Editors' Note

Editors'Note T h efirst three articles in this issue develop theories of "strategic culture," seeking to assess the impact of culture on strategy and military power. As one of our authors points out, however, there is "a great deal of confusion over what it is that strategic culture is supposed to explain, how it is supposed to explain it, and how muck it does explain." Stephen Peter Rosen of the O h Institute at Harvard Universityargues that social structures can affect the amount of military power that states can generate. They do so, he says, in two basic ways: first, divided loyalties within a political entity may reduce the state's military effectiveness because it must devote more of its military resources to quelling internal opposition. Second, divided social loyalties may also create divided loyalties within military units, rendering them less effective. Efforts to isolate military organizations so as to insulate them from suck social divisions may create civilian distrust of the military. Theseeffects, in turn, may constrain the strategic options available to policymakers. Alastair lain Johnston of Harvard's Government Department points out that the belief, whether true or not, that culture affects strategic choices has affected policy, as when U.S. generalizations about Soviet strategic culture provided the intellectual justification for U S .nuclear war-fighting strategies. Observing that structural models of strategic choice that ignore history and culture thus have shortcomings, he offers a research design for isolating the effects, if any, of strategic culture. He cautions, however, that even if it is found that decision-makers in different societies do indeed think and act differently from one another when faced with similar strategic circumstances , it may not tell us very muck about behavior. Elizabeth Kier of the University of California at Berkeley examines how strategic culture might affect states' choices between offensive and defensive military doctrine. Using illustrations from French army doctrine during the 1920sand 1930s,she argues that civilian concerns about the allocation of military power within a state often have a greater effect on doctrinal developments than the international system does. Josef Joffe,foreign editor of the Siiddeutsche Zeitung, decries America's lack of a grand strategy. Drawing from two historical models of statecraft, one based on balancing which he labels "Britain" and the other, "Bismarck," based on bandwagoning, he proposes a third, which he calls "Globalizing Bismarck," for the United States as a global hub for regional spokes. Richard A. Falkenrath of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard 's Kennedy School of Government warns of an impending crisis over the Convenlnternationaf Security, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Spring 1995) 0 1995by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 3 lnternational Security 19:4 I 4 tional Forces in Europe (CFE)Treaty.Russia seeks a waiver of flank zone treaty limits so it can increase its military forces in and near Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Moldova. Falkenrath explains the issue, and suggests solutions. In a review of Charles Kupchan's recent book, The Vulnerability of Empire, Richard Rosecrance of UCLA's Center for lnternational Relations assesses the "Goldilocks problem" states face in dealing with threats:finding a response that isn't too muck (overcommitment),and isn't too little (vulnerability), but is instead just right. Correspondents Bruce Russett and Michael Doyle comment on the recent articles on the "democratic peace," and authors Christopher Layne and David Spiro reply to Russett. This issue contains an index to Volume 18 as well as Volume 19, since we omitted last year's index traditionally carried in the Spring issue. Finally, we announce with pleasure some changes in our masthead. Graham Allison, having recently become Director of the Center for Science and lnternational Affairs, and long a staunch supporter of the journal, joins us as Chairman of the journal's Editorial Board. We know we will benefit from closer collaboration with him. Karen Motley has been named the journal's Assistant Managing Editor, and Mera Kachgal the journal's Editorial Assistant; our masthead now reflects long-overdue recognition of their tireless, varied, and ever-growing contributions as members of the journal's editorial team. We also acknowledge our...