The Military Lens

In The Military Lens, Christopher P. Twomey shows how differing military doctrines have led to misperceptions between the United States and China over foreign policy—and the potential dangers these might pose in future relations.

Christopher P. Twomey is Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is the editor of Perspectives on Sino-American Strategic Nuclear Issues and coeditor of Power and Prosperity.

Twomey extends the misperception theories of Robert Jervis into military doctrine. He adds to Jervis's misperception theory the factor of 'doctrinal differences,' which can be so far apart that signals and warnings, both diplomatic and military, are not taken seriously, leading to 'deterrence failure' and escalation.... Twomey's framework could be applied to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the China Seas more generally. Summing up: Highly recommended.

Robert S. Ross, Boston College, author of The Indochina Tangle:

The Military Lens makes a strong contribution to the theoretical literature on deterrence and political use of force as well as to an understanding of the historical case studies: the Korean War, the Taiwan issue in the 1950s, and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Christopher P. Twomey's concept of the 'military lens' and of doctrinal difference theory—military doctrine as a direct source of miscalculation and deterrence failure—is original and useful.

Avery Goldstein, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, University of Pennsylvania:

Christopher P. Twomey's book fills a yawning gap in the literature about international conflict.He not only provides a much needed account of the role that miscommunication and misperception play in the escalation of crises and the outbreak of wars but also clarifies the central importance of military doctrines in shaping the outcomes that result when states rely on threats to pursue their international interests. Twomey draws on evidence from precisely the sorts of major historical cases that one wants such work to address, and suggests the relevance of his theory and the lessons of history for the crucial contemporary case of strategic interaction between the US and China.