State Military Power

Thesis The American Revolution, Algerian, Irish and Peruvian Terror Wars, Vietnam and Afghanistan are perfect examples of how great powers, like the United States, France, and Britain can be defeated by weaker adversaries who employ irregular warfare. It is not the irregular warfare that defeats powers that are greater in number, skills and resources; it is how the great powers prepare and respond to such tactics. Nor does the weaker adversaries use of irregular warfare solely responsible for its success; great powers lose to weaker adversaries by first, not understanding the nature of the war; secondly, becoming a cooperative adversary; and lastly, their inability to reassess and adapt to the war. Irregular Warfare Defined The Army Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations, defines Irregular Warfare as "a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over a population. Furthermore, IW consist of various methods such as terrorism, guerilla warfare, and insurgencies.

Hence, ‘justness’ or ‘rightness’ of a war are important for any military intervention. However, it is very difficult to define what is ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. I argue that elites give the interpretation of the ‘justness’ of a war and media coverage helps to reach that interpretation to the public. Existing literatures of public opinion argue that information about the successes or the failures, objectives of a mission, number of casualty or elite cues are variables regarding public support for the wars. I argue that elite consensus is most important variable for shaping public opinion concerning war and it determines rightness of waging, continuing and ending a war.

This school of thought focuses on ways in which power affects the international arena by assessing how states influence each other as the most important actors in world politics. Realpolitik pays attention to political power matters such as military preparedness and industrial capacities, ignoring issues of morality, ideology and other social aspects as reasons for actions of states. In this way, realism sets up a strong framework for understanding short-term, interstate relationships, yet leaves the comprehension of deeper, long-term issues weak in the background. Power politics maintains that human nature is generally selfish. This belief comes from their understanding of the trends in international relations.

Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the argument that states with superior technology will not always win conventional conflicts, particularly by the United States. Admittedly, there are three primary principles that must be met to ensure a war victory. First, the political leadership’s motives must be unified. Second, there must be a unity in the efforts of the military; that is to say, unity in the practice of warfare. Finally, the country’s passions must be pushing in the same direction.

According to the Realists, because states (especially the most powerful) are the actual decision makers in intergovernmental organizations, the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and other U.S. alliances act only according to the ideas of the United States and other powerful countries. These entities do not make real decisions without U.S. approval and, thus, act simply as extensions of U.S. foreign p... ... middle of paper ... ...nt demonstrates a country’s need to protect its territorial integrity amidst world anarchy, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs illustrates the important role of fulfilling safety needs in order to self-actualize, and recent attacks on U.S. soil reveal the real threat to American national security that remains today. If the United States is to continue to be a world superpower, it must ensure that American values, lives, property, and way of life are in no way undermined. One can see that making national security its primary goal in foreign policy will help the United States make certain that it continues to be a formidable force in world politics. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] All information on Maslow’s hierarchy is from a Yahoo word search: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

However, there was specific information on the subject of warfare documented by one of the greatest military strategists during the Era of Warring States, Sun Tzu, in his writing of The Art of War. Here are some key details of his documentation involving lessons learned and thorough observations about warfare, involving the forces of nature used as an advantage to potentially increase the chances of success or a disadvantage that would potentially lead to failure in a war. One of the significant lessons on warfare and leadership put forth by Sun Tzu was having the ability to act in dynamic opposites as a tactical advantage when planning an attack. He had stated that “All warfare is based on deception” (Giles). If one’s own army is strong, one must command his soldiers to appear weak.

Nevertheless, there are evidence that war was not the only and ultimate goal of the country's actions (III). As defined in a general dictionary[1], the word "militarism" has three aspects: firstly, it can refer to a military spirit or to the pursuit of military ideals. Secondly, it is also the domination by the military in the formulation of policies, ideals, etc., especially on a political level. Thirdly, it is a policy of maintaining a strong military organisation in aggressive preparedness for war. What would then mean being highly militaristic?

And states seek security through balancing the distribution of power. Second, polarity, which is determined by distribution of, has a significant impact on the choice of balancing behavior of states. And consistent with the history, this theory suggests that states are more likely to go to war under multipolarity while a bipolar system is relatively stable because of security dilemma between two great powers. After this, I will discuss two liberal critiques of the theory and further explain why realist theory best explain the onsets of these events. First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011).

NATO forces began to pick apart the area to find Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda. Former President George W. Bush had a realist approach in dealing with the “War on Terror”. This political idea means that the government is taking the nation’s interest as priority instead of trying to maintain an ideal. A realist believes that human nature is bad and their core concerns are war and security. Realists also think about how vulnerable, self-interested states survive in an environment where they are uncertain about the intentions and capabilities of others.