The 2009 Annual OUSSG dinner, held on this occasion at The Oriental Club, London, was particularly noteworthy as it celebrated the Group's ruby anniversary. In addition to the keynote speech by David Frost CMG, the following Gaudy Toast was given by Dr Robert Johnson, University Lecturer in the History of War (All Souls' College).

OUSSG's 40th Anniversary Gaudy Dinner - David Frost CMG speaking

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC STUDIES GROUP

40th ANNIVERSARY GAUDY TOAST

3 July 3009

by DR ROBERT JOHNSON

It is ironic that strategy should be studied largely by military scholars and to some extent ignored by the mainstream of political science, not least because strategy is the art of exerting influence without force as much as it is about coercion and war. Of course, strategy appears differently to historians, International Relations theorists, politics and military practitioners, and it is this diversity which has been so enriching to the Oxford University Strategic Studies Group.

The OUSSG was established by Sir Michael Howard, who is not only an academic, the then Chichele Professor of War, but also a former Coldstream Guardsman who won the Military Cross in Italy during the Second World War. He aimed to bring together military men, government figures and academics to study strategy, and in doing so he created the new discipline of Strategic Studies and established the IISS. In his own work he has applied an inter-disciplinary approach, including the sociology of strategy, the laws of war, and the various mechanisms for establishing peace. He made an especially close study of Clausewitz now available in an abridged form with OUP’s ‘A Very Short Introduction’ series. And so, after forty years, does Sir Michael’s project look significantly different? Indeed, how does strategic studies look through that time?

In the first decade (1968-78), at the height of the Cold War, we were concerned with the intractable nature of the Vietnam War. We observed how the Cold War contained conflict in the developed world, created some instability in less developed countries and fuelled other disputes with an ideological flavour. We were concerned with the split of East and West Pakistan and the subsequent war with India, the Yom Kippur War, and how Israel and India became nuclear powers, pushing the spectre of the mushroom cloud beyond the West.

In the second decade (1979-89), the Cold War showed no sign of abating, but the consequences of conflicts in that period are still unravelling today – the Iranian Islamic Revolution; the Iran-Iraq War and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

In the third decade (1989-99), we experienced the post-Cold War instability, but only after the Western world enjoyed a brief period of ‘unipolarity’. It was an era of reassuring but false paradigmatic promises – of a Revolution in Military Affairs, of Full Spectrum Dominance, of ‘Shock and Awe’. All turned out to be illusions. The hopes of the First Gulf War, for a new world order, ended in messy stabilisation operations in Somalia (1991), Bosnia (1994) and Kosovo (1999), and then the even more shameful failures of Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe. Stabilisation will be the greatest challenge of this century in strategic terms, but it is one that begs the question, is the West embracing change when it approaches these problems, or is shoring up Western interests and hegemony?

In the 4th decade (1999-2009), Rupert Smith, Mary Kaldor, David Kilcullen and others have claimed that we have entered a new era of Post-Modern War or ‘war amongst the people’. In fact, wars have always been amongst the people, a point which prompted Clausewitz’s famous observation about a ‘trinity’ in war. The wars which these authors refer to may seem new to the West, but not to less developed countries like East Timor, Rwanda and Cambodia who experienced mass killings ten or so years ago. We should instead recognise that we have entered an era of mass politics which has ushered in a greater incidence of human mobilisation, mass murder and genocide.

OUSSG contributes to the creation of the historical record in a distinct way. Many scholars of OUSSG have gone to jobs in government, administration, international law and the armed forces. John Nagl, for example, was president of the OUSSG, became a military officer, has attended as a speaker this year and now works as a figure of influence in the American government apparatus. OUSSG is therefore a sort of ‘applied strategic studies’ and offers an important link between the academy and practitioners.

In the next decade, we will need to address some old and new questions. The first, I would suggest, is the pressing issue of nuclear proliferation particularly in the Middle East. We will also have to consider the implications of the advent of new weapons (not just WMD but also stealth technologies, laser weapons, and other emerging systems), and their juxtaposition with old and increasingly obsolete systems such as Trident and carrier-borne sea power, both of which featured recently in an IPPR report.

Another area will be the question of strategy pursued by proxy and how we respond to attacks by non-state actors supported in one way or another by other states. We will also have to consider how to respond to internal unrest that affects an increasingly inter-dependent globalised world. How will we decide what is legitimate protest, terrorism and revolution; how will we differentiate between crime and terror, protest and order? We will need to understand the dynamics of failed states as well as tyrannical ones, including those that deny the true outcome of elections.

We will also need to be aware of emerging threats, particularly those associated with the consequences of climate change such as shortages of water, the effects of migration and threats to energy security.

Specifically, the West will need to calibrate its response to the crisis of the Muslim world and address their widespread concerns about identity and equality. Above all, the West will need to learn to live in a world where power is distributed differently, where power is diversified and where Asian states are in the ascendant. On this basis, I think the OUSSG will have plenty to occupy its discussions for the next forty years. 

Dr Johnson giving the toast at the Gaudy
(photo by Avril O'Reilly)