Synergy

Synergy: A Theoretical Model of Canada’s Comprehensive Approach is a much needed theoretical justification for a comprehensive approach to military operations. Call it a revolutionized, complex notion of The Marshall Plan. Author Eric Dion notes the lesson learned from Afghanistan is that military action alone will not create an enduring solution in a globalized world. The comprehensive approach has been considered but never fully articulated in theory or practically applied. Dion cites statistical analysis of literature on the subject and provides a theoretical model rooted in philosophical and interdisciplinary considerations. In short, it is a thoughtful and useful model for international cooperation.

What is a “comprehensive approach?” It is a strategic management of all social dynamics involved in any military operation. NATO puts it this way: a plan which “seeks to produce collaborative actions aimed at realizing desired effects to achieve an agreed end-state.” This approach (aka “whole of government” or “grounded” approach) considers the 3 D’s: defense, development, and diplomacy. Gone are the days of fighting a good battle and being done with it. The comprehensive approach considers root causes of a conflict, sociological and otherwise. It also addresses reconstruction and stabilization following a traditionally military intervention. All aspects are considered.

Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is a logical case study. The review of the literature shows Canada has been at the forefront in terms of articles written on the comprehensive approach. Additionally, Canada nearly employed a comprehensive mode before leaving Afghanistan. While some may say that Afghanistan was and still is a unique situation, Dion argues it was from this unique situation that the notion of a comprehensive approach presented itself as something that can be applied anywhere

This is not to say that it is a one-size-fits-all methodology. On the contrary, the comprehensive model is complex and adaptable. It is scientific and logical, but with inductive and subjective angles as well. Dion argues that this model adds a crucial “ground-up” (local, regional, inductive) aspect to a traditionally deductive or “top-down” military and political policy.

Dion’s work is ambitious and maybe even Utopian. But it makes total sense. Complexity should be embraced. We should think of engagements with foreign “foes” as a process of achieving an enduring symbiosis between “us and them” as well between all those in said region and surrounding areas. Dion’s final section, “Annex A,” gives a succinct overview on Synergy. It comes from a wide range of disciplines: Behavioral psychology, Structuralism, Social Dynamics, Economics, Ecology, Evolutionary thought, and Neo-Institutionalism, Organizational Learning Theory, Chaos, and Meta-theory (to name a few). Is all of this interdisciplinary work really necessary? Yes. With the growing need for such a model, we’ll see if others advance and apply the approach.