Abstract
Tactical learning is critical to battlefield success, especially in a counterinsurgency. This article tests the existing model of military adaption against a ‘most-likely’ case: the British Army’s counterinsurgency in the Southern Cameroons (1960–61). Despite meeting all preconditions thought to enable adaptation – decentralization, leadership turnover, supportive leadership, poor organizational memory, feedback loops, and a clear threat – the British still failed to adapt. Archival evidence suggests politicians subverted bottom-up adaptation, because winning came at too high a price in terms of Britain’s broader strategic imperatives. Our finding identifies an important gap in the extant adaptation literature: it ignores politics.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 777-800 |
Journal | Journal of Strategic Studies |
Volume | 38 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 3 Jan 2015 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 19 Sept 2015 |
Keywords
- Military adaptation
- Wartime learning
- Organizational change
- Counterinsurgency
- Tactics
- British Army
- Post-colonial Africa
- Clausewitz
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Military maladaptation: counterinsurgency and the politics of failure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Kristen Harkness
- School of International Relations - Professor, Director of Impact
- Centre for Higher Education Research
Person: Academic