Creating and Organizing Military Power, 15p
Dr. Robert Egnell
Office: 4A34
Email: robert.egnell@fhs.se
Phone: 08-55342768
Course description
The purpose of this course is to increase the understanding of how states create, organize, and
control their armed forces. To capture these wide-ranging questions the course combines three
field of enquiry: Civil-military relations theory, strategy, and organizational theory. The
course is introduced by a review of the concepts of power and security before delving into the
paradox and challenge of civil-military relations theory: “Because we fear others we create an
institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for
protection”. Therefore, the central problem discussed in civil-military relations theory is the
need to maximize the protective value that the armed forces can provide, and the need to
minimize the domestic coercive powers that the same forces will inevitably possess, thus
creating effective armed forces under democratic civilian control. Thereafter, the course will
discuss the structure and culture of military organizations. How do internal and external
influences affect the effectiveness of the armed forces? Special emphasis is placed on cultural
aspects and gender. The third part of the course looks at a number of cases to increase our
understanding of the processes through which different actors create military capabilities.
Foreign policy analysis and strategic decision-making will be core components.
Instructional Methodology
The predominant means of instruction in this course is a lecture/seminar hybrid during which the
course convener informally introduces the topic before the class discusses some core questions in
seminar form. An analysis and decision-making exercise on a contemporary strategic problem also
serves to increase the understanding of the strategic concepts, instruments of power and policy
options available to state leaders.
Course expectations
The students are expected to come well prepared to ALL seminars, having read the literature
and being prepared to discuss the topics. Students are also expected to follow current events
that are likely to be incorporated into class discussions.
Examination
The course is examined in the following two ways:
1. Students have to participate actively in the discussions during seminars and through
the workshop.
2. Students have to write a final paper of maximum of 6,000 words. Each student
chooses the topic of her/his paper independently but in consultation with the course
convener.
Grading criteria
The course is graded according to the following: Fail (U), pass (G), and pass with distinction
(VG).
In order to gain a passing grade, students have to pass on both of the above accounts. In order
to receive a pass with distinction, the student has to obtain a pass with distinction on the final
paper.
The following criteria are applied for grading:
 The paper has a connection to the literature and its topics, questions, and problems.
 The scope and quality of the analysis.
 Independent reflection on the explanatory and/or heuristic power of the theories.
 The ability to connect theory to relevant parts of the empirical material and details of
the case study.
 The stylistic ability and presentational skills of the author, including the clarity of the
argument.
A passing grade (G) requires that the following criteria are met:
 The paper should not be shorter than 3,000 words and not longer than 6,000 words.
 The paper must be handed in on time (5 PM on Friday March 25, 2015)
 The paper contains an independent analysis that connects to the course syllabus and to
the themes of the course.
 The paper contains footnotes and references that support the analysis.
 The paper is structured according to a clear and explicit analytical framework.
 The paper is characterized by clarity, transparency and overview.
A pass with distinction (VG) requires that at least two of the following criteria are met:
 A particularly skilful connection to the literature in the course syllabus as well as to
empirical sources.
 The analysis demonstrates considerable independence and skill, for example
manifested in the development of new theoretical, conceptual or policy approaches.
 The analysis demonstrates an ability to reflect upon and demonstrate the limitations in
and character of the theories used in the paper.
 A high level of difficulty characterized the paper in terms of materials and/or theories
used.
 The paper has a marked analytical character and a convincing scholarly argument.
If a student is absent from a seminar s/he must write a summary of the readings for said
seminar of 500 words that deal with the topic of the seminar.
By February 26, at 20:00, at the very latest, each student has to submit a one-page proposal of
the topic of the final paper and discuss it with the course convener. The proposal must contain
a description of the topic of the final paper and a theoretical and empirical motivation for why
this topic has been chosen. The proposal should be sent to robert.egnell@fhs.se.
Book for purchase
 Joseph S. Nye, The Future of Power, New York: Public Affairs, 2011.
 Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the state: The Theory and Politics of CivilMilitary Relations, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.
 Anthony King, The Combat Soldier: infantry tactics and cohesion in the twentieth and
twenty-first cenuries, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.

(Eliot Cohen Supreme Command – a nice read, but I will provide the final chapter that
is on the reading list)
Course schedule and reading list
Seminar 1: Introduction: Power
January 19 N205A, 09:00-12:00
 The Future of Power. Joseph S. Nye Jr. Public Affairs. February 2011.
 Risa Brooks. "Making Military Might: Why Do States Fail and
Succeed?" International Security 28.2 (2003): 149-191.
Seminar 2: Security
January 22 N205A, 13:00-15:00
 David A Baldwin, ”The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies. Vol.
23: 5-26.
 G. John Ikenberry, “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American
Postwar Order,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Winter, 1998-1999), pp. 4378.
 Mary Kaldor, extractions from Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and
Intervention, Cambridge: Polity Press 2007.
Seminar 3: Armed Forces and Society 1: The military mind and profession
January 26 N205A, 10:00-12:00
 Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the state: The Theory and Politics of CivilMilitary Relations, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. chapters 1-3
 James Burk, "Expertise, Jurisdiction and Legitimacy of the Military Profession," in
Don M. Snider and Gayle Watkins, The Future of the Army Profession, Boston:
McGraw Hill 200, pp. 19-38.
 Dandeker, Christopher, ‘On the Need to be Different: Military Uniqueness and CivilMilitary Relations in Modern Society’, RUSI Journal, Vol. 146, No. 3 (June 2001),
pp. 4–9.
Seminar 4: Armed Forces and Society 2: Control of the Armed Forces
January 29 N205A, 10:00-12:00
 Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the state: The Theory and Politics of CivilMilitary Relations, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. chapters 4 and 17.
 Eliot Cohen Supreme Command final chaper and appendix.
 Peter D. Feaver, “The Civil-Military problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the
Question of Civilian Control”, Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 23, No 2 Winter,
pp.149-78.
 Peter D. Feaver “Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of
American Civil-Military Relations”, Armed Forces & Society, Spring 1998vol. 24 no.
3 407-434
 Rebecca L. Schiff, ”Civil-Military Relations Reconsidered: A Theory of
Concordance”, Armed Forces & Society, Fall 1995 vol. 22 no. 1 pp. 7-24.
Seminar 5: Civil-military coordination for operational effectiveness
February 2 N205A, 13:00-15:00
 Risa A. Brooks, Shaping Strategy: The Civi-military politics of Strategic Assessment,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. pp. 1-61
 Stuart Gordon, “Winning Hearts and Minds? Examining the Relationship between Aid
and Security in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province”, April 2011,
https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44797077
 de Coning, Cedric H., Karsten Friis (2011). ”Coherence and Coordination. The Limits
of the Comprehensive Approach”, Journal of International Peacekeeping, vol. 15 .p.
243-272.
 Robert Egnell, ”Civil–military coordination for operational effectiveness: Towards a
measured approach.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 24.2 (2013): 237-256.
Seminar 6: The culture of military organizations
February 5 GripenN202, 10:00-12:00
 Joseph Soeters, Donna Winslow, and Alise Weibull, “Military Culture”, in Guiseppe
Caforio, Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, New York: Kluwer Academic,
2003.
 Marina Nuciari, “Models and Explanations for Military Organization: Anupdated
reconsideration”, in Guiseppe Caforio, Handbook of the Sociology of the Military,
New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003.
 Dandeker, Christopher and James Gow, ‘Military Culture and Strategic
Peacekeeping’, in Erwin A. Schmidl (ed.), Peace Operations Between War and Peace
(London: Frank Cass, 2000), pp. 58-79.
 Karl Haltiner, “The Decline of the European Mass Armies”, in Guiseppe Caforio,
Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003.
Seminar 7: The sociology of combat
February 9 N203B, 10:00-12:00
 Anthony King, The Combat Soldier: infantry tactics and cohesion in the twentieth and
twenty-first cenuries, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
Seminar 8: Women and Gender in military organizations
February 18 N205A, 10:00-12:00
 Martin van Creveld “The Great Illusion: Women in the Military”, Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 2000, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 429-442.
 Robert Egnell, ”Women in Battle: Gender Perspectives and
Fighting.” Parameters 43.2 (2013): 33-41.
 Anthony King “Women in Battle: The Female Soldier, Parameters 43.2 (2013): 1325.
 (Robert Egnell, Petter Hojem and Hannes Berts, Gender, Military Effectiveness and
organizational change: The Swedish model, London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014.)
Seminar 9: Decision-making in war and peace
February 25 N205B, 10:00-12:00
 Graham T. Allison, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, The American
Political Science Review, 63:3 (Sep., 1969), pp. 689-718.
 Bruce Russett, “The Fact of Democratic Peace,” and “Why Democratic Peace?” in
Michael E. Brown, et al., Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MIT Press,
1996), pp. 58-115.


Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing
the Statesman Back In,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Spring 2001), pp. 107146.
Doeser, Fredrik (2014) "Sweden's Participation in Operation Unified Protector:
Obligations and Interests", International Peacekeeping 21-5: 642-657.
Final paper proposal due February 26, at 20:00
Seminar 10: Meeting future threats
March 8 N203B, 10:00-12:00



David Ucko and Robert Egnell, “On Military Interventions: Options for Avoiding
Counterinsurgencies”, Parameters 44:1 (Spring 2014): 11-22.
Christopher Dandeker, “Building Flexible Forces for the 21st Century: Key Challenges for the
contemporary Armed Services”, in Guiseppe Caforio, Handbook of the Sociology of the
Military, New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003.
Gerhard Kümmel, “A Soldier is a soldier is a soldier!?: The Military and its soldiers in an Era
of Globalization”, in Guiseppe Caforio, Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, New
York: Kluwer Academic, 2003.
Exercise: Creating Swedish military power in the age of IS, Russia, and natural disasters
March 10 N206A+B, 12:00-16:00
Opportunities for tutoring session on final paper weeks 10-11.
Final paper due date: March 25