Dana Eyre - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Dana Eyre
Counter-Terrorism (CT) and Counter-Insurgency (COIN) -A NATO COE-DAT Research Project-, 2024
This chapter focuses on the concepts of, and efforts to, prevent violent extrem- ism (PVE), and c... more This chapter focuses on the concepts of, and efforts to, prevent violent extrem- ism (PVE), and counter violent extremism (CVE) (together, P/CVE) in support of NATO (and other liberal democratic) states. It places these concepts in the wider arc of our evolving thinking about war, terrorism, insurgency, and how to address these problems. Though other chapters address counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency in detail, this chapter provides a short historical con- textualization of these terms, as well as P/CVE. This simple contextualization of these highly-charged terms lets us see fundamental patterns in our evolving use of the terms. This pattern in the usage reflects a deeper, less visible, but vital evolution in our understanding of the terrorism and insurgency, and in our collective understanding of how to successfully address them. After this contextualization, and a discussion of the key research findings on P/CVE, the chapter introduces a concept not included in the formal charter for the volume or in NATO doctrine: conflict transformation (CTr). Conflict transformation (which has continuities with counter-insurgency (COIN) but is grounded in peace building rather than war fighting) helps us with the next step in the nec- essary evolution in our understanding of how to successfully resolve these problems. The evolution of terms, and of our understanding of these problems, is not of mere academic curiosity. Applying our learning to phenomena as po- liticized and complex as terrorism and insurgency requires an understanding of how we have learned, what the blockages to our learning and the application of that learning have been, as well as what we have learned. Our evolving understanding, grounded in research over the post 9/11 era, highlights critical operational aspects for counter-terrorism (CT), and counter-insurgency opera- tions to which planners must attend.
Public Relations Review, 2012
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the a... more This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1997
In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. Thi... more In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. This build-up has been marked by the proliferation of “advanced," high-technology weaponry in the “developing” world. Today, twenty developing countries possess or are developing ballistic missile systems and over seventy have deployed supersonic fighter aircraft. Well-equipped “state of the art” militaries are no longer restricted to the industrialized “core” powers; military development and economic development, it seems, have become decoupled.
This dissertation investigates this rapid militarization by identifying and examining factors affecting the adoption of a variety of force structures (e.g. an independent air force) and weapons systems (e.g. supersonic aircraft, main battle tanks) by nation-states in the 1945-1990 period. Three broad arguments are taken from the literature in efforts to understand this trend. These are the superpower manipulation, national security, and internal political process arguments. Each stresses that weapons acquisition and military force structures are the result of rational calculation by actors in the pursuit of their own self-interest, but vary in their identification of central actors and actor motives. This dissertation adds and emphasizes ideas drawn from institutional theory to develop arguments emphasizing the impact of world-level cultural models of the nation-state on the proliferation process. Reduced to the simplest, but strongest, possible statement, I argue that weapons spread, not solely because of a match between their technical capabilities and national
security needs, but because of the highly symbolic, normative nature of militaries and their weaponry. Weapons spread, in part, because highly technological militaries symbolize modernity, efficacy, and independence.
The empirical portion of the dissertation is made up of two parts. The first develops panel regressions, using national weapons inventory data as dependent variables for the years 1960,1970, 1980, and 1990. This analysis is supplemented by logistic regressions using indicators of force structure as dependent variables, and by an exploratory event history analysis.
The second empirical portion of the dissertation is a series of case studies, designed to explore the mechanisms through which membership in the world system translates into weapons inventories. The primary case examines overall patterns of weapons procurement, and their relationship to regional patterns of conflict in Latin America. This case focuses on the role of national strategic doctrines as a central mediating mechanism, linking the “objective" national security environment with national military organization and procurement.
These analyses demonstrate clearly that institutional arguments provide substantial insights into the process of weapons proliferation. Despite reasons for believing that the world military system may function in a unique way, these results demonstrate that it does not. Weapons proliferation, and the spread of modern forms of military organization, are shaped by the same institutional processes that shape the spread of human rights, welfare systems, science policy boards, and conceptions of individualism. A substantial body of institutional theory research has argued that “uniform ideologies and practices are an indication of the responsiveness of nation-states to the wider cultural environment.” (McNeely, 1989:150). This research has demonstrated that that responsiveness does not end in the military realm. National militaries, just as other parts of the nation-state, occupy a constructed identity that shape their structure, practices, purposes and contents. The acquisition of a canonical modern military organization, including modern weaponry is, like the acquisition of a flag, at least in part a product of world-level cultural definitions of the modern nation-state. Like a flag, a military its weaponry are enactments of sovereign status. The results of this research demonstrate that the more a nation interacts with the larger world cultural system, the more it visibly asserts and confirms its sovereign status with the ultimate symbol of nationhood: a military.
Armed Forces & Society, Jan 1, 1993
Armed Forces & Society, Jan 1, 1999
Peace Review, Jan 1, 2000
Sociological Forum, Jan 1, 1992
Although other nations have participated extensively in international peacekeeping operations, th... more Although other nations have participated extensively in international peacekeeping operations, the use of American soldiers as peacekeepers is a recent change in their military role, and is not well understood by American society, the U.S. Army, the soldiers, or their wives. We use a social constructionist perspective, which has rarely been applied to the study of the American military, to analyze the definition of peacekeeping missions and of the nature of the military, by soldiers assigned to peacekeeping duty, their families, and other social institutions such as communications media and churches. We suggest that, because peacekeeping is an inherently ambiguous process, this theoretical perspective may prove useful in understanding the social definition of the emerging military role of peacekeeper.
Sociological Forum, Jan 1, 1992
This paper outlines four theoretical approaches to the sociology of weapons proliferation: strate... more This paper outlines four theoretical approaches to the sociology of weapons proliferation: strategic-functional theories, factional theories, geopolitical theories, and institutional theories. Although rarely formulated explicitly, the first three approaches are implicit in the existing literature on proliferation. All three see proliferation as the result of rational decision making, although they differ as to the locus of these decisions, with strategic-functional theories focusing on the nation-state, factional theories on subnational interests, and geopolitical theories on global superpowers. In contrast, the institutional approach disputes the rationality of procurement, arguing instead that weapons purchases are structured and driven by institutionalized normative structures that link advanced weaponry with modernization and sovereignty. The policy implications of this perspective are discussed, and parallels to recent developments in organizational theory are highlighted.
Thesis Chapters by Dana Eyre
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1997
In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. Thi... more In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. This build-up has been marked by the proliferation of “advanced," high-technology weaponry in the “developing” world. Today, twenty developing countries possess or are developing ballistic missile systems and over seventy have deployed supersonic fighter aircraft. Well-equipped “state of the art” militaries are no longer restricted to the industrialized “core” powers; military development and economic development, it seems, have become decoupled.
This dissertation investigates this rapid militarization by identifying and examining factors affecting the adoption of a variety of force structures (e.g. an independent air force) and weapons systems (e.g. supersonic aircraft, main battle tanks) by nation-states in the 1945-1990 period. Three broad arguments are taken from the literature in efforts to understand this trend. These are the superpower manipulation, national security, and internal political process arguments. Each stresses that weapons acquisition and military force structures are the result of rational calculation by actors in the pursuit of their own self-interest, but vary in their identification of central actors and actor motives. This dissertation adds and emphasizes ideas drawn from institutional theory to develop arguments emphasizing the impact of world-level cultural models of the nation-state on the proliferation process. Reduced to the simplest, but strongest, possible statement, I argue that weapons spread, not solely because of a match between their technical capabilities and national
security needs, but because of the highly symbolic, normative nature of militaries and their weaponry. Weapons spread, in part, because highly technological militaries symbolize modernity, efficacy, and independence.
The empirical portion of the dissertation is made up of two parts. The first develops panel regressions, using national weapons inventory data as dependent variables for the years 1960,1970, 1980, and 1990. This analysis is supplemented by logistic regressions using indicators of force structure as dependent variables, and by an exploratory event history analysis.
The second empirical portion of the dissertation is a series of case studies, designed to explore the mechanisms through which membership in the world system translates into weapons inventories. The primary case examines overall patterns of weapons procurement, and their relationship to regional patterns of conflict in Latin America. This case focuses on the role of national strategic doctrines as a central mediating mechanism, linking the “objective" national security environment with national military organization and procurement.
These analyses demonstrate clearly that institutional arguments provide substantial insights into the process of weapons proliferation. Despite reasons for believing that the world military system may function in a unique way, these results demonstrate that it does not. Weapons proliferation, and the spread of modern forms of military organization, are shaped by the same institutional processes that shape the spread of human rights, welfare systems, science policy boards, and conceptions of individualism. A substantial body of institutional theory research has argued that “uniform ideologies and practices are an indication of the responsiveness of nation-states to the wider cultural environment.” (McNeely, 1989:150). This research has demonstrated that that responsiveness does not end in the military realm. National militaries, just as other parts of the nation-state, occupy a constructed identity that shape their structure, practices, purposes and contents. The acquisition of a canonical modern military organization, including modern weaponry is, like the acquisition of a flag, at least in part a product of world-level cultural definitions of the modern nation-state. Like a flag, a military its weaponry are enactments of sovereign status. The results of this research demonstrate that the more a nation interacts with the larger world cultural system, the more it visibly asserts and confirms its sovereign status with the ultimate symbol of nationhood: a military.
Counter-Terrorism (CT) and Counter-Insurgency (COIN) -A NATO COE-DAT Research Project-, 2024
This chapter focuses on the concepts of, and efforts to, prevent violent extrem- ism (PVE), and c... more This chapter focuses on the concepts of, and efforts to, prevent violent extrem- ism (PVE), and counter violent extremism (CVE) (together, P/CVE) in support of NATO (and other liberal democratic) states. It places these concepts in the wider arc of our evolving thinking about war, terrorism, insurgency, and how to address these problems. Though other chapters address counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency in detail, this chapter provides a short historical con- textualization of these terms, as well as P/CVE. This simple contextualization of these highly-charged terms lets us see fundamental patterns in our evolving use of the terms. This pattern in the usage reflects a deeper, less visible, but vital evolution in our understanding of the terrorism and insurgency, and in our collective understanding of how to successfully address them. After this contextualization, and a discussion of the key research findings on P/CVE, the chapter introduces a concept not included in the formal charter for the volume or in NATO doctrine: conflict transformation (CTr). Conflict transformation (which has continuities with counter-insurgency (COIN) but is grounded in peace building rather than war fighting) helps us with the next step in the nec- essary evolution in our understanding of how to successfully resolve these problems. The evolution of terms, and of our understanding of these problems, is not of mere academic curiosity. Applying our learning to phenomena as po- liticized and complex as terrorism and insurgency requires an understanding of how we have learned, what the blockages to our learning and the application of that learning have been, as well as what we have learned. Our evolving understanding, grounded in research over the post 9/11 era, highlights critical operational aspects for counter-terrorism (CT), and counter-insurgency opera- tions to which planners must attend.
Public Relations Review, 2012
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the a... more This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1997
In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. Thi... more In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. This build-up has been marked by the proliferation of “advanced," high-technology weaponry in the “developing” world. Today, twenty developing countries possess or are developing ballistic missile systems and over seventy have deployed supersonic fighter aircraft. Well-equipped “state of the art” militaries are no longer restricted to the industrialized “core” powers; military development and economic development, it seems, have become decoupled.
This dissertation investigates this rapid militarization by identifying and examining factors affecting the adoption of a variety of force structures (e.g. an independent air force) and weapons systems (e.g. supersonic aircraft, main battle tanks) by nation-states in the 1945-1990 period. Three broad arguments are taken from the literature in efforts to understand this trend. These are the superpower manipulation, national security, and internal political process arguments. Each stresses that weapons acquisition and military force structures are the result of rational calculation by actors in the pursuit of their own self-interest, but vary in their identification of central actors and actor motives. This dissertation adds and emphasizes ideas drawn from institutional theory to develop arguments emphasizing the impact of world-level cultural models of the nation-state on the proliferation process. Reduced to the simplest, but strongest, possible statement, I argue that weapons spread, not solely because of a match between their technical capabilities and national
security needs, but because of the highly symbolic, normative nature of militaries and their weaponry. Weapons spread, in part, because highly technological militaries symbolize modernity, efficacy, and independence.
The empirical portion of the dissertation is made up of two parts. The first develops panel regressions, using national weapons inventory data as dependent variables for the years 1960,1970, 1980, and 1990. This analysis is supplemented by logistic regressions using indicators of force structure as dependent variables, and by an exploratory event history analysis.
The second empirical portion of the dissertation is a series of case studies, designed to explore the mechanisms through which membership in the world system translates into weapons inventories. The primary case examines overall patterns of weapons procurement, and their relationship to regional patterns of conflict in Latin America. This case focuses on the role of national strategic doctrines as a central mediating mechanism, linking the “objective" national security environment with national military organization and procurement.
These analyses demonstrate clearly that institutional arguments provide substantial insights into the process of weapons proliferation. Despite reasons for believing that the world military system may function in a unique way, these results demonstrate that it does not. Weapons proliferation, and the spread of modern forms of military organization, are shaped by the same institutional processes that shape the spread of human rights, welfare systems, science policy boards, and conceptions of individualism. A substantial body of institutional theory research has argued that “uniform ideologies and practices are an indication of the responsiveness of nation-states to the wider cultural environment.” (McNeely, 1989:150). This research has demonstrated that that responsiveness does not end in the military realm. National militaries, just as other parts of the nation-state, occupy a constructed identity that shape their structure, practices, purposes and contents. The acquisition of a canonical modern military organization, including modern weaponry is, like the acquisition of a flag, at least in part a product of world-level cultural definitions of the modern nation-state. Like a flag, a military its weaponry are enactments of sovereign status. The results of this research demonstrate that the more a nation interacts with the larger world cultural system, the more it visibly asserts and confirms its sovereign status with the ultimate symbol of nationhood: a military.
Armed Forces & Society, Jan 1, 1993
Armed Forces & Society, Jan 1, 1999
Peace Review, Jan 1, 2000
Sociological Forum, Jan 1, 1992
Although other nations have participated extensively in international peacekeeping operations, th... more Although other nations have participated extensively in international peacekeeping operations, the use of American soldiers as peacekeepers is a recent change in their military role, and is not well understood by American society, the U.S. Army, the soldiers, or their wives. We use a social constructionist perspective, which has rarely been applied to the study of the American military, to analyze the definition of peacekeeping missions and of the nature of the military, by soldiers assigned to peacekeeping duty, their families, and other social institutions such as communications media and churches. We suggest that, because peacekeeping is an inherently ambiguous process, this theoretical perspective may prove useful in understanding the social definition of the emerging military role of peacekeeper.
Sociological Forum, Jan 1, 1992
This paper outlines four theoretical approaches to the sociology of weapons proliferation: strate... more This paper outlines four theoretical approaches to the sociology of weapons proliferation: strategic-functional theories, factional theories, geopolitical theories, and institutional theories. Although rarely formulated explicitly, the first three approaches are implicit in the existing literature on proliferation. All three see proliferation as the result of rational decision making, although they differ as to the locus of these decisions, with strategic-functional theories focusing on the nation-state, factional theories on subnational interests, and geopolitical theories on global superpowers. In contrast, the institutional approach disputes the rationality of procurement, arguing instead that weapons purchases are structured and driven by institutionalized normative structures that link advanced weaponry with modernization and sovereignty. The policy implications of this perspective are discussed, and parallels to recent developments in organizational theory are highlighted.
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1997
In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. Thi... more In recent years, Third-World militarization has become a hallmark of the international order. This build-up has been marked by the proliferation of “advanced," high-technology weaponry in the “developing” world. Today, twenty developing countries possess or are developing ballistic missile systems and over seventy have deployed supersonic fighter aircraft. Well-equipped “state of the art” militaries are no longer restricted to the industrialized “core” powers; military development and economic development, it seems, have become decoupled.
This dissertation investigates this rapid militarization by identifying and examining factors affecting the adoption of a variety of force structures (e.g. an independent air force) and weapons systems (e.g. supersonic aircraft, main battle tanks) by nation-states in the 1945-1990 period. Three broad arguments are taken from the literature in efforts to understand this trend. These are the superpower manipulation, national security, and internal political process arguments. Each stresses that weapons acquisition and military force structures are the result of rational calculation by actors in the pursuit of their own self-interest, but vary in their identification of central actors and actor motives. This dissertation adds and emphasizes ideas drawn from institutional theory to develop arguments emphasizing the impact of world-level cultural models of the nation-state on the proliferation process. Reduced to the simplest, but strongest, possible statement, I argue that weapons spread, not solely because of a match between their technical capabilities and national
security needs, but because of the highly symbolic, normative nature of militaries and their weaponry. Weapons spread, in part, because highly technological militaries symbolize modernity, efficacy, and independence.
The empirical portion of the dissertation is made up of two parts. The first develops panel regressions, using national weapons inventory data as dependent variables for the years 1960,1970, 1980, and 1990. This analysis is supplemented by logistic regressions using indicators of force structure as dependent variables, and by an exploratory event history analysis.
The second empirical portion of the dissertation is a series of case studies, designed to explore the mechanisms through which membership in the world system translates into weapons inventories. The primary case examines overall patterns of weapons procurement, and their relationship to regional patterns of conflict in Latin America. This case focuses on the role of national strategic doctrines as a central mediating mechanism, linking the “objective" national security environment with national military organization and procurement.
These analyses demonstrate clearly that institutional arguments provide substantial insights into the process of weapons proliferation. Despite reasons for believing that the world military system may function in a unique way, these results demonstrate that it does not. Weapons proliferation, and the spread of modern forms of military organization, are shaped by the same institutional processes that shape the spread of human rights, welfare systems, science policy boards, and conceptions of individualism. A substantial body of institutional theory research has argued that “uniform ideologies and practices are an indication of the responsiveness of nation-states to the wider cultural environment.” (McNeely, 1989:150). This research has demonstrated that that responsiveness does not end in the military realm. National militaries, just as other parts of the nation-state, occupy a constructed identity that shape their structure, practices, purposes and contents. The acquisition of a canonical modern military organization, including modern weaponry is, like the acquisition of a flag, at least in part a product of world-level cultural definitions of the modern nation-state. Like a flag, a military its weaponry are enactments of sovereign status. The results of this research demonstrate that the more a nation interacts with the larger world cultural system, the more it visibly asserts and confirms its sovereign status with the ultimate symbol of nationhood: a military.