The Paradox of Joint Culture (Joint Force Quarterly, Autumn 2000)

Abstract

Since the passage of the Goldwater Nichols Act in 1986, critics have raised the dangers of forming too close a bond among the services. Their fear is that doing so will subvert institutional traditions and culture, thereby stifling important but diverse perspectives. The friction of ideas was considered to be natural and necessary for joint warfighting. Being too joint, the argument goes, will breed collusion. Yet while some operators and theorists have outlined the pitfalls of restricting servicespecific legacies, they have charged that not doing so impedes true jointness. The absence of joint culture, moreover, has also meant that purple-minded members of the Armed Forces have found an absence of shared values in which to ground strategic thinking apart from priorities set by the services. Joint nonculture has triumphed. Indeed, articles published under the rubric of Out of Joint in JFQ have been largely devoted to the topic; thus a rereading of these contributions may explain the cognitive dissonance surrounding joint culture in the minds of joint warfighters.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2000
Accession Number
ADA426665

Entities

People

  • David T. Fautua

Organizations

  • National Defense University

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical
  • C4I
  • Ground and Sea Platforms
  • Human Systems
  • Materials and Manufacturing Processes
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Force
  • Command And Control
  • Command And Control Systems
  • Control Systems
  • Doctrine
  • Education
  • Force Protection
  • Marine Corps
  • Military Capabilities
  • Military Science
  • Military Training
  • National Security
  • Navy
  • Psychology
  • Training
  • United States
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Joint Military Operations and Doctrine.
  • Military History of the United States in the 20th Century.
  • Political Violence and Terrorism Studies.