Krigsførelsens Kredsløbs hvem, hvad, hvor

The Danish capability model, the Capability Cycle, points to a connection between the military organization, its technologies, and its doctrines. At the Royal Danish Defence College the model has been used since its emergence in the middle of the 1960s to analyze military capabilities. Thus, generations of Danish officers have used the model and its implicit claims on cause and effect to understand military capability. In stark contrast to the model’s popularity within the Danish Defence, it has been completely ignored in academia. This article is an analysis of the origin and use of the three dominant versions of the Capability Cycle. The three versions each reflect the overall security situation at the time of their publication. Common to all three is, however, a lack of critical discussion on the model’s explanatory mechanisms. This creates problems when students try to use the model as an independent theory that, in and of itself, can explain cause and effect or deepen our understanding or interpretation of military capabilities. Upon inspection, the good news is that the Capability Cycle can be a useful tool in the classroom as well as in research and development. On the other hand, its use until now has run into two challenges: (1) the problem of striking the right balance between simplicity and complexity, and (2) a lack of acceptance of the fact that the model in and of itself does not explain anything. The purpose of this special issue is to offer solutions to overcome these challenges. Resume Krigsforelsens Kredslob er en model, der peger pa en sammenhaeng mellem den militaere organisation, dens teknologi og de doktriner (metoder), som den anvender. Modellen har vaeret anvendt pa Forsvarets uddannelser siden midten af 1960’erne og ligger som en latent selvforstaelse i officerskorpset af sammenhaenge og graensedragninger i den militaere praksis. Modellen findes i tre varianter, der hver afspejler den sikkerhedspolitiske situation, de er skrevet ind i. Faelles for de tre udlaegninger er en manglende diskussion af deres pastaede arsagssammenhaenge. Det skaber isaer problemer, nar studerende forstar kredslobet som en teori, der kan forklare arsagssammenhaenge. Modellens popularitet i Forsvaret star i kontrast til dens status uden for hegnet, hvor den er blevet fuldstaendig ignoreret i den akademiske litteratur. Der er behov for et 50-ars eftersyn: Hvad kan Krigsforelsens Kredslob anno 2020? Den gode nyhed er, at Krigsforelsens Kredslob udgor et nyttigt instrument i bade undervisnings-, forsknings- og policyanalysesammenhaeng. Den mindre gode er, at dens anvendelse til dato har vaeret praeget af to svagheder: (1) at finde den rette balance mellem enkelthed og kompleksitet, og (2) en manglende forstaelse for, at modellen ikke forklarer noget i sig selv, men skal suppleres med teori. Formalet med dette temanummer er at give bud pa, hvordan disse udfordringer kan loses. Det vil demonstrere, hvordan modellen kan suppleres med teori, og hvordan den kan tilpasses for at kunne lose forskellige problemer. Det er vores hab, at disse artikler vil bidrage til at oge kvaliteten af de analyser, som modellen vil blive brugt til fremover. Keywords: Krigsforelsens Kredslob; metode; teori; doktrin; teknologi; organisation