Post Grad Study ?

[halloweenjack]

For those of you who are currently serving, what is the possibilty of doing a post graduate degree as an officer ? I mean particularly in the areas of security, war, conflict etc ?

[chris78290]

I can't speak for the Air Force in particular but I would think the structure is more or less the same as for the army...

"Much of the experience, education and training you receive in the Army will qualify you for professional academic and vocational qualifications. Most officers have the opportunity to study for an MA, MSc or MDA (a military MBA fully recognised in the commercial arena). This usually happens when officers are in their early thirties."
-taken from www.army.mod.uk

I will speak from the Army side as that it was I am aware of, someone can correct me if the RAF is completely dissimilar. Basically after 12 months service you start to accumulate modules, in other words they are accomplishments that 12 months service represent, so they say, after this much time you have covered material relevant to this course in management for example. The forces wont normally send you off to a university for postgraduate study(although I believe there is a course at Cranfield that there are very few places on), it normally happens within the promotion structure. For instance those looking for promotion to captain will attend the Junior Officer Tactics Course, which starts to contribute to a postgraduate qualification, thereafter they attend MK (Military Knowledge) and MK2 courses during the promotion process to major, finally attending the Initial Command and Staff Course which prepares them for promotion to Lt Col and above... the ICSC contributes at least 25% towards an MDA (civvy recognised defence version of an MBA) with previous and future training contributing also to provide a qualification through long term modular study. There are lesser qualifications in management and personnel etc that can be gained along the course of a career which are most likely detailed on the officer career development page of the RAF website.

try this page http://www.learning-forces.org.uk/sitemap.htm

it details your options quite clearly...

[King_duck]

halloweenjack, your not doing War and Security Studies at Wolverhampton by any chance are you??!!

[halloweenjack]

Yes i am doing war studies at wolverhampton

[King_duck]

Good skills... What's it like?

[halloweenjack]

Not bad at all.

just finished year 2....which is much more in depth than year 1.

Heres some of the modules i have studied in the first two years and the ones i plan on studying next year.

Level 1

War and the Modern World

c.1450-Present

The module provides the foundation for the War Studies programme by examining key issues such as strategic thought, definitions of war, and trends and themes in global conflict in the modern era. Particular attention is given to the rise of western styles of warfare and its interaction with differing cultural approaches to war. The importance of analytical skills and the type and nature of source material is also strongly emphasised.

Introduction to International Relations

What are the main issues in international relations at the present time and how can we best think about this? This module will provide an introduction to the subject through an examination of its main theories, concepts, structures and organisations relating these to current problems of conflict and opportunities for co-operation in our contemporary world.

Inventing America: An Introduction to American History 1492-1865

This module provides an introductory historical context to American Studies. In surveying the course of American history from the colonial period to the Civil War, it focuses on the major factors that shaped the nature of the United States. Topics covered include democracy in America, economic growth, native Americans, the position of women and the experience of slavery and the wars of the revolution and 1812.

A Global World?

From the Global media empire of Rupert Murdoch to sex tourism and international drug mafias, we are told that we live in an increasingly borderless world. Using a series of case studies of some of the more controversial aspects of the borderless world idea, this module asks whether this is a realistic or a misleading image.

War and Reconstruction inThe Balkans

This module aims to provide an introduction to various aspects of contemporary warfare through a case study of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. The module complements the level one core module ‘War in the Modern World’ by study of an arena highlighting examples of important themes including, for example: nationalism and war, war crimes, media reporting, civil and inter-state war, external intervention in civil conflicts, and also introduces a range of relevant concepts including, for example, security dilemma, peacemaking, collective security, security community.

The Holocaust

This module is an examination of the social, political and ideological determinants of the Holocaust as well as of the development of the bureaucratic and technological apparatus of extermination. The module also explores the reactions (of victims, oppressors and others) through a wide range of primary and secondary sources.

Level 2

Nuclear Politics and Post Cold War Conflict

This module analyses developments in nuclear strategy and trends in nuclear (and chemical and biological) weapons proliferation since the end of the Cold War. It considers the question of why states proliferate, the debate as to whether the spread of nuclear weapons brings greater stability or heightened risk of nuclear war, and examines the policies and programmes of proliferators and new nuclear states, focusing on Israel, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, India and Pakistan. It also assesses the threat of terrorist acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Finally it considers Western (US) responses, and the implications of the National Missile Defence (NMD) system.

The World at War 1931-45

An analysis of the world-wide conflict between 1931 and 1945, with Far Eastern and European Wars providing the context for teaching and learning. Emphasis is placed on causes, military and strategic conduct, diplomacy, and appraisal of the eventual outcome.

American Government and Politics

This module analyses the system of government of the United States and the nature of American democracy. The areas covered include: the role of American political culture; the presidency; Congress; the Supreme Court; developments in the field of Civil Rights; the state of American political parties; of the Right and Left in American politics; and the foreign policy challenges facing the US. While the module necessarily considers US political institutions, it is also concerned with the wider political system and culture.

Terrorism

Who are Terrorists? Where do they come from? Why have acts of terrorism occurred world-wide with increasing frequency? This module examines these questions by examining the phenomena of terrorism in terms of theories, forms, causal factors, goals and consequences.

The Battle for Normandy 1944

This module examines the planning and prosecution of the D-Day landings in Normandy, the subsequent battles, and the impact of the fighting on the soldiers and local population. A key element is a fieldtrip to the Normandy battlesites, which will include tours and visits to relevant museums.

The Cold War 1947-1991

An investigation of the origins and development of the Cold War from the disintegration of the wartime Grand Alliance to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Europe United

This module explores the role and effectiveness of the European Union as a vehicle for developing economic, political and social integration within Europe. It also explores ideas of European identity and a ‘common European culture’ in this context. International interactions are also considered in terms of the European Union’s external influence and impact of external forces on the European project.

Level 3

Thinking about War and Peace

An examination of the concepts of war and peace and contemporary issues and debates in the field including humanitarian intervention and 'Just War' Theory.

Conflict Resolution in the Modern World

Analyse theories of conflict resolution in relation to specific case studies of conflicts within deeply divided societies. The module will examine both the ways in which conflicts are categorised and the different approaches to resolving conflict suggested in the literature. The characteristics of existing areas of conflict in the modern world will be explored and the implications for both resolving these conflicts, and the usefulness of the identified theories, will be evaluated.

Dreadnought to Enterprise: Maritime Warface c. 1900 to 1945

This module analyses the development of maritime power from the emergence of the all big gun battleship as a statement of national power through to the rise of the aircraft carrier and submarine as the principal weapons of seaborne power projection. The module will focus on the influence of strategists such as Mahan, Corbett, Dönitz, Genda and Towers and will identify trends and developments in the field of naval warfare during the period of the two world wars. It will also place the role and nature of maritime power in the context of international rivalry and great power status.

Resistance and Collaboration in Europe in World War II

An analysis of the nature, extent and significance of resistance and collaboration in Europe during the Second World War. Emphasis is placed on definitions, the impact of active resistance and case studies.

Politics of the Middle East Conflict

This module examines the Middle East conflict from its roots in the colonial period to the formation of the state of Israel and the continuing problems of the region today.

Foreign Policy of the USA

The aim of this module is to provide an understanding of the foreign policy-making process in the US and of the course that US foreign policy has taken since 1945. The first part of the module examines the foreign policy-making process itself, analysing the roles of the different branches of the federal government and the domestic constraints on foreign policy-making. The second part examines: Kennedy and Cuba; the US and Vietnam; Carter, human rights and the Middle-East; the Iran-Contra affair; Bush foreign policy; and that of the post-Cold War Clinton administration. No prior knowledge of international relations or foreign policy analysis is required, although some familiarity with US politics will be useful.

Project (Single Semester)

A project topic is derived from the War Studies programme as well as from your own personal interests. A single semester project is normally 8 000 to 10,000 words in length and a double semester project 16 000 to 20 000 words.

Adressing the question: How can a democratic state combat terrorism ?

Independent Study

Independent Study modules allow a student to pursue a specific topic through a variety of research and assessment modes under the direction on an appointed supervisor. Students work individually, and devise their own methods of assessment from the list of choices provided. The questions and areas of investigation should relate to topics and issues raised elsewhere in the programme but not covered in detail. The choice of topic is otherwise open to the student.

Addressing the following:

The development of strategic bombing doctrine 1918-1980 & Evolution of strategic bombing from GW1 to GW2.

The course so far has been really good and the majority of lecturers have been really helful. Its also been quite handy to have a conflict studies research organisation here, its meant that i have been able to attend seminars on various topics for free.

[Biggles1211]

Glad to see they've improved that course. I was there for the first year that ran it...but swapped modules to do Politics and History instead.

Are you at Dudley Campus? Have some fond drunken memories of that place!!

When you do your dissertation...consider contacting the staff college at Shrivenham....they have the biggest military library in Europe and a complete collection of Staff essays.....it'd blow you mind!

[halloweenjack]

War studies is now based at the new millenium building on the city campus thankfully

As for my dissertation, i am doing in in semester 1 next college year. However because of the fact my wife is pregnant again and is due Nov 10th, i've decided to do it over the summer if i can hehe.

Thanks for the information Biggles, will keep that in mind

[Biggles1211]

I think Shriv will take guests for the day to do research, although you'd probably have to pop some smart clothes on. The Joint Service Command and Staff Colllege is a really interesting place and the mid morning/afternoon coffee in the forum is excellent.

Depending on what you need for your dissertation, you'll find a lot of subject matter experts there (most of the staff are from Kings College Defence Course) and, of course, the place is rammed with experienced officers from all 3 Services.

Also, if you need any info on anti-terror ops or perspectives...give me a hollar

[halloweenjack]

Thanks for the help Biggles

any help is greatly appreciated.

This is the essay that i have decided to expand on for my thesis.

Can a State combat Terrorism and remain at the same time democratic?

Terror and terrorism has long been a thorn in the side of governments. Authoritarian governments treat this with swift often brutal retribution, propaganda and censorship. Liberal Democratic States on the other hand must constantly reassess how they will deal with terrorism, so as not to incite further terrorism and retain their sense of civil rights. This essay will attempt to address the question of how to deal with terrorism in a democratic state, and highlight the key arguments, problems and ideas as put forward by specialists such as Paul Wilkinson, Jessica Stern and Alan Dershowitz. The main case study for this essay will be the United States of America with particular attention paid to the post ‘9-11’ environment. The United States is now attempting to lead the world in its ‘war on terrorism’ as the only major superpower, while attempting to retain some of its Democratic ideals. Liberal Democracy and any open society are by nature inherently vulnerable to terrorism, however this does not mean it cannot combat the threat (Dershowitz 106:2002). When highlighting this issue it is worth remembering that Liberal Democratic values differ between the various States that represent the ideology. Due to the up to date nature of this topic some Internet sources have been utilized although the majority of background reading has come from books.

The media coverage generated by terrorist attacks on the WTC (9/11) heralded a new era in the perception of terrorism to Western observers. Following the attacks and George W Bush’s speech highlighting the ‘with us or with the terrorists’ mentality, Liberal


Democracies around the world have had some serious decisions to make. Should they stick to their ideals and attempt to combat terrorism? Or should they switch to more repressive and reactionary methods that may impinge on the civil liberties of its citizens. 9-11 highlighted some fundamental errors in the US’s security procedures, particularly relating to immigration and airport security. However it is worth remembering that it was not a failure of the judicial process that resulted in the toppling of the towers, yet the US response in the Patriot Act I & II was exactly that. The primary issue a Liberal Democratic country needs to deal with is to balance their response between under reaction and overreaction, as a step too far in either direction could be disastrous. In highlighting this issue it is worth remembering that according to Wilkinson “it is an illusion to believe terrorism can be defeated by legislation alone” (Wilkinson 114:2005). Wilkinson also suggests that any ‘emergency laws’ must be temporary and subject to frequent review as overreaction and repression will destroy democracy (Wilkinson 96:2005). Current US policy on terrorism highlights how ideally a Liberal Democratic State can conduct a serious anti-terror campaign. No deals or concessions with terrorists, bring terrorists to justice wherever they maybe, isolation of State sponsors & financiers, aid to friendly Governments fighting terrorists and diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit (poverty). None of these measures are revolutionary but as a package it may prove to be very effective in the ‘War on Terror’.



The US has also identified a potential gap in its defensive screen and as such has responded by altering its homeland security force. The Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative will see some battalions moving away from front line support to a force better prepared for dealing with civil threats. The first light armoured battalions will be ready by 2008. In addition to this the US has expanded its military police, engineering and chemical battalions (Parameters, Cumulative Deterrence and the War on Terrorism,). These measures may prove to be an important move, especially if the US ever suffers an attack involving chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. However with the shortfall in Army recruiting figures this initiative may become untenable and as dust settles over 9-11 complacency may yet again rise (USA Today – Army misses recruiting goal).

The Liberal Democratic State must center its anti-terrorism policies on the notion of non-negotiation with terrorists while they continue to use violent means (Wilkinson 95:2005). Wilkinson goes on to clarify this point by saying sometimes minor concessions maybe given if the demands are not too unreasonable, however major concessions should always be avoided. Dershowitz, Stern and Hoffman agree with this and go further to suggest that all States should have a single response to terrorism and it should include all terrorist groups. This however in reality would be impossible, as the Italian governments capitulation to the kidnappings in Iraq has shown. You cannot force a State to adopt your measures on combating terrorism. However there can be no doubt that worldwide cooperation is needed to combat a worldwide threat. Hoffman suggests that

“multinational intelligence sharing and law enforcement cooperation on a more systematic basis” (Hoffman 211:1999) would be a clear step in the right direction. This would be especially true if Governments wish to preempt any terrorist attack. There has also been some suggestion, particularly by Jessica Stern that small changes in US law enforcement procedures could potentially yield widespread success (Stern 149:2000). There are of course many other procedures that could be used to tighten current holes in a States anti-terrorist defence. Tighter immigration procedures, National ID cards, better dispersion of military funding, an international database on terrorism and greater funding for infiltration and human intelligence sources. Liberal Democratic States can easily initiate all of the aforementioned measures with little to no impact on the ideals of Democracy.

During the Cold War period France, Germany, Belgium and Italy have had to deal with Communist terrorist groups aimed at overthrowing the incumbent government. All of the aforementioned States were able to defeat their respective groups using several methods and in this perhaps are many lessons. Italy in particular was at the cutting edge of anti-terrorist legislation and was able to do so without inflicting irrevocable harm on the democratic process (Wilkinson 97:2005). Initially the Legislature increased the coordination between the Police and Intelligence community and this was followed by increased arrest and search powers merely on suspicion (Wilkinson 97:2005). The introduction of the ‘Pentiti’ law gave convicted terrorists the opportunity to betray their

respective cells for government incentives. In 1982 some 389 convicted terrorists exercised the ‘Pentiti’ law, highlighting its success in this matter (Wilkinson 98:2005). Whether this would be applicable to religious fanatics would be debatable, however to implement such legislation would certainly be worth considering for certain States. Legislation however was not the single most important part of fighting the Red Brigades, public opinion instead had the biggest impact on their cause (Wilkinson 97:2005). The kidnapping and execution of Aldo Morro heralded a massive shift in public opinion and this could be another important lesson in the fight against terrorism. If you can isolate the terrorist group from public opinion then in theory you should be able to identify and defeat them. For a terrorist group to work effectively it must have the complicity of the civilian population that it operates in. Dershowitz makes several suggestions on how to do this, he highlights the terrorists use of propaganda and publicity to gain public support. He suggests that, like China, Liberal Democracies should not give any media airtime to terrorist attacks or motivations. However to do this would surely impinge on civil liberties. A more sensible solution would be to provide funding to opposition groups to get their message out to the masses, an example of this would be using moderate Imams to contradict any propaganda coming from Al-Qaida.

Hoffman wrote, “Terrorism itself is dynamic and constantly evolving” and “so too must Government capabilities and responses improve and adapt” (Hoffman 210:1999). Perhaps this quote more than any other relates to the judicial process, not only of

National Law but of International Law as well. Jessica Stern points out that the “Law has not kept pace with technology” (Stern 129:2001), this is particularly relevant to the USA as many of its laws are based on the Bill of Rights. As Stern goes on to point out, its doubtful that the founding fathers would have anticipated attacks from apocalyptic cults such as Aum Shinryoko and as such perhaps an overhaul of legislation is due (Stern 148:2001). Dershowitz is also critical of the legal process imposed by International law and in particular by the Geneva Conventions. He asserts that the Conventions make no provisions for the classification of terrorists and as such should be amended (Dershowitz 221:2002). Perhaps the confusion over ‘non combatant’ designation in Afghanistan and the detainees held in Guantanamo bay highlight this issue.

Alan Dershowitz has been a major proponent of the use of torture, but only in certain circumstances. However the use of torture breaks not only international law but also several other mandates such as the UN convention on torture. Dershowitz has used what he calls the ‘ticking bomb’ terrorist as a scientific model. The ‘ticking bomb’ terrorist is one who has alluded to an imminent attack but has refused to reveal any more information to the authorities. In this situation Dershowitz advocates a warrant being issued by a Judge that would allow interrogators to use ‘non lethal’ torture such as nail pulling and un-anesthetized tooth drilling (Dershowitz 136:2002). He asserts that as long as evidence coerced out of the victim was not used against him then it would be easy to find justification within the US’s current Constitution (Dershowitz 135:2002).

Dershowitz cites two examples of these situations happening. The first involves the Philippine authorities torturing a terrorist who subsequently provided them with information relating to an attack on the US involving airliners (Dershowitz 137:2002). This information was then passed to the CIA and the plot was foiled. The second example he cites is the case of Leon versus Wainwright 1984. In this kidnapping case the Miami police choked the kidnapper until he told them where the victim was being held, the Judge in the case however ruled that although it was classed as torture it was justified because it saved a life. These cases provide the legal precedent for the use of torture in which people may die if information held by a detainee is not garnered and acted upon. Dershowitz justifies these actions by claiming that international law and specifically the Geneva Convention need to be updated to help define the new threat posed by terrorism. He asserts that none of the legal framework is sufficient to deal with the threat and as such serious changes need to be made. This would be the ultimate move away from Liberal Democratic values of human rights, liberty and justice. Dershowitz, as a civil rights Lawyer should realise this. There is of course the issue of the US ‘franchising’ out its needs for torture to countries such as the Philippines, Egypt and Pakistan, which would certainly be outside the confines of Liberal Democratic means (Dershowitz 136-137:2002).


The ‘War on Terror’ is not a new phenomenon, it is something that has been raging across the globe for Centuries, before even the idea of Liberal Democracies came about. As such it will take time for such Governments to find the most effective methods for dealing with such criminal acts. There is however plenty of precedents set by many States in the past 40 years that suggest Liberal Democracies can defeat terrorism. There is of course evidence to suggest that it is far easier for Autocratic States to combat terrorism, however the measures they employ would not be acceptable to the public of a Liberal Democratic State. The use of torture is one extreme that Liberal Democracies should by their definition never employ, yet it is difficult when faced with the ‘ticking bomb’ terrorist not to justify its use. The aim of Liberal Democracies should be not to get into a situation where that measure is required, instead we must win the intelligence war. By employing massive amounts of intelligence resources especially of the human kind we can hope to infiltrate the shadowy groups that plague our consciousness. This is, with the evidence provided, the single most important factor when attempting to pre-empt and defeat a terrorist group within the confines of Liberal Democratic values.

[halloweenjack]

Bottom line, in the main, you will have to source your own post grad study and pay for it yourself!!

Thanks for all the info, kinda disspointing that something isn't offered and you have to pay for it yourself.

This is certainly something to think about, as i was planning on joining first then doing a post grad. If what you say is true it would probably work better for me by doing it part time in civie street first, then apply.

[Biggles1211]

Well, you do get a lot of credits towards further quals. You also recieve a learning credit each year, where you can claim approx £170 to cover up to 80% of the cost of a course. If you've already applied for the enhanced learnign credits, they can provide up to £6000 (?) worth of funding for a course.

Can I ask why you are in a rush to study post-grad prior to entry? After all, you don't need the qual to get in...and once you are in, you will have plenty of time to carry out the study...long before you'd ever need it.

Here's a tip for you...apply now and see how you get on. If you don't get accepted (a statistical likelihood) then you've got at least 12 months to complete a post-grad course before applying again!

[halloweenjack]

I have enjoyed my undergrad degree a lot and want to continue studying in that area and hopefully put some of it into practice while in the RAF. I also enjoy researching and writing essays in this area as well.

Thats probably what i will do Biggles, apply and see what happens.