Advertisement

Some Constraints on Defence Policy Makers

  • John C. Garnett

Abstract

Sir David Kelly once made the dry observation that decision making — or is it decision taking? — in the Civil Service is a ‘casual unreasoning action by ordinary men in positions of extraordinary power’.1 Now although government decisions do sometimes seem to have the quality of inexplicable arbitrariness to which Sir David referred, the assumption underlying this paper is that, for the most part at least, they reflect a deliberate and calculated response by officials to the situation in which they find themselves. In other words, it is assumed that defence decisions involve a reasoned choice from a number of perceived alternatives of that course of action deemed most likely to promote the state of affairs desired by the decision maker. As such, defence policy is susceptible to rational analysis, and although we may never quite get to the bottom of any particular decision,2 we can penetrate some of the mystery by identifying the constraints which pushed decision makers towards some choices and away from others. Much of the paper will deal with the human, organisational and political pressures which combine to force policy makers to take actions which, however curious to the outside observer, make sense when located in their proper context. Regrettably, other constraints of an economic and technological kind cannot be dealt with in a short paper.

Keywords

Decision Maker National Interest Defence Policy International Life International Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    D. Kelly, The Ruling Few (London, 1952) p. 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. F. Kennedy once wrote ‘there will always be the dark and tangled stretches in the decisionmaking process — mysterious even to those who may be most intimately involved’. See his foreword to T. C. Sorenson, Decisionmaking in the White House (New York, 1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Heclo, ‘Review Article: Policy Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 2, pt I (Jan 1972) p. 84.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Etzioni, The Active Society (New York, 1968) p. 252.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    S. P. Huntington, The Common Defense (New York and London, 1961) pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    M. Desai, ‘Social Science Goes to War’, Survival (Mar–Apr 1972) p. 64.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    A. Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore, Md, 1962) p. 37.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Quoted by J. Frankel, The Making of Foreign Policy (London, 1963) p. 151.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    S. Hoffmann, The State of War (New York and London, 1965) p. 162.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    P. Darby, British Defence Policy East of Suez 1947–68 (London, 1973) p. 108. I am indebted to my colleague John Baylis for drawing my attention to this example.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    D. Greenwood, ‘Economic Constraints and the Defence Effort’, RUSI Journal, vol. CXIII, no. 652 (Nov 1968) p. 329.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    R. Hilsman, ‘The Politics of Policymaking’, in Defence and Foreign Affairs (New York and London, 1971) p. 4.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    G. T. Allison, ‘Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis’, in Comparative Foreign Policy, ed. W. F. Hanrieder, David McKay (New York, 1971).Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    See Charles E. Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy (New York, 1965) pp. 137–43.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    J. P. Cornford, ‘The Illusion of Decision’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. IV, pt 2 (Apr 1974) p. 233.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    R. Hilsman, To Move a Nation (New York, 1967) p. 5.Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    Z. Brzezinski and A. Huntington, Political Power, USA/USSR (New York, 1965) p. 225.Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    F. Hopkins, quoted in B. Reed and G. Williams, Denis Healey (London, 1972) p. 199.Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    P. Y. Hammond, ‘Super Carriers and B-36 bombers: Appropriations, Strategy and Polities’, in American Civil Military Decisions, ed. H. Stein (Birmingham, Ala., 1963).Google Scholar
  20. 26.
    V. Davis, The Admirals’ Lobby (Raleigh, N.C., 1967).Google Scholar
  21. 29.
    G. Williams, F. Gregory and J. Simpson, Crisis in Procurement: A case study of the TSR-2, Royal United Service Institution (London, 1969) p. 61.Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    P. Gretton, Maritime Strategy:A Study of British Defence Problems (London, 1965) p. 118.Google Scholar
  23. 31.
    K. Booth, ‘Navies and Foreign Policy’, unpublished paper (1974).Google Scholar
  24. 32.
    Allison, Bureaucracy and Policy: Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, 1971).Google Scholar
  25. 33.
    S. Huntington, ‘Strategic Planning and the Political Process’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 38, no. 2 (Jan 1960) p. 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 34.
    See Y. Droh, Public Policy Making Re-examined (San Francisco, 1968) p. 132–3.Google Scholar
  27. 35.
    R. McKenzie, British Political Parties (New York, 1963) p. 635.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    R. Butt, The Power of Parliament (London, 1967) p. 292.Google Scholar
  29. 37.
    A. Walker, ‘The Labour Party in Search of a Defence Policy, 1959– 1967’, MSc (Econ) dissertation (University of Wales, 1973).Google Scholar
  30. 38.
    M. R. Gordon, Conflict and Consensus in Labour’s Foreign Policy, 1914– 1965 (Stanford, Cal., 1969) p. 281–2.Google Scholar
  31. 39.
    A. Verrier, ‘Defence and Politics after Nassau’, Political Quarterly (July– Sept 1963) p. 272.Google Scholar
  32. 40.
    A recent attempt to interpret Soviet defence policy in terms of Soviet decision making processes in M. P. Gallagher and K. F. Spielmann, Jr, Soviet Decisionmaking for Defence (New York and London, 1972).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Defence College 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Garnett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations