Armies are invariably accused of preparing to fight the last
war. Nagl examines how armies learn during the course of conflicts
for which they are initially unprepared in organization, training,
and mindset. He compares the development of counterinsurgency
doctrine and practice in the Malayan Emergency from 1948-1960 with
that developed in the Vietnam Conflict from 1950-1975, through use
of archival sources and interviews with participants in both
conflicts. In examining these two events, he argues that
organizational culture is the key variable in determining the
success or failure of attempts to adapt to changing
circumstances.
Differences in organizational culture is the primary reason why
the British Army learned to conduct counterinsurgency in Malaya
while the American Army failed to learn in Vietnam. The American
Army resisted any true attempt to learn how to fight an insurgency
during the course of the Vietnam Conflict, preferring to treat the
war as a conventional conflict in the tradition of the Korean War
or World War II. The British Army, because of its traditional role
as a colonial police force and the organizational characteristics
that its history and the national culture created, was better able
to quickly learn and apply the lessons of counterinsurgency during
the course of the Malayan Emergency. This is the first study to
apply organizational learning theory to cases in which armies were
engaged in actual combat.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!