Michael F. Fitzsimmons

Bio: Michael F. Fitzsimmons is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Doctrine & Good governance. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 9 publications receiving 152 citations.

Hard Hearts and Open Minds? Governance, Identity and the Intellectual Foundations of Counterinsurgency Strategy

Abstract: The premise of most Western thinking on counterinsurgency is that success depends on establishing a perception of legitimacy among local populations The path to legitimacy is often seen as the improvement of governance in the form of effective and efficient administration of government and public services However, good governance is not the only basis for claims to legitimacy, especially in environments where ethnic or religious identities are politically salient Some experience in Iraq suggests that in environments where such identities are contested, claims to legitimacy may rest primarily on the identity of who governs, rather than on how whoever governs, governs This article outlines the intellectual foundations of existing policy and doctrine on counterinsurgency, and argues that development and analysis of counterinsurgency strategy would benefit from a greater focus on the role of ethnic and religious identity in irregular warfare

Governance, Identity, and Counterinsurgency: Evidence from Ramadi and Tal Afar

Abstract: : With the last departure of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 2011 and a drawdown in Afghanistan already underway, the current era of American counterinsurgency may be coming to a close. At the same time, irregular threats to U.S. national interests remain, and the future may hold yet more encounters with insurgents for the U.S. military. Accordingly, the latest Defense strategic guidance has called on the Department of Defense (DoD) to retain and continue to refine the lessons learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This monograph is a contribution to this ongoing effort to institutionalize the military's understanding of counterinsurgency, building on its hard-won recent experience. Michael Fitzsimmons examines two case studies drawn from some of the darkest months of conflict in Iraq to illuminate an important refinement of traditional counterinsurgency theory and doctrine: that when it comes to building legitimacy, good governance may take a back seat to the politics of ethnic and religious identity. Dr. Fitzsimmons's use of comparative case studies and a simple framework for systematically reviewing evidence accumulated through first-hand accounts of strategy, operations, and tactics, should serve as a compelling model for what will likely be many studies in the years to come of the U.S. military's experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Problem of Uncertainty in Strategic Planning

Abstract: Much has been made about the defining role of uncertainty in strategic planning since the end of the Cold War. For all of its importance, however, recognition of uncertainty poses a dilemma for strategists: in predicting the future, they are likely to be wrong; but in resisting prediction, they risk clouding the rational bases for making strategic choices. Overconfidence in prediction may lead to good preparation for the wrong future, but wholesale dismissal of prediction may lead a strategist to spread his resources too thinly. In pursuit of flexibility, he ends up well prepared for nothing. A natural compromise is to build strategies that are robust across multiple alternative future events but are still tailored to meet the challenges of the most likely future events. Recent US national security strategy has veered from this middle course and placed too much emphasis on the role of uncertainty. A more balanced approach would address a wide range of potential threats and security challenges, but would a...

Whither Capabilities-based Planning?

Abstract: : The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report heralded a "paradigm shift in force planning," announcing that "the new defense strategy is built around the concept of shifting to a 'capabilities- based' approach to defense" Since then, the 2005 National Defense Strategy and 2006 QDR have reaffirmed this approach, and major changes in processes and organizations have been undertaken throughout the Department of Defense (DOD) to implement capabilities- based planning (CBP) In light of such prominent endorsements of CBP and the bureaucratic upheaval it has wrought, it is remarkable that no official definition of the concept exists But there are probably as many definitions in the Pentagon as there are phone numbers, and debate continues over just what the concept is, as well as whether it is appropriate or even feasible as a framework for defense planning and decision making The persistence of these debates raises fundamental questions: What is CBP? Is DOD in the midst of a revolution in force planning, or is CBP a hollow concept destined only to proliferate PowerPoint slides? This article argues that CBP is neither revolutionary nor hollow but is rather a label for a few simple ideas that could generate significant improvements in DOD management At the same time, its virtues are at risk of getting lost in sloganeering Perhaps like transformation, CBP's simple ideas may become victims of their own rhetorical success Its successful implementation will depend on a more precise understanding of goals and limitations than has been articulated to date This article aims to separate what is essential about CBP from what is not and identify the challenges to its implementation A Simple Concept Capabilities-based planning traces its roots to the days immediately following the Cold War, as defense planners began to think about the implications of a radically altered security environment

Economy and Society

Abstract: The four Visegrad states — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (until 1993 Czechoslovakia) and Hungary — form a compact area between Germany and Austria in the west and the states of the former USSR in the east. They are bounded by the Baltic in the north and the Danube river in the south. They are cut by the Sudeten and Carpathian mountain ranges, which divide Poland off from the other states. Poland is an extension of the North European plain and like the latter is drained by rivers that flow from south to north west — the Oder, the Vlatava and the Elbe, the Vistula and the Bug. The Danube is the great exception, flowing from its source eastward, turning through two 90-degree turns to end up in the Black Sea, forming the barrier and often the political frontier between central Europe and the Balkans. Hungary to the east of the Danube is also an open plain. The region is historically and culturally part of western Europe, but its eastern Marches now represents a vital strategic zone between Germany and the core of the European Union to the west and the Russian zone to the east.

Of Theory and Practice

Abstract: Much has been written about theory and practice in the law, and the tension between practitioners and theorists. Judges do not cite theoretical articles often; they rarely "apply" theories to particular cases. These arguments are not revisited. Instead the Essay explores the working and interaction of theory and practice, practitioners and theorists. The Essay starts with a story about solving a legal issue using our intellectual tools - theory, practice, and their progenies: experience and "gut." Next the Essay elaborates on the nature of theory, practice, experience and "gut." The third part of the Essay discusses theories that are helpful to practitioners and those that are less helpful. The Essay concludes that practitioners theorize, and theorists practice. They use these intellectual tools differently because the goals and orientations of theorists and practitioners, and the constraints under which they act, differ. Theory, practice, experience and "gut" help us think, remember, decide and create. They complement each other like the two sides of the same coin: distinct but inseparable.

Why Men Rebel

Abstract: Why Men Rebel was first published in 1970 on the heels of a decade of political violence and protest not only in remote corners of Africa and Southeast Asia, but also at home in the United States. Forty years later, the world is riveted on uprisings in the Middle East, and the United States has been overtaken by a focus on international terrorism and a fascination with citizen movements at home and abroad. Do the arguments of 1970 apply today? Why Men Rebel lends new insight into contemporary challenges of transnational recruitment and organization, multimedia mobilization, and terrorism.

The Evolution of International Security Studies

Abstract: International Security Studies (ISS) has changed and diversified in many ways since 1945. This book provides the first intellectual history of the development of the subject in that period. It explains how ISS evolved from an initial concern with the strategic consequences of superpower rivalry and nuclear weapons, to its current diversity in which environmental, economic, human and other securities sit alongside military security, and in which approaches ranging from traditional Realist analysis to Feminism and Post-colonialism are in play. It sets out the driving forces that shaped debates in ISS, shows what makes ISS a single conversation across its diversity, and gives an authoritative account of debates on all the main topics within ISS. This is an unparalleled survey of the literature and institutions of ISS that will be an invaluable guide for all students and scholars of ISS, whether traditionalist, ‘new agenda’ or critical. • The first book to tell the post-1945 story of International Security Studies and offer an integrated historical sociology of the whole field • Opens the door to a long-overdue conversation about what ISS is and where it should be going • Provides a detailed institutional account of ISS in terms of its journals, departments, think tanks and funding sources