Articles Asia Defense & Security

Strategic Studies in Pakistan: A Commentary

Image Credit: Baona
Strategic Studies in Pakistan: A Commentary

The study of military strategy is as old as war itself. Yet, Strategic Studies as a formal scientific discipline was introduced only in the twentieth century. The ontological, epistemological, and methodological basis of the new discipline were deeply rooted in the European Enlightenment on the one hand and the specific social, political, economic, cultural, and technological realities of the post-World War II United States in particular. The ontological i.e. the discipline’s assumptions about the nature of reality, took the state as an ontological unity and anarchy in the international system as the structural determinant of (in)security. The epistemological i.e. assumptions about what constitutes valid knowledge drew on the Realism’s theoretical enterprise which claims value-neutrality and emphasizes the fallacy of subject-object distinction in the social world. This binary formation often results in an overemphasis on the structures at the expense of agents and agency. The methodological, professed the fetishization of the scientific method with a focus on a peculiar conception of rationality and the centrality of nuclear weapons to strategic thinking. These are some signposts to understand the nature of Strategic Studies in the post War U.S. 

The discipline was crafted to work in the service of the State. Strategists were mostly thinkers, scholars, scientists, economists, and mathematicians who worked under the assumption that the ‘national interest’ was incontestable and a universal good. They thought, wrote, and taught about weapon systems, their effective employment and war. They framed their arguments in the language of ‘ends’ and ‘means’ and defended their ideas in cost-benefit terms. Scholars debated over good and bad strategies but mostly from a widely shared philosophical and ontological basis. The common goal was to make the U.S. invulnerable. What was the best way to get there was disputed and remains unresolved to this day. On the margins there was alternative scholarship that challenged the moral basis of the entire enterprise, but it never became mainstream. In all this, the strategists failed many times, the worst of these were Vietnam and later their inability to predict the end of the Cold War. Both historical events ignited criticism of the disciplinary approach and invited questions over the necessity and relevance of the discipline. 

Any commentary on teaching strategy in Pakistan needs to familiarize the readers with this disciplinary history and keep the following factors in view: First, the context in which the discipline evolved. Second, its ontological, epistemological, and methodological bias. Third, its failures.

The relevance of these factors lies in the fact that Strategic Studies as we understand and teach in Pakistan is deeply colored by the strategic studies literature and thinking developed in the West mainly in the U.S. and to some extent the U.K. This is in part because of the ‘intellectual dominance’ of the West within the strategic circles in Pakistan and in part because of the often-implicit assumption that science is universal and therefore any scientific discipline can be adopted anywhere without much critical engagement. 

Any commentary on teaching strategy in Pakistan needs to familiarize the readers with this disciplinary history and keep the following factors in view: First, the context in which the discipline evolved. Second, its ontological, epistemological, and methodological bias. Third, its failures.

Is there something wrong with emulation? Should we reinvent the wheel? We may not necessarily have to create an entirely new discipline but are we looking at the right wheel?

There are two ways to answer these questions. One is to investigate the instrumental utility and assess how effective our current approach of teaching strategy is? 

Second is to revisit the ontological and epistemological basis of the discipline in its predominant form, evaluate what it does, and whose interests it serves? And see if it is consistent with our social realities and social needs? 

From an instrumental perspective the contributions of Strategic Studies as a discipline can be evaluated by investigating our comprehension of strategy as a concept, a tool and practice. Let us narrow it down to one specific issue area for the purpose of analysis i.e., National Security Strategy with a focus on military strategy. 

All courses on strategy begin with a straight-forward definition of strategy i.e., the art/science of utilizing available means to achieve the desired ends in a cost-effective manner. This is a reasonable definition and may appear universal. The devil lies in the details, however. For instance, how do we think about ends and means. The foundational text that is used to teach students about strategic thinking in the military history is Peter Paret’s book titled “The Makers of Modern Strategy.” It is a standard text taught at many American Universities also. It covers strategic thinkers who were mainly concerned with the interest of colonial/major powers. Their ideas of war were influenced by socio-cultural, political, and technological realities of the geographical places that they inhabited. There is no harm in familiarizing students with various chapters of military history but the fact that the texts like this are not sufficiently diverse and do not capture the challenges that the post-colonial states and societies are faced with, poses specific kind of dilemmas. Teaching strategy predominantly from a Western standpoint influences how we think and determine ends and means. Ends and means are not given but context dependent. However, a peculiar kind of academic socialization turns them into given and often static. As a result, acquiring specific kind of means itself becomes a political end. This explains the enormous challenge that we face in terms of aligning our goals with the available means. 

Likewise taking the ontological and epistemological basis of the discipline as given has resulted in poor strategizing. Burrowing the national security ideas from a state that had largely resolved the state-citizen dilemmas before embarking on an imperialist drive is ill-suited to the needs of a post-colonial state that continues to struggle with issues of state formation, consolidation, governance, and the deep fissures between the core and the periphery. 

Similarly, borrowing and applying the knowledge that is produced in imperialist, secular states to a society that is ethnically divided and defines its identity in religious terms, creates a deep chasm between the social realities and the disciplinary discourses. 

Lastly, the scientific method and its claims to ‘objective rationality’ render all possibilities of ethical and moral discourse obsolete. The West is bearing the consequences of its moral blindness. Do we want to tread the same path, is a question that needs to be discussed and addressed urgently. 

The commentary above is not meant to discredit the long distance that the people working in this often harsh and painful terrain have traversed. Their contributions are many and must be acknowledged. Also, it is not a case against the discipline itself nor an argument for reinventing the wheel in its entirety. 

It is a plea to all concerned to carefully revisit and examine the assumptions that guide the curriculum and conversation within the disciplinary space. It is a case for deeper investigation into our own contextual specificities and digging out the literatures produced in the West as well as the East that are often on the margins. Learning from the post-colonial thinkers, historians, and philosophers that engage with the deep moral questions about war, strategy, citizenry, and statehood will help us get insights that speak directly to our challenges. We can reorient our teaching of strategy accordingly.

Sadia Tasleem

Sadia Tasleem is a lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. She is currently pursuing her PhD at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Leave a Comment

Login

Welcome! Login in to your account

Remember me Lost your password?

Lost Password