Book Review: European Military Culture and Security Governance: Soldiers, Scholars and National Defence Universities

• Author: Juha Mäkinen
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16689312
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017
• Subject Matter: Book Review

Book Review

Book Review

Libel, T. (2016). European Military Culture and Security Governance: Soldiers, Scholars and National

Defence Universities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Reviewed by: Juha Ma

¨kinen, National Defense University of Finland, Helsinki, Finland

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16689312

Tamir Libel aims to examine the merging of Europe’s military cultures by analyz-

ing changes in the institutions of professional military education in the United

Kingdom, Germany, Finland, Romania, and the Baltic states. Libel claims that

“little has been written about the transformation of European armed forces beyond

the ‘Big Three’ (the UK, France, and Germany),” so why bother? Libel persuades

us by claiming that “if the many small member states’ armed forces are excluded

from comparative analyses, contemporary trends in European military cultures

may not be observed and interpreted correctly.” Additionally, with the traditional

focus on the professional military education institutions of the Big Three, we may

turn a blind eye toward innovative ideas originating from small European nations.

Libel’s book offers the first systematic, comparative analysis of military education

institutions in Europe at the time of the Bologna process (Libel, 2016, p. 16; see

also Paile, 2010).

Libel bases his research on several assumptions. First, he considers the National

Defense University (NDU) concept of military educ ation as the response of the

European Union (EU) member states’ armed forces to the pressures of a changing

security paradigm. Second, he assumes European national military education sys-

tems converge on the NDU concept. Third, a dense network of NorthAtlantic Treaty

Organizationand EU collaboration frameworks,coordination arenas, and professional

and scientific associations link NDUs.

The comparative empirical research design furnishes the most significant

strength of the book. Following Winton (2005), Libel (2016, pp. 18–20) modifies

a set of parameters for tracing changes in the chosen professional military education

institutions, which he claims head toward the NDU concept. While analyzing the

institutions, he examines the national contexts that contribute to the observed

changes in military education (Libel, 2016, pp. 182–183). He focuses the analysis

on two questions: (1) Did the varying “contextual factors” influence the ensuing

strategic conclusions at the time o f the Crimean crisis and the evolving w ar in

Armed Forces & Society

2017, Vol. 43(4) 758-760

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs