NOTES Introduction 1. Alex Abella, Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire (New York: Harcourt, 2008). 2. The “ letter from Mr. X” refers to an article titled “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” published in July 1947 in Foreign Affairs. It was signed X but written by George Kennan, who was the head of the State Department of the Policy Planning Staff at the time, an intellectual reference of Sovietology studies. 3. Georg Sorensen, “IR Theory after the Cold War, ” Review of International Studies, 24 (5), December 1998, p. 88. 4. Kenneth Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War, ” International Security, 25 (1), Summer 2000, p. 5. 5. John Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, ” International Security, 15 (1), Summer 1990, p. 6. 6. Ibid., p. 5. 7. John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions, ” International Security, 19 (3), Winter 1994 –1995. 8. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). 9. Quoted by Pierre Mélandri, Justin Vaïsse, L ’ Empire du milieu : les Etats-Unis et le monde depuis la fin de la guerre froide (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2001), p. 120. 10. Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?, ” Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), Summer 1993, p. 22. 11. Ibid., p. 48. 12. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998). 13. Among others, see Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983); Ron Robin, The Making of the Cold War Enemy: Culture and Politics in the Military-Intellectual Complex (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Martin Collins, Cold War Laboratory: Rand, the Air Force, and
Transcript
N O T E S
Introduction
1. Alex Abella, Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire (New York: Harcourt, 2008).
2. The “ letter from Mr. X ” refers to an article titled “ The Sources of Soviet Conduct ” published in July 1947 in Foreign Affairs . It was signed X but written by George Kennan, who was the head of the State Department of the Policy Planning Staff at the time, an intellectual reference of Sovietology studies.
3. Georg Sorensen, “ IR Theory after the Cold War, ” Review of International Studies , 24 (5), December 1998, p. 88.
4. Kenneth Waltz, “ Structural Realism after the Cold War, ” International Security , 25 (1), Summer 2000, p. 5.
5. John Mearsheimer, “ Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, ” International Security , 15 (1), Summer 1990, p. 6.
6. Ibid., p. 5. 7. John Mearsheimer, “ The False Promise of International Institutions, ”
International Security , 19 (3), Winter 1994 – 1995. 8. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free
Press, 1992). 9. Quoted by Pierre Mélandri, Justin Vaïsse, L ’ Empire du milieu : les Etats-Unis et
le monde depuis la fin de la guerre froide (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2001), p. 120. 10. Samuel Huntington, “ The Clash of Civilizations?, ” Foreign Affairs , 72 (3),
Summer 1993, p. 22. 11. Ibid., p. 48. 12. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998). 13. Among others, see Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1983); Ron Robin, The Making of the Cold War Enemy: Culture and Politics in the Military-Intellectual Complex (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Martin Collins, Cold War Laboratory: Rand, the Air Force, and
Notes170
the American State, 1945 – 1950 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002); Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi, The Worlds of Herman Kahn: The Intuitive Science of Thermonuclear War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005); Bruce L. R. Smith, The Rand Corporation: Case Study of a Nonprofit Advisory Corporation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966).
14. Caitlin Talmadge, “ Transforming the Pentagon: McNamara, Rumsfeld and the Politics of Change, ” Breakthroughs , 15 (1), Spring 2006.
15. For instance, see Donald E. Abelson, American Think-Tanks and Their Role in US Foreign Policy (New York: Macmillan Press, 1996); Lawrence H. Shoup and William Minter (eds.), Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977); Michael Wala, The Council on Foreign Relations and American Foreign Policy in the Early Cold War (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1994).
16. Pierre Bourdieu, Les Règles de l ’ art : Genèse et structure du champ littéraire (Paris: Seuil, 1992), p. 86.
17. See Michel Dobry, Sociologie des crises politiques (Paris: Presses de la FNSP, 1992).
One The Inheritance of a Technicist Ideology
1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People, January 17, 1961.
2. Pap Ndaye, “Le complexe militaro-industriel” in Denis Lacorne (ed.), Les Etats-Unis (Paris: Fayard, 2006), p. 427.
3. Harold D. Lasswell, “The Garrison State,” American Journal of Sociology , 46 (4), January 1941.
4. Pierre Bourdieu, Questions de sociologie (Paris: Minuit, 1980). 5. On the sociology of technological evolution, see Bruno Latour and Pierre
Lemonnier (eds.), De la Préhistoire aux missiles balistiques: L’intelligence sociale des techniques (Paris: La Découverte, 1994).
6. Although we can mention a recent and noteworthy book with this specific purpose, see Michael O’Hanlon, The Science of War: Defense Budgeting, Military Technology, Logistics, and Combat Outcomes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
7. Jurgen Habermas, La Technique et la science comme « idéologie » (Paris: Gallimard, 1973), p. 4.
8. Bernard Brodie, “Strategy as a Science,” World Politics , 1 (4), July 1949, pp. 467–468.
9. See Eliot Cohen, “The Mystique of U.S. Air Power,” Foreign Affairs, 73 (1), January–February 1994.
10. Giulio Douhet, La Guerre de l’air (Paris: Journal “Les Ailes,” 1932). 11. See Bernard Brodie, The American Scientific Strategists (Santa Monica: RAND
Corporation, 1964), p. 5.
Notes 171
12. On the evolution of the employment of aerial bombings, see Robert Pape, Bombing to Win (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).
13. Quoted by Martin Collins, Cold War Laboratory (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002), p. 17.
14. Alain Enthoven and K. Wayne Smmith, How Much Is Enough? Shaping the Defense Program, 1961–1969 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), pp. 61–62.
15. Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi, The Worlds of Herman Kahn: The Intuitive Science of Thermonuclear War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), p. 138.
16. Ibid., pp. 30–31. 17. Ibid., p. 31. 18. Curtis Lemay, America Is in Danger (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968),
p. viii. 19. Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1983), p. 254. 20. Thomas White, “Strategy and the Defense Intellectuals,” Saturday Evening
Post , May 4, 1963. 21. Ibid. 22. Gaston Bachelard, La Formation de l’esprit scientifique (Paris: Librairie
Philosophique Vrin, 1970), p. 5. 23. Andrew Marshall, “Problems of Estimating Military Power,” RAND
Document, Santa Monica, RAND Corporation, 1966; Aaron Friedberg, “The Assessment of Military Power: A Review Essay,” International Security , 12 (3), Winter 1987–1988; John Mearsheimer, Barry Posen, and Eliot Cohen, “Correspondence: Reassessing Net Assessment,” International Security , 13 (4), Spring 1989.
24. See, in particular, Andrew Marshall, “A Program to Improve Analytic Methods Related to Strategic Forces,” Policy Sciences , November 1982, p. 48.
25. US Department of Defense Directive 5111.11 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, August 2001).
26. Available at http://www.saisjhu.edu (accessed on December 7, 2007). 27. Interview with the author on October 23, 2007. 28. See Mearsheimer, Posen, and Cohen, “Correspondence,” art. cit., pp. 128–179. 29. Paul Bracken, “Net Assessment: A Practical Guide,” Parameters , 36 (1), Spring
2006. 30. Ibid., p. 90. 31. Donald Rumsfeld, “Transforming the Military,” Foreign Affairs , 81 (3), May–
June 2002, pp. 24–25. 32. James Thomson, “In Political Analysis, Just the Facts, Please,” Hill , March 8, 2006. 33. This is a recurring theme in the philosophy of techniques. See among others
Martin Heidegger, “La question de la technique” in Essais et conférences (Paris: Gallimard, 1958), p. 9.
34. Joseph Henrotin, “Le FCS de moins en moins apprécié,” Technologie & Armement , 6, June–July, 2007, p. 13.
35. Gilles Massardier, “Les savants les plus ‘demandés’: Expertise, compétences et multipositionnalité,” Politix , 36, p. 174.
36. At the time, the American Air Force bombers were considered very precise but vulnerable in the event of a Soviet attack, while submarines had a lower targeting accuracy but were seen as invulnerable.
37. Donald McKenzie, “Ordinateurs et missiles de croisières: la sociologie des techniques contemporaines” in Latour and Lemonnier (eds.), De la Préhistoire aux missiles balistiques , p. 139.
38. Interview with the author on April 4, 2006. 39. Christophe Wasinski, “Créer une Révolution dans les affaires militaires:
mode d’emploi,” Cultures & Conflicts , 64, 2006, p. 154. 40. Russell Weigley, The American Way of War: A History of United States Military
Strategy and Policy (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1977). 41. Antulio Echevarria, Toward an American Way of War (Washington: Strategic
Studies Institute Monograph, 2004), p. v. 42. Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power
(New York: Basic Books, 2002). 43. Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Combattre: Une anthropologie historique de la guerre
moderne (Paris: Seuil, 2008), p. 208. 44. Colin Gray, Irregular Ennemies and the Essence of Strategy: Can the American Way
of War Adapt? (Washington: Strategic Studies Institute Monograph, 2006), p. 30.
45. Ibid., pp. 35–36. 46. Jeffrey Cooper, “Dominant Battlespace Awareness and Future Warfare” in
Stuart Johnson and Martin Libicki (eds.), Dominant Battlespace Knowledge (Washington: NDU Press Book, 1995), p. 39.
47. Pierre Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire (Paris: Fayard, 1982), pp. 218–219. 48. Interview with the author on October 4, 2007.
Two The Competitive Dynamics of the Strategic Field
1. On the general evolution of strategic studies, see Hedley Bull, “Strategic Studies and Its Critics,” World Politics , 20, 1968; Colin Gray, Strategic Studies and Public Policy: The American Experience (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1982); Philip Green, “Science, Government and the Case of RAND: A Singular Pluralism,” World Politics , 20, 1968; Richard Lebow, “Interdisciplinary Research and the Future of Peace and Security Studies,” Political Psychology , 9, 1988; Stephen Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Studies Quarterly , 35 (2), June 1991.
2. For a brilliant and humoristic portrayal of defense intellectuals, see Carol Cohn, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs , 12 (4), Summer 1987.
3. See on this subject Stanley Hoffmann, “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus , 106, Summer 1977; more recently Pascal
Notes 173
Vennesson, “Les relations internationales dans la science politique aux Etats-Unis,” Politix , 41 (11), 1998, pp. 176–194; Steve Smith, “Hegemonic Power, Hegemonic Discipline” in James Rosenau (ed.), IR Voices: Dialogues on a Discipline in Flux (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), pp. 55–82.
4. Helga Haftendorn, “The State of the Field. A German View,” International Security , 13 (2), 1988, p. 179. Quoted in Vennesson, “Les relations interna-tionales dans la science politique aux Etats-Unis,” art. cit., p. 177.
5. Report available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ (accessed on January 23, 2008).
6. Scott Shane, “Bush’s Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst,” New York Times , December 4, 2005.
7. For an overview of this debate on the divide between scholars and practitio-ners, see among the prolific literature: Erik Albaek, “Between Knowledge and Power: Utilization of Social Science in Public Policy Making,” Policy Science , 28 (1), 1995; Peter Feaver, “The Theory-Policy Debate in Political Science and Nuclear Proliferation,” National Security Studies Quarterly , 5 (3), 1999; Christopher Hill and Pamela Beshoff (eds.), The Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London: Routledge, 1994); Robert Jervis, “Security Studies: Ideas, Policy, and Politics” in Edward Mansfield and Richard Sisson (eds.), The Evolution of Political Knowledge: Democracy, Autonomy and Conflict in Comparative and International Politics (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004); Joseph Lepgold, “Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and Policy Relevance,” Political Science Quarterly , 113 (3), 1998; Miroslav Nincic and Joseph Lepgold (eds.), Being Useful: Policy Relevance and International Relations Theory (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).
8. Richard Betts, “Should Strategic Studies Survive?,” World Politics , 50 (1), October 1997, p.10.
9. Interview with the author on July 10, 2010. 10. Stephen Walt, “The Relation between Theory and Policy in International
Relations,” Annual Review of Political Science , 8, 2005, p. 37. 11. See, for instance, John Hattendorf, Mitchell Simpson, and John Wadleigh,
Sailors and Scholars: The Centennial History of the U.S. Naval War College (Providence: Naval War College, 1984).
12. Arthur K. Cebrowski and John J. Garska, “Network-Centric Warfare: Its Origin and Future,” Proceedings Magazine , United States Naval Institute, January 1998.
13. For a concise introduction to these problematics and the actors involved, see Jean-Pierre Maulny, La Guerre en réseau au XXIe siècle: Internet sur les champs de bataille (Paris: Le Félin, 2006).
14. Author of Finding the Target: The Transformation of US Military Policy (New York: Encounter Books, 2006).
15. Robert Harkavy, “Strategic Geography and the Greater Middle East,” Naval War College Review , Autumn 2001. Available at http://www.nwc.navy.mil/ (accessed on October 12, 2007).
16. For an academic approach to these questions, see Caitlin Talmadge, “Transforming the Pentagon,” art. cit.
17. For an introduction to this literature, see Donald E. Abelson, American Think-Tanks and their Role in US Foreign Policy (New York: Macmillan Press, 1996); Paul Dickson, Think Tanks (New York: Atheneum, 1971); James Allen Smith, The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (New York: Free Press, 1991); Emanuel Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control,” International Organisation , 46 (1), Winter 1992; Peter Haas, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization , 46 (1), 1992; Raymond J. Struyk, “Transnational Think Tank Networks: Purpose, Membership and Cohesion,” Global Networks , 2, 2002; Diane Stone, “Introduction: Global Knowledge and Advocacy Networks,” Global Networks , 2, 2002; Diane Stone, Andrew Denham, and Mark Garnett (eds.), Think Tanks across Nations (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998); Diane Stone and Andrew Denham (eds.), Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004); Diane Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process (London: Frank Cass, 1996).
18. Figures provided by James McGann, “Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public Policy Research Industry,” PS: Political Science and Politics , 25 (4), December 1992.
19. Figure quoted by Donald E. Abelson, Do Think Tanks Matter? Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), p. 3.
20. Quoted in ibid., p. 8. 21. Diane Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination Think Tanks and the Policy
Process, op. cit., pp. 14–16. 22. Thomas Medvetz, “Hybrid Intellectuals: Think Tanks and Public Policy Experts
in the United States,” University of Berkeley, Research Paper, 2006, p. 2. 23. Matthew Taylor, “Think Tanks, Public Policy and Academia,” Public Money
& Management , 31 (1), January 2011, p. 10. 24. Robert Orr (ed.), Winning the Peace: An American Strategy for Post-Conf lict
Reconstruction (Washington: CSIS Press, 2004). 25. Created in 2003 by the Department of State, the Coordinator for
Reconstruction is officially responsible for supervising the American rebuild-ing of postconf lict countries.
26. Anthony Bertelli and Jeffrey Wenger, “Demanding Information: Think Tanks and the US Congress,” British Journal of Political Science , 39 (4), December 2008, p. 231.
27. Murray Weidenbaum, “Measuring the Inf luence of Think Tanks,” Society , 47 (1), February 2010.
28. Peter Feaver, “The Right to Be Right: Civil-Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision,” International Security , 35 (4), Spring 2011, p. 101.
Notes 175
29. Kevin Kosar, The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2007).
30. Department of the US Navy , From the Sea (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992).
31. Interview November 2006, anonymity requested. 32. Building on a Legacy , RAND Annual Report 2004. 33. Ibid. 34. James McGann, Responding to 9/11: Are Think Tanks Thinking Outside the Box?
(Foreign Policy Research Institute: Research Paper, 2003). 35. Interview with the author on April 4, 2006. 36. Interview with Laurent Murawiec on October 23, 2007, at the Hudson
Institute (Washington). 37. Interview, anonymity requested. 38. Ibid. 39. Steven Pearlstein, “Reining in Pentagon’s Think Tanks,” Washington Post ,
July 28, 1991. 40. Interview with a project manager, US Department of Defense, Autumn
2006, anonymity requested. 41. The Defense Science Board, a consultative body attached to the defense sec-
retary’s office, made up of about 40 members, is responsible for evaluating the department’s technological, scientific, and industrial acquisitions proce-dures. It thus has to evaluate the major weapons programs justified within the Revolution in Military Affairs framework.
42. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) and University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) Independent Advisory Task Force (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1997).
43. This expression, commonly used in Washington, designates the firms that, for the vast majority, are literally based around the Beltway that crosses Washington.
44. John T. Correll, “What Happened to Shock and Awe?,” Air Force Magazine , November 2003.
45. Harlan Ullmann and James Wade, Shock & Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (Arlington: NDU Press, 1996).
46. Interview with the author on October 23, 2007. 47. Laurent Murawiec, La Guerre au XXI e siècle (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2000), p. 256.
Three RAND and the Post–Cold War Pentagon
1. Michael Rich, National Security in the 1990s , Speech at Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, February 19, 1991. Sources: RAND Corporate Archives.
2. Interviews, anonymity requested.
Notes176
3. On this point, see Pasacal Vennesson, “Idées, politiques de défense et stratégie: enjeux et niveaux d’analyse,” Revue Française de Science Politique , 54 (5), 2004.
4. Ibid., p. 14. 5. Quoted by Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States ,
Department of Defense, May 14, 2007, p. 27. 6. Christophe Wasinski, “Créer une Révolution dans les affaires militaires:
mode d’emploi,” Cultures & Conflicts , 64, 2006, p. 154. 7. Interview with the author on November 2, 2006. 8. Pierre Bourdieu, Homo Academicus (Paris: Minuit, 1984), p. 198. 9. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008.
10. James Thomson, “The President’s Message” in RAND Annual Report , 1988–1989, p. iii.
11. Interview with the author on November 11, 2006. 12. James Thomson and Lloyd Morrisett, “Foreword” in RAND Annual Report ,
1988–1989, p. xi. 13. This is a reference to one of RAND’s most famous reports: Alain Enthoven and
K. Wayne Smith, How Much Is Enough: Shaping the Defense Program 1961–1969 (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1971).
14. “Defense Policy in the Post–Cold War Era,” Hearing before the Budgetary Committee of the House of Representatives, 102nd Congress, First Session, July 31, 1991, US Government Printing Office.
15. International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 1989–1990 (London: Brassey’s, 1989), p. 14.
16. IISS, The Military Balance 1990–1991 (London: Brassey’s, 1990), p. 15. 17. Ibid., p. 17. 18. John Mintz, “Nonprofit Think Tanks Vie to Keep Federal Contracts; For-
Profit Groups Argue for Open Bidding,” Washington Post , February 8, 1995. 19. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 20. Sandra Sugarawa, “The Mighty Voice of Mitre: Federally Funded Think
Tank Has Its Critics,” Washington Post , August 20, 1989. 21. Defense Secretary ’ s consultative body that consists of about 40 members. The
Defense Science Board is responsible for evaluating the department ’ s techno-logical, scientific, and industrial acquisitions procedure.
22. Department of Defense, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Role of Federally Funded Research & Development Centers in the Mission of the Department of Defense (Washington: Government Printing Office, April 1995).
23. Ibid., p. 4. 24. John Mintz, “Air Force Halts Merger of 2 Companies; Officials Feared
Change in Aerospace Corp. Could Affect Spy Program,” Washington Post , November 16, 1996.
25. Paul Kaminski, Testimony , Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, March 5, 1996.
26. Interview, anonymity requested.
Notes 177
27. Ibid. 28. Interview, anonymity requested. 29. Ibid. 30. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Interview with the author on October 27, 2006. 34. See Carl Schmitt, Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept
of the Political (New York: Telos Press, 2007). 35. James Carroll, House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American
Power (New York: Mariner Books, 2006), p. 453. 36. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, “A New Epoch—and Spectrum of
Conf lict” in John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conf lict in the Information Age (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1997), p. 1.
37. James Thomson and Lloyd Morrisett, “Foreword,” RAND Annual Report , 1991–1992, p. iv.
38. Steven Rearden, “Department of Defense” in Alexander Deconde, Richard Dean Burns, and Frederik Logevall (eds.), Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy , vol. 1, 2nd ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), p. 449.
39. “Defense Policy in the Post–Cold War Era,” art. cit. 40. Patrick Tyler, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop,”
New York Times , March 8, 1992. 41. Les Aspin, “National Security in the 1990s: Defining a New Basis for U.S.
Military Forces,” Washington, House of Representatives Armed Forces Committee, January 6, 1992, p. 20.
42. National Security Council, A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1994), p. 7.
43. John McCain, Going Hollow: The Warnings of Our Chiefs of Staff (Washington: Government Printing Office, July 1993).
44. Frederick Kagan, Finding the Target: The Transformation of US Military Policy (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), p. 152.
45. See William Perry, “Defense in an Age of Hope,” Foreign Affairs , 75 (6), November–December 1996, pp. 64–79.
46. Carl Builder, Rethinking National Security and the Role of the Military (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1995), p. 9.
47. Interview with the author on October 4, 2007. 48. Lawrence Korb and Robert Boorstin, Integrated Power: A National Security
Strategy for the 21st Century, Report, Center for American Progress, 2006, p. i.
49. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2003), p. 96.
50. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008.
Notes178
51. Douglas Lovelace, “Foreword” in Colin Gray, Recognizing and Understanding Revolutionary Change in Warfare: The Sovereignty of Context (Washington: Strategic Studies Institute Monograph, 2006), p. iii.
52. Kagan, Finding the Target , op. cit., p. 199. 53. Thomas Kuhn, La Structure des révolutions scientifiques (Paris: Flammarion,
1983). 54. Murawiec, La Guerre au XXI e siècle , pp. 240–241. 55. See in the literature: Dan Goure, “Is There a Military-Technical Revolution
in America’s Future?,” Washington Quarterly , 16 (4), Autumn 1993; William Odom, America’s Military Revolution: Strategy and Structure After the Cold War (Washington: American University Press, 1993); Michael Mazarr, The Military-Technical Revolution: A Structural Framework (Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 1993); Earl Tilford, The Revolution in Military Affairs: Prospects and Cautions (Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute, 1995); Eliot Cohen, “A Revolution in Warfare,” Foreign Affairs , 75 (2), March–April 1996.
56. Interview with the author on February 12, 2008. 57. Andrew Krepinevich, “Cavalry to Computer: The Pattern of Military
Revolutions,” National Interest , 37, Winter 1994, p. 30. 58. Richard Hundley, Past Revolutions, Future Transformation: What Can the History
of Revolutions in Military Affairs Tell Us about Transforming the U.S. Military? (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1999), p. 9.
59. See Wasinski, “Créer une Révolution dans les affaires militaires.” 60. Colin Gray, Recognizing and Understanding Revolutionary Change in Warfare:
The Sovereignty of Context (Strategic Studies Institute Monograph, 2006), p. 8.
61. Colin Gray, Strategy for Chaos: Revolutions in Military Affairs and the Evidence of History (London: Frank Cass, 2002), pp. 17–18.
62. Bruno Tertrais, “Faut-il croire à la Révolution dans les Affaires Militaires ?,” Politique étrangère , 63 (3), 1998, p. 624.
63. Quoted by Ken Silverstein, “The Man From ONA,” Nation , October 25, 1999.
Four The Work of Legitimizing Political Agendas
1. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 2. Max Weber, Economie et société: T.2 (Paris: Pocket, 2003), p. 220. 3. Interview, anonymity requested. 4. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006. 5. See Sabine Saurugger, “L’expertise : un mode de participation des groupes
d’intérêt au processus décisionnel communautaire,” Revue Française de Science Politique , 52 (4), August 2002, p. 375.
6. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006.
Notes 179
7. Michael Rich, National Security in the 1990s , Speech at Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, February 19, 1991, RAND Corporate Archives.
8. This was a response we frequently received during our interviews. 9. Richard Robbins, Ideas in Action: 60 Years of RAND , Video Documentary, 2006.
10. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 11. Jeremy Shapiro, “The Price of Success” in Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy
Shapiro, Strategic Appraisal: Aerospace Power in The 21st Century (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2001), p. 1.
12. See on this point the report commissioned by Congress: Thomas Keaney and Eliot Cohen (eds.), Gulf War Air Power Survey (GWAPS) Summary Report (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1993).
13. See Eliot Cohen’s critical approach, “The Mystique of U.S. Air Power,” Foreign Affairs , 73 (1), January–February 1994.
14. Caroline Ziemke, “Foreword” in Earl Tilford, Setup: What the Air Force Did in Vietnam and Why (Maxwell: Air University Press, 1991), p. ix.
15. Kagan, Finding the Target , op. cit., pp. 164–165. 16. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006. 17. Interview, anonymity requested. 18. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006. 19. Interview with the author on January 23, 2008. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Interview with the author on January 28, 2008. 23. Interview with the author on October 23, 2006. 24. Petra Steinberger, “Der kalte Gott der Zukunft; ‘Think Tank’ im Original:
Zu Besuch in der kalifornischen Rand Corporation,” Süddeutsche Zeitung , February 28, 2002, p. 13.
25. Interview with the author on January 28, 2008. 26. Project Air Force, Annual Report 2007 (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation,
2007), p. 1. 27. Interview with the author on January 28, 2008. 28. Ibid. 29. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 30. Carl Conetta and Charles Knight, “Rand’s New Calculus and the Impasse of
US Defense Restructuring,” Project on Defense Alternatives, Briefing Report , 4, August 1993.
31. Interview with the author on January 28, 2008. 32. Christopher Bowie, David Ochmanek, Fred Frostic, Kevin Lewis, John Lund,
and Philip Propper, The New Calculus: Analyzing Airpower’s Changing Role in Joint Theater Campaigns (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1993), p. 2.
33. Ibid., p. 81. 34. Ibid., p. 84. 35. Carl Builder, The Icarus Syndrome: Air Power Theory and the Evolution of the Air
Force (Santa Monica: RAND Research Brief, October 1993), p. 2.
Notes180
36. Alan Vick, David Orletsky, Abram Shulsky, and John Stillion, Preparing the U.S. Air Force for Military Operations Other Than War (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1997), p. iii.
37. Interview, anonymity requested. 38. Rebecca Grant, Victory in Cyberspace , Air Force Association Special Report,
October 2007, p. 3. 39. More precisely, this is an expression coined by American author William Gibson.
See William Gibson, Neuromancer (New York: Ace Publishers, 1986). 40. Martin Libicki, Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 41. Ibid., pp. 16–17. 42. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, “Cyberwar Is Coming!,” Comparative
Strategy , 12 (2), Spring 1993. 43. Arthur Cebrowski and John Garstka, “Network-Centric Warfare, Its Origin
and Future,” Proceedings , US Naval Institute, January 1998; William Owens, “The Emerging U.S. System-of-Systems,” Strategic Forum , February 1996.
44. Richard Szafranski, “Neocortical Warfare? The Acme of Skill” in John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt (eds.), In Athena’s Camp, op. cit. , p. 404.
45. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1999), p. x.
46. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, Swarming and the Future of Conflict (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2000), pp. vii–viii.
47. Sean Edwards, Swarming on the Battlefield: Past, Present and Future (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2000).
48. Interview with the author on October 23, 2007. 49. Thomas Kuhn, La Structure des révolutions scientifiques (Paris: Flammarion,
1983), p. 132. 50. Interview with the author on January 30, 2008. 51. Thus David Ronfeldt had to broaden his skills; his initial expertise on Latin
America was not sufficient to make his post financially viable . 52. Interview with the author on January 30, 2008. 53. Interview, anonymity requested. 54. Roger Molander, Andrew Riddile, and Peter Wilson, Strategic Information
Warfare: A New Face of War (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1996). 55. This designates the procedure for identifying critical information that could
endanger the troops. For example, during operation Iraqi Freedom, the American Army removed some nonclassified information from the Defense Department’s public internet site, considering it could be used by the Iraqi military.
56. We were permitted to consult it in the framework of our visit to RAND. 57. Interview, anonymity requested. 58. Laurent Murawiec, Aristotle in Cyberspace: Toward a Theory of Information Warfare ,
Report prepared for the Director of Net Assessment, Defense Department,
Notes 181
November 2001, p. 2. In 1890, Admiral Alfred Mahan (1840–1914) wrote The Inf luence of Seapower Upon History that made him the specialist of maritime strategy; for his part, Giulio Douhet, the Italian general, published Command of the Air in 1921, a work that has since become a classic of air strategy.
59. Murawiec, Aristotle in Cyberspace , op. cit., p. 5. 60. Pierre Bourdieu, Homo Academicus (Paris: Minuit, 1984), p. 91. 61. Murawiec, Aristotle in Cyberspace , op. cit., p. 62. 62. Interview with the author on February 8, 2008. 63. RAND Archives. 64. Interview, anonymity requested. 65. Robbins, Ideas in Action , op. cit. 66. During the first weeks following the 9/11 attacks, there was talk of the
“Crusade Against Terrorism,” a term that was rejected because of its histori-cal connotations for the Arab populations.
67. Angel Rabasa, Cheryl Benard, Lowell Schwartz, and Peter Sickle, Building Moderate Muslim Networks (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2007).
68. Ibid., p. iii. 69. Henry Rousso, “L’histoire appliquée ou les historiens thaumaturges,”
Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire , 1 (1), January–March 1984. 70. Rabasa, Benard, Schwartz, and Sickle, Building Moderate Muslim Networks,
op. cit., p. 35. 71. Ibid., p. 36. 72. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 73. Austin Long, On “Other War”: Lessons from Five Decades of RAND Counter-
insurgency Research (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2006), p. 2. 74. Ibid., p. 2. 75. David Galula, Pacification in Algeria, 1956–1958 (Santa Monica: RAND
Corporation, 2006). 76. US Army, Marine Corps, Counterinsurgency , FM 3–24, Washington,
Government Printing Office, 2006. 77. Bruce Hoffman, “Foreword to the New Edition” in Galula, Pacification in
Algeria , p. vii. 78. For a detailed look at the status of the American military debates regarding
this period, see François Raffenne and Jean-Loup Samaan, “Le débat stra-tégique américain. Lignes de partage 2006–2007,” Politique étrangère , 72 (4), 2007.
79. Dennis Drew, “US Airpower Theory and the Insurgent Challenge: A Short Journey to Confusion,” Journal of Military History , 62 (4), October 1998.
80. Ibid., p. E-1. 81. Alan Vick, Adam Grissom, William Rosenau, Beth Grill, and Karl Mueller,
Air Power in the New Counterinsurgency Era: The Strategic Importance of USAF Advisory and Assistance Missions (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2006).
82. Ibid., p. iii.
Notes182
83. Ibid., p. 112. 84. Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power against Terror: America’s Conduct of Operation Enduring
Freedom (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005), pp. xxviii–xxix. 85. Meeting limited to RAND personnel, November 2007. 86. The story of Shinseki’s resignation is the subject of many controversies. In his
2011 memoirs, Donald Rumsfeld denies the linkage between the debate on the number of troops in Iraq and the replacement of Shinseki the year after.
87. James Quinlivan, “Force Requirements in Stability Operations,” Parameters , Fall 1995.
88. Paul Bremer, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006), p. 10.
89. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006.
Five The Internationalization of RAND: A Tale of US Global Posture after the Cold War
1. Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).
2. See Susan Strange, Sterling and British Policy, a Political Study of an International Currency in Decline (London: Oxford University Press, 1971); Susan Strange, Casino Capitalism (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1986); Susan Strange, States and Markets: An Introduction to International Political Economy (London: Pinter, 1988); Susan Strange, Mad Money (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998).
3. Kenichi Ohmae, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (Touchstone: Wharton School, 1996); The Next Global Stage: The Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World (Touchstone: Wharton School, 2005).
4. Interview with the author on April 28, 2006. 5. Interview with the author on October 27, 2006. 6. Interview, anonymity requested. 7. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 8. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007. 9. States News Service, “Vicente Fox Center and RAND Launch Joint Program
to Find Policies to Combat Poverty in Mexico and Latin America,” August 2, 2007.
10. Ibid. 11. On the general history of the United States after the Cold War, see Pierre
Mélandri and Justin Vaïsse, L’Empire du milieu: les Etats-Unis et le monde depuis la fin de la Guerre froide (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2001); Pierre Mélandri and Serge Ricard (eds.), Les Etats-Unis et la fin de la Guerre froide (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2005); Bruce Jentleson and Thomas Paterson (eds.), The Encyclopedia of
Notes 183
US Foreign Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Richard Haas, The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States after the Cold War (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Book, 1997); Justin Vaïsse, “Les Etats-Unis sans Wilson – l’internationalisme américain après la Guerre froide,” Critique internationale , 3, Spring 1999; James Lindsay and Randall Ripley (eds.), US Foreign Policy after the Cold War (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997).
12. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008, at the RAND Corporation (Santa Monica).
13. Quoted by Michael Lind, The American Way of Strategy: U.S. Foreign Policy and the American Way of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 124.
14. Katarzyna Kolodziejczyk, “RAND Experts Support Partnership for Peace,” Polish News Bulletin , December 10, 1993.
15. Bruce Clark, “How the East Was Won: It Began with California Dreaming and a German Ascetic; It Ended in Hugs and Tears,” Financial Times , July 5, 1997.
16. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007. 17. Stephen Larrabee, Ronald Asmus, and Richard Kugler, “Building a New
NATO,” Foreign Affairs , 17 (4), September–October 1993. 18. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007. 19. Anecdote recounted in Ronald Asmus, Opening NATO’s Door: How the
Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), p. 33.
20. Interviews with the author on October 27, 2006 and November 9, 2006. 21. Asmus, Opening NATO’s Door, p. 34. 22. Ibid., p. 36; Mélandri and Vaïsse, L’Empire du milieu , op. cit., p. 153. 23. Katarzyna Kolodziejczyk, “RAND Experts Support Partnership for Peace,”
Polish News Bulletin , December 10, 1993. 24. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007. 25. See Mélandri and Vaïsse, L’Empire du milieu , op. cit., p. 152 sq. 26. See Ronald Asmus, Richard Kugler, and Stephen Larrabee, “What Will
NATO Enlargement Cost?,” Survival , Autumn 1996. 27. On this issue, we should note that the article “Building a New NATO,” the
outline of which convinced Volker Ruhe, was published in Foreign Affairs with an explicit (and unusual) note stating that the authors were express-ing personal opinions, and their view in no way involved either the RAND Corporation or the American Department of Defense.
28. Stephen Larrabee, Jerrold Green, Ian Lesser, and Michele Zanini, NATO’s Mediterranean Initiative: Policy Issues and Dilemmas (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1998).
29. Interviews with the author on January 31, 2008. 30. RAND Annual Report 1997, p. 44. 31. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007.
Notes184
32. R. Cynthia, Mark V. Cook, John C. Arena, Hans Pung Graser, Jerry M. Sollinger, and Obaid Younossi, Assembling and Supporting the Joint Strike Fighter in the UK: Issues and Costs (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2003).
33. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007. 34. Interview with the author on November 8, 2007. The RAND/IFRI proj-
ect David Gompert referred to dealt with China and was published under the title: David Gompert, Francois Godement, Evan Medeiros, and James Mulvenon, China on the Move: A Franco-American Analysis of Emerging Chinese Strategic Policies and Their Consequences for Transatlantic Relations (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005).
35. Interview with the author on October 8, 2007. 36. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 37. Ibid. 38. The Qatar Foundation for Education, Science, and Community Development
was created in 1995 by a decree of Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar.
39. News Release, “RAND-Qatar Policy Institute Opens and Selects Board of Overseers,” October 13, 2003, www.rand.org (accessed on April 2008).
40. See Robert Calsen, Global War on Terrorism: Understanding the Long-Term Strategy—Why Education Is Key , Presentation at the Department of Defense, February 3, 2005. Available at http://www.au.af.mil/; American Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (Washington: Government Printing Office, March 2005), p. 11.
41. RAND Items— Issue 1605—December 1, 2005. 42. RAND Archives. 43. Interview with the author on January 31, 2008. 44. Shafeeq Ghabra and Margreet Arnold, Studying the American Way: An
Assessment of American-Style Higher Education in Arab Countries (Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy), 2005 , p. 10.
45. RAND Archives. 46. Interview with the author on November 8, 2007. 47. Qatar News Agency, “Speech by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer at the State,” December 1, 2005. 48. RAND Archives. 49. Ibid., RAND Items— Issue 1596—July 28, 2005. 50. News Releases, “$2 Million Gift from Cyrus Chung Ying Tang Foundation
Will Help RAND Corp. Establish China Study Institute,” RAND Office of Media Relations, September 19, 2007.
51. Interviews with the author on October 27, 2006. 52. See, for instance, David Shlapak, David Orletsky, Toy Reid, Murray Scot
Tanner, and Barry Wilson, A Question of Balance: Political Context and Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Dispute (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2009); Roger Cliff, Mark Burles, Michael Chase, Derek Eaton, and Kevin Pollpeter, Entering the Dragon’s Lair: Chinese Antiaccess Strategies and Their Implications for the United States (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2007).
53. David Shambaugh (ed.), American Studies on Contemporary China (Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1993), p. 199.
54. Ibid., p. 211. 55. William Overholt, Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 56. Ibid., p. 225. 57. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999). 58. Ibid. 59. Interview, anonymity requested.
Six RAND and the Global Diffusion of US Strategic Concepts
1. See on this point Stanley Hoffmann’s long developments on the notion of “national style” in Stanley Hoffmann, Gulliver’s Troubles or the Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York: McGraw Hill Book, 1968), p. 94.
2. Hervé Coutau-Bégarie, “La recherche stratégique en France,” Annuaire Français de Relations Internationales , 2000, p. 787.
3. Emanuel Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control,” International Organization , 46 (1), 1992, pp. 101–145.
4. Ibid., p. 102. 5. Ibid., p. 102. 6. Ibid., p. 133. 7. Yves Dezalay, Marchands de droit: La restructuration de l’ordre juridique interna-
tional par les multinationales du droit (Paris: Fayard, 1992). 8. Peter Haas, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy
Coordination,” International Organization , 46 (1), 1992, p. 2. 9. Ibid., p. 24. As for Emanuel Adler, he emphasizes that the ideas emanating
from epistemic communities that become dominant remain dependent on their conformity or nonconformity with the managers political agendas. See Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation,” art. cit., p. 124.
10. Interview, anonymity requested. 11. Think Tank Watcher, “La réorganisation de la pensée stratégique française,”
March 2008. Available at http://www.thinktankwatcher.fr/. 12. http://www.defense.gouv.fr/das/ 13. Coutau-Bégarie, “La recherche stratégique en France,” art. cit., p. 789. 14. Interview with the author on April 4, 2006. 15. John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan, “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,”
International Organization , 44, 1990, p. 289. 16. Yves Dezalay and Bryant Garth, The Internationalization of Palace Wars:
Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).
17. Ibid., p. 113. 18. http://georgia.usembassy.gov/ (accessed on May 2, 2008). 19. Interview with the author on November 2, 2006. 20. Interview with the author on October 4, 2007. 21. Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation,” art. cit. 22. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Qu’est ce que la philosophie ? (Paris: Editions
de Minuit, 1991), p. 43. 23. See William Owens, “The Emerging US System of Systems,” Strategic Forum ,
63, February 1996. 24. Stuart Johnson and Martin Libicki (eds.), Dominant Battlespace Knowledge
(Washington: NDU Press Book, 1995). Both researchers have since joined RAND.
25. David Gompert, Martin Libicki, and Robert Kugler, Mind the Gap: Promoting a Transatlantic Revolution in Military Affairs (Washington: National Defense University Press, 1999).
26. Ibid., p. 15. 27. Ibid., p. 16. 28. Ibid., p. 15. 29. David Gompert and Uwe Nerlich, Shoulder to Shoulder: The Road to U.S.-
European Military Cooperability, a German-American Analysis (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2002), back cover.
30. Seth Jones and Stephen Larrabee, “Arming Europe,” National Interest , 82, Winter 2005–2006.
31. Ibid., p. 67. 32. All the diplomatic elements discussed at the 2002 Prague summit are avail-
able at http://www.nato.int/docu/ (accessed on May 3, 2008). 33. Etienne De Durand, “Quel format d’armée pour la France?,” Politique
Etrangère , 4, 2007, p. 731. 34. Christophe Wasinski, “Créer une Révolution dans les affaires militaires:
mode d’emploi,” Cultures & Conflicts , 64, 2006, p. 162. 35. Yves Dezalay and Bryant Garth, The Internationalization of Palace Wars,
op. cit., p. 33. 36. Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation,” art. cit. 37. See Zaki Laïdi, “Penser l’après-guerre froide” in Zaki Laïdi (ed.), L’Ordre
mondial relâché: sens et puissance après la guerre froide (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 1993), p. 15.
38. See, among others, on this debate: Richard Caplan and Béatrice Pouligny, “Histoire et contradictions du state building,” Critique internationale , 28, July–September 2005; Amitai Etzioni, “A Self-restrained Approach to Nation-Building by Foreign Powers,” International Affairs , 80 (1), 2004; Francis Fukuyama, “Nation-Building 101,” Atlantic Monthly , January–February 2004; Taras Kuzio, “Nationalising States or Nation-Building? A Critical Review of the Theoretical Literature and Empirical Evidence,” Nations and Nationalism , 7 (2), 2001.
39. This cleavage that has been analyzed innumerable times was the object of a famous demonstration by Henry Kissinger in his work Diplomacy (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1994). See in particular the chapter called “The Hinge: Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson.”
40. Quoted by Gary T. Dempsey, “Nation Building’s Newest Disguise,” Orbis , Summer 2002, p. 416.
41. Marina Ottaway, “Nation-Building,” Foreign Policy , September–October 2002. 42. Fukuyama, “Nation-Building 101,” art. cit. 43. James Dobbins (ed.), The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building (Santa Monica:
RAND Corporation, 2007). 44. Bertrand Badie and Pierre Birnbaum, Sociologie de l‘Etat (Paris: Grasset, 1982),
p. 8. 45. James Dobbins, Seth Jones, Keith Crane, Andrew Rathmell, Brett Steele,
Richard Teltschik, and Anga Timilsina, The UN’s Role in Nation-Building from the Congo to Iraq (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005).
46. Ibid., p. XIV. 47. http://rand.org/publications/bestsellers.html (accessed on May 4, 2008). 48. Dobbins, Jones, Crane, Rathmell, Steele, Teltschik, and Timilsina, The UN’s
Role in Nation-Building from the Congo to Iraq , op. cit. 49. Dobbins (ed.), The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, op. cit. 50. See Justin Vaïsse, “Les Etats-Unis: le temps de la diplomatie transformation-
nelle,” Cahiers de Chaillot , 95, December 2006. 51. Sami Makki, Militarisation de l’humanitaire, privatisation du militaire (Paris:
CIRPES, 2005 [2nd edition]). 52. Bertrand Badie, Le développement politique (Paris: Economica, 1994 [5th edition]),
p. 1. 53. See, among others, Edward Shils, Political Development in the New States (La
Haye: Mouton, 1960); Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics (Boston: Little Brown, 1966).
54. Walter Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communistic Manifesto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).
55. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Ref lections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New York: Verso, 2006).
56. National Security Council, US National Security Strategy (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2002).
57. Interview, anonymity requested. 58. See François Géré and Jean-Loup Samaan, Au-delà du Nation-Building , Institut
Français d’Analyse Stratégique, Study submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 2007.
60. Ulrike Hopp and Adolf Kloke-Lesch, “External Nation-Building vs Endogenous Nation-Forming—A Development Policy Perspective” in Hippler, Nation-Building, op. cit., p. 143.
61. Ibid., p. 143. 62. Paul Bremer, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope (New York:
Threshold Editions, 2006), p. 22. 63. Bourdieu, “Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées,”
Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 145 (5), 2002, p. 4. 64. See this distinction, particularly on the transnational advocacy networks,
in Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
Conclusion: The Disenchantment of Strategists?
1. Thomas Medvetz, “Hybrid Intellectuals: Think Tanks and Public Policy Experts in the United States,” Research Paper, University of Berkeley, 2006, pp. 2–3.
2. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus , op. cit., p. 87. 3. Rogers Brubaker, “Au-delà de ‘l’identité,’” Actes de la recherche en sciences
sociales , 139 (3), 2001, p. 71,. 4. Thomas Ricks, “Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies,” Washington Post ,
August 6, 2002. 5. Thomas Ricks, “Views Aired in Briefing on Saudis Disavowed,” Washington
Post , August 7, 2002. 6. Patrick Jarreau, “Le parcours atypique de Laurent Murawiec, consultant de la
Rand,” Le Monde , August 12, 2002. 7. Quoted by Jack Shafer, “The Continuing Saga of Laurent (of Arabia)
Murawiec,” Slate , August 27, 2002. 8. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006. 9. Ibid.
10. Damien De Blic and Cyril Lemieux, “Le scandale comme épreuve: Eléments de sociologie pragmatique,” Politix , 71 (18), 2005.
11. Ibid., p. 12. 12. Ricks, “Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies,” art. cit. 13. Interview with the author on November 6, 2006. 14. Interview with the author on October 23, 2007. 15. See, in particular, Phillipe Mary, La Nouvelle Vague et le cinéma d’auteur. Socio-
analyse d’une révolution artistique (Paris: Seuil, 2006). 16. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus , pp. 162–163. 17. Richard Szafranski, “Neocortical Warfare? The Acme of Skill” in John
Arquilla and David Ronfeldt (eds.), In Athena’s Camp, op. cit. , pp. 395–416; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, Swarming and the Future of Conf lict , op. cit.
Notes 189
18. The Allied command Transformation , commanded by the SACT (Supreme Allied Command Transformation ) was created to promote and supervise the continual transformation of the alliance’s forces and capacities.
19. See Marie-Christine Granjon (ed.), Penser avec Michel Foucault: Théorie critique et pratiques politiques (Paris: Karthala, 2005), p. 43.
