and 66: TENDENCIES TENDENCIES TENDENCIES TE
Page 71 and 72: Type Position Duration Immediate ef
Page 83: Opinions • Arguments • Certitud
Page 93 and 94: POWER AND THE EUROPEAN Commander Dr
Page 99 and 100: THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC
Page 109 and 110: INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION
Page 111 and 112: Geopolitics • Geostrategy • Int
Page 113 and 114: Information Programmes Geopolitics
Page 117 and 118: SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
Page 125 and 126: NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUC
Page 135 and 136:
Geopolitics • Geostrategy • Int
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
RMT Dialogues even worse, who testi
Page 159 and 160:
RMT Dialogues interdependent and ch
Page 161 and 162:
RMT Dialogues for information, for
Page 163 and 164:
RMT Dialogues In my opinion, China
Page 165 and 166:
RMT Dialogues kind of pressures do
Page 167 and 168:
RMT Dialogues not accepted by law -
Page 169 and 170:
RMT Dialogues of a rational person.
Page 171 and 172:
National Foundations • the transl
Page 173 and 174:
National Foundations Ministry of In
Page 175 and 176:
SOCIAL ORIGIN Figure 2: The cadre c
Page 177 and 178:
National Foundations The strategy o
Page 179 and 180:
Party Commission Editorial Staff Ag
Page 181 and 182:
National Foundations imposing the
Page 183 and 184:
National Foundations 1949 and 1964,
Page 185 and 186:
THE G@NDIREA MILITAR~ ROM@NEASC~ Jo
Page 187 and 188:
5. Lieutenant Colonel Stan ANTON 6.
Page 189 and 190:
Simulation Training Aims for more t
Page 191 and 192:
Editorial Events EDITORIAL EDITORIA
Page 193 and 194:
the accentuation of the fall of the
Page 195 and 196:
Editorial Events The articles are g
Page 197 and 198:
conduites par des soldats de marine
Page 199:
tour, UE est en état de promouvoir
Page 202 and 203:
2008 Military Military Celebratio
Page 204:
RMT http://gmr.mapn.ro
show all

Romanian Military Thinking

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?