Military involvement in foreign policy decision-making, and its role as a driving force in that process, has long been anathema to both academic and practitioner circles. Without wanting to pursue the quest for principles or ultimate predictions this study looks specifically into the role of the military in foreign policy decision-making. It does so by carefully reconstructing and comparing the sequential series of decisions of a group of British and Dutch senior civil and military decision-makers which have led to the deployment of their militaries into to Afghan provinces of Helmand and Uruzgan.
One of the most prominent findings of this analysis is the shaping ability of military initiatives on the series of decisions and the consequent path dependent reasoning during political deliberations on the deployment of military forces: the decision of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to deploy their troops to southern Afghanistan was based on an emergent case that largely built itself.
‘A fresh and illuminating interpretation of how, by whom and when, decisions were made in the NL and UK as they sought to take part in the NATO operation in Afghanistan.’
Dr (LtCol) Mirjam Grandia Mantas is a commissioned officer serving in the Royal Netherlands Army, and a scholar. In her military career she has been deployed on various missions to Bosnia, Afghanistan and Ethiopia. She currently holds the post of Assistant Professor of International Security Studies at the War Studies Department of the Faculty of Military Sciences of the Netherlands Defence Academy.
‘The book offers a fresh and illuminating interpretation of how, by whom and when, decisions were made in the NL and UK as they sought to take part in the NATO operation in Afghanistan. The analysis is original and shows convincingly that the practice had little relationship to the theory upon which political and military processes for the use of armed force are structured.’
'Inescapable Entrapments? offers a rare blend of readable, policy-relevant theory and human detail from interviews and the author’s experience as a Dutch officer, having served in Afghanistan. It is also a frightening book, deconstructing our rosy notions about civil-military relations at home and politicians’ grasp of the weapons they wield. Most frighteningly, it suggests that neither generals nor politicians understand the world where they wield those weapons, despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that suggest they represent the future.'
‘A very rich, empirically interesting project with significant potential to contribute to a wide range of areas of scholarship, including civil-military relations, military-political decision making, interventions and ‘peace-building’ missions, and international security more generally. It is of relevance to both academic and non-academic readers. A real strength is its comparative nature, and it will be of interest to those who study and participate in Dutch and UK foreign policy.’
‘In this book, Mirjam Grandia Mantas proposes a radical and subversive thesis. She shows that the Dutch and British decision to deploy to the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan in 2006 was not made independently by the respective governments of these countries, as might be expected. Rather, both countries were mutually committed to the operation by their transnational military interconnections and obligations. The book represents a major contribution not just to understanding NATO's campaign in Afghanistan but strategy in the twenty-first century.’
Grandia argues forcefully for theoretical approaches to both strategy
and civil-military relations which are grounded not in abstractions about
normative behaviour but in these operational realities. If her call is not heeded,
then we risk further failures, probably greater than those in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Now more than ever, we need to respond to Mirjam Grandia’s call for a more realistic approach to civil-military relations and to the making of strategy.