Theory of War: Research Paper Prompt

Theory of War: Research Paper Prompt

The central task of the research paper assignment is for you to apply the course’s theoretical principles to real-world cases.

There are multiple ways you can link course ideas and empirical cases. If you are interested in a particular region, such as the Middle East, your starting point may be identifying your paper’s empirical focus (perhaps the Iran-Iraq War). In contrast, you may be attracted to a substantive focus first (such as the degree to which technology constrains strategy). Regardless of your starting point, you will have to pin down both parts of the paper early in the project—both your empirical and theoretical interests.

In the following pages we lay out one approach to the research paper, as well as information regarding the assignment timeline and submission details.

1) Select empirical focus

As mentioned, you could start the research and writing process in many ways. One method is first selecting your empirical focus, the historical case study you are seeking to understand.

Appendix A at the end of this prompt includes a starter list of “war cases,” including:

1

·  World War I (& specific campaigns)

·  World War II (& specific campaigns)

·  The Vietnam War

·  The 1991 Gulf War

1

You might choose to focus on one of these war events. Or, your regional or substantive interests, or notes from Addington, might lead you to focus on another.

2) Narrow in on research question

(A) Topic: Once you have established your empirical focus, you can start thinking in terms of a theoretical topic. Scanning the syllabus, you can see potential topics:

1

·  Purpose of war

·  Violence in war

·  Constraints on strategy

·  Types of strategy

·  Victory

·  Etc.

1

(B) Research question: After this initial consideration, reframe the topic of interest so that it reads as a research question. This is a key step in developing the research paper. Were you to think about the research paper only in terms of “writing about your topic,” you could easily fall into the trap of writing a descriptive paper—describing the historical event rather than applying theoretical material to critically analyze the event.

For instance, you might be interested in the topic of “technology.” One interesting research question would then be: “Is technology the reason why the U.S. won the 1991 Gulf War?”

Formulating a clear question will focus your research and writing. It will also be attractive to the reader, who will have a clear sense of the question your paper sets out to answer or on which it will provide insight.

(C) Engaging course theories: Once you have the research question, consider our course readings—how would different scholars reply to and think about that question?

Your research paper can engage these theories/logics in different ways. It could:

·  Explain the outcome of your empirical case using a theory

·  Evaluate a theory using your empirical case: is the theory consistent with the events in your case (hence the case supports and strengthens the theory), or is the theory at odds with the events (hence the case contradicts and weakens the theory)

·  Qualify/constrain a theory, by showing that it operates only under particular circumstances (in one case but not another, due to circumstances), or

·  Compare how well two theories explain war dynamics in your case, and then decide which better explains the case.

Again, there are multiple ways to execute the paper, and meetings with us can help you decide which path to go down. In addition, as you start diving into the empirical material, you will likely adapt the research question and paper’s organization.

3) Apply theory to empirical material

At this point, you have your empirical focus and research question, and you have determined which course theories/logics are related to that topic. Now it is time to dig into the evidence to carry out your paper’s task—explaining the outcome of the case, or supporting, critiquing, qualifying, or comparing theories with the help of evidence from your historical case(s).

Consult with us to determine good starting points for research and evidence collection on your case. Appendix A provides suggested starter readings on possible war events. But in general, sources for information might include:

·  Peer-reviewed journals. In political science, international relations, and military history, a list of prominent peer-reviewed journals includes:

1

International Security

International Organization

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Journal of Peace Research

Journal of Military History

War in History

Journal of Strategic Studies

International Studies Quarterly

Security Studies

Armed Forces & Society

1

For instance, you visit http://library.gwu.edu/, click the ArticlesPlus tab, and conduct an advanced search for keyword “World War I” and publication “International Security.”

·  University-Press books. University presses publish the best scholarly book-length manuscripts. When you turn to a book’s copyright page and see that the manuscript has been published by Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, or Cornell University Press, for example, that is a signal that the research is of a very high quality.

·  Dissertations. Dissertations are good sources for evidence on cases that may not be researched thoroughly in existing scholarly work. While you will likely find an abundance of journal articles and books devoted to studying grand strategy in WWII, you may find less on more recent or marginal events. You can go to http://library.gwu.edu/, click on the left sidebar link “Most Popular Databases,” select “ProQuest” (All Databases), and filter by “Dissertations & Theses.”

·  Other. Other sources for evidence might include declassified government documents, war memoirs, International Crisis Group reports, or quantitative data on variables of interest (such as World Bank data on domestic economies).

4) Make inferences, draw conclusions

The goal of the research paper is for you to apply theoretical course material to real world events that beg deconstruction and analysis. Your paper will not be able to definitively judge whether Clausewitz provides a one hundred percent, true-to-life, account of strategy in war. However, as a result of your analysis, you should be able to show whether and how one or a set of course theories illuminate the empirical case(s) on which you have focused.

Make sure your paper goes beyond merely describing events – it should focus on an argument or an inference. This will usually mean answering a question of why rather then merely a question of what, and this will normally require that you advance a finding that cannot simply be observed as a fact about the event. For example, “the United States used stealth technology in the 1991 Gulf War” is a factual observation that merely describes a facet of the war. “The United States won the war because it used stealth technology,” by contrast, is an argument based on inference – to establish its validity requires you to reason beyond the observable facts (i.e. which aircraft technology the U.S. used) to an analytical conclusion about why the war came out the way it did. Your paper will need to do the latter. Similarly, if your paper asks “is Clausewitz’s theory or Sun Tsu’s theory more consistent with the outcome of the 1991 Gulf War?” then you will have to do more than simply report facts about the war, and you will have to do more than just describe the two theories. You will have to make an argument about which theory better accounts for the facts and why. Of course your paper may consider different questions and make different arguments than these examples. But whatever question you choose and whatever answer you reach for it, be sure that your paper makes inferences and draws conclusions to sustain an argument, rather than merely describing factual events.

5) Details

(A) Fine print: The paper should be at least 15 pages and follow these conventions:

·  Double-spaced

·  1” margins

·  Times, 12pt font

·  Header containing student last name and page number

There is no upper limit on length, but good English style demonstrates economy; length per se is not a virtue, and excessive verbiage will not be rewarded!

(B) Citation: Chose either Chicago, APA, or MLA citation style and follow it consistently. Visit https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/ for detailed information on citation style.

Intentional or unintentional plagiarism is not acceptable and we will follow GWU’s academic integrity violations procedure should we discover any instances.

(C) Assignment timeline:

Part / Description / Submission / Evaluation / Late Policy
Outline / Schedule an office hours meeting with Dot the week before or after spring break. Bring a 1-page document describing your:
-- empirical focus
-- topic; research question
-- initial identification of theories connected to your research question / Email Dot
a copy of your 1-pager on the day of the office hours meeting / Not graded / No consequence, but it is assumed this meeting will be extremely beneficial to your paper’s development.
Draft 1 / Complete 15-page draft. You should approach this as if it were the final draft, pushing as far as you can to execute the full research paper. / Two hard copies delivered at the start of class on April 9 / 30% of final term paper grade / Draft will be graded on merit and then incur 1/3 grade deduction for each day late.
Final Draft / 15-page final paper reflecting significant revisions that respond to our comments on the first draft. / Two hard copies delivered to ESIA 605E by 5 pm on April 22 / 70% of final term paper grade / Final will be graded on merit and then incur 1/3 grade deduction for each day late.

Appendix A: Suggested Paper Topics and Starter Readings

Grand Strategy in World War I

·  Allan R. Millett and Williamson Murray, Military Effectiveness, Vol. I (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1988), pp. 31-115, 190-228, 249-350

·  Paul Kennedy, Grand Strategies in War and Peace (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1991), pp. 31-42, 105-24, 124-44

·  Michael Geyer, “German Strategy in the Age of Machine Warfare,” in Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1986), pp. 527-54, 594-7

The 1918 Campaign in the West

·  Martin Samuels, Command or Control? Command, Training and Tactics in the British and German Armies, 1888-1918 (London: Cass, 1995), esp. pp. 230-69

·  Paddy Griffith, Battle Tactics of the Western Front (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1994)

·  Shelford Bidwell and Dominick Graham, Firepower: British Army Weapons and Theories of War, 1904-45 (Boston and London: George Allen and Unwin, 1985), pp. 61-146

Grand Strategy in World War II

·  Paul Kennedy, Grand Strategies in War and Peace (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1991), pp. 43-70, 105-24, 124-44

·  Michael Geyer, “German Strategy in the Age of Machine Warfare,” in Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1986), pp. 554-597

·  Maurice Matloff, “Allied Strategy in Europe, 1939-1945,” in Paret, Makers of Modern Strategy, pp. 677-702

·  D. Clayton James, “American and Japanese Strategies in the Pacific War,” in Paret, Makers of Modern Strategy, pp. 703-32

·  J. R. M. Butler, et al., Grand Strategy (London, H. M. Stationery Off., 1956), selections

·  Maurice Matloff and Edwin M. Snell, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare, 1941-1942 [--1943-1944] (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, Dept. of the Army, 1953-59), selections

The Normandy Campaign, 1944

·  L.F. Ellis, Victory in the West, Volume I: The Battle of Normandy (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1962), selections

·  Martin Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1961), selections

·  Carlo D’Este, Decision in Normandy (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991 ed. of 1983 orig.), selections

·  Max Hastings, Overlord (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984)

The Pacific Campaign, 1941-5

·  Ronald H. Spector, Eagle Against the Sun: the American War with Japan (New York: Free Press, 1985), selections

·  Dan Van der Vat, The Pacific Campaign: World War II, the U.S.-Japanese Naval War, 1941-1945 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991)

·  Gerhard Weinberg, A World at Arms (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 310-48, 391-4, 632-56, 842-93

Grand Strategy in the Vietnam War

·  Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 3-222

·  Andrew Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1986), pp. 3-26, 258-75

·  Robert J. McMahon, Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1990), pp. 98-107, 108-116, 281-93, 294-300, 332-347

·  Douglas Pike, “Conduct of the Vietnam War: Strategic Factors, 1965-68,” and Allen E. Goodman, “The Dual-Track Strategy of Vietnamization and Negotiation,” in John Schlight, ed., The Second Indochina War: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Airlie, Virginia, 7-9 November 1984 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1986), pp. 99-119 and 143-65, respectively

The Invasion of Cambodia, 1970

·  Jeffrey J. Clarke, Advice and Support : the Final Years, 1965-1973 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1988), pp. 418-25

·  Andrew Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1986), pp. 3-26, 258-75

·  William Shawcross, Sideshow (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979)

Operation ROLLING THUNDER, 1965-8

·  Robert Pape, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1996), pp. 174-210

·  Mark Clodfelter, The Limits of Airpower: The American Bombing of North Vietnam (New York: Free Press, 1989), pp. 39-146

·  William Momyer, Air Power in Three Wars (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 1978), pp. 13-34

·  Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 374-406, 416-7

Grand Strategy in the 1991 Gulf War

·  Lawrence Freedman and Efraim Karsh, The Gulf Conflict, 1990-1991: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993)

·  Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, The Generals' War (Boston: Little, Brown, 1995), pp. 4-101, 153-8, 178-202, 427-32, 443-77

Operation DESERT STORM, 1991

·  Eliot A. Cohen, Director, Gulf War Air Power Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O., 1993), Summary Report

·  Robert H. Scales, Jr., et al., Certain Victory: The United States Army in the Gulf War (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, 1993), pp. 103-316

·  Stephen Biddle, “Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Fall 1996), pp. 139-179

1