The grand strategies of the United States (US) military have evolved all too slowly over the course of wartime history, and Sun-Tzu’s words from over 2,000 years ago bear an uncanny call to action. I posit, however, that simply shifting from the war strategy of leading (or perhaps more accurately, policing) the world via military might, with a long arm and strong hand, to one of multilateral conflict resolution complete with “winning hearts and minds,” is equally insufficient in guaranteeing a successful outcome. Rather, succeeding in a modern conflict requires modern thought; we must stop thinking in terms of archaic dichotomies. When it comes to creating a grand military strategy, we cannot afford to think in terms of “either/or,” instead we must consider thinking in terms of using strategies from both.
In this essay, I present evidence that both a pre 9/11 war like World War II; with strong world leadership and a post 9/11 war like Afghanistan which was politically-based; multilateral strategies were indispensable. In analyzing three challenges of pre/post 9/11 warfare, I first examine the influence of politics and other circumstances on warfare. Next, I evaluate the difficulty and challenges of translating military outcomes into desired political outcomes. Finally, I assess the unique challenges such as modern coalition warfare and irregular warfare. By the end of this analysis, the challenges the US faces in translating military power into desired political outcome will be clear.
It is necessary to define, the US pre 9/11 military strategy to the post one that has emerged, before getting to the major points of this analysis. I contend a critical point of evolution in war-fighting occurred on 11 Sept 2001. The American ...
... middle of paper ...
...l, 1995, 41-55.
6. Colin S. Gray, lesson 7, article 1
• Reading 1: Gray, Colin S. Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy: Can the American Way of War Adapt? Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, March 2006, 1-55.
7. Stephen Biddle, Fotini Christia and F. Alexander Their, lesson 12, article 1
• Reading 4: Biddle, Stephen, Christina Fotini, and J. Alexander Their. “ Defining Success in Afghanistan.” Foreign Affairs 89, 4 (July-August 2010): 48-60.
8. Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini, lesson 3, article 1
• Reading 1: Jomini, Antoine Henri. “ Summary of the Art of War.” The Art of War. Westport CT: Greenwood, 1971, 11-13, 34, 37-39, 46-54, 59-76, 91-94, 104-116, and 298-305
9. Paul D. Miller, lesson 12, article 5
• Reading 5: Miller, Paul D. “Finish the Job.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 1 (January/February 2011): 51-65.
Books, L. (2010). Battles of the War in Afghanistan by Country. Washington: LLC Books. Retrieved November 05, 2010, from books.google.co.ke/books?isbn=1158057407
Thinking historically while conducting counterinsurgency in the 21st century poses questions regarding how to develop political and strategic plans. This bibliographic essay will examine the political and military aspect of fighting counterinsurgent warfare by 20th century theorists Galula’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” and Trinquier’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice”. Strategy in fighting guerilla wars will be discussed by comparing conflicts in battles and ideologies from the past to current day. Moreover, ways to avoid the one size fits all war mentality when combating modern day insurgents will be recommended.
Tzu, Mo. Against Offensive Warfare. Ed. Michael Austin. Reading the World: Ideas that Matter. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2010. 254-255. Print.
McGuigan, Cathleen. "Theater Of War." Newsweek 151.14 (2008): 52-53. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Mar. 2010.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
It is interesting and even surprising that the two major strategies regarding war were developed by European contemporaries of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) approached his philosophy of war in a structured, scientific manner. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) took a more fluid, open-ended approach to his philosophy of war. The fact that they lived during the same time period in Europe is also fascinating in that they likely knew of each others’ writings as well as potentially influenced and were influenced by the philosophy of the other. Jomini’s scientific approach is more applicable to the tactical and operational levels of war while Clausewitz approaches war as more of an art or interaction between people that is more appropriate to the strategic and political levels of war. Although their two war strategies are presented as opposing strategies, by comparing concepts from each of the theorists to the other theorist’s work shows that they are actually more complementary than competing in that they are addressing different levels of war. The concepts to be evaluated are Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as a continuation of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” as well as Jomini’s definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
Samuel B. Griffith’s translation of “Sun Tzu: The Art of War” is an inside look at military practices of today. I did not find one technique that is not or would not be utilized in modern military maneuver, leadership, or training. The most astounding fact is that the Art of War was written well over two thousand years ago, even at the most conservative date. Although most of the techniques in this text are already in practice today, the value of “The Art of War” is a never-ending treasure chest of knowledge, and it deserves a place as a required reading for anyone seeking knowledge about war fighting or the history of war.
After twenty-five hundred years, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War still reigns supreme. In that long span of time, numerous empires have risen, expanded and collapsed. Wars have reached and ravaged almost every point on the planet. Humans have evolved from using swords and spears to using machine guns and missiles. Parts of the world have been colonized and have risen to prominence where once people thought there was no land. The Art of War has withstood all of this and stayed the most important source of military strategy for over two millennia. No other military document, and in fact few other written books at all, have come close to lasting this long. If ever asked: Can something as old as The Art of War remain relevant today, when it’s subject matter has changed so drastically in so long a time? The answer for now, and maybe forever, is a resounding ‘yes’.
When comparing and contrasting U. S. military operations and capabilities with regard to regular versus irregular warfare it is important to understand the definition of irregular and the spectrum of conflict. In recent history, the term “irregular warfare” has been used interchangeably with or alongside insurgency and counterinsurgency warfare. This usage and comparison is too narrow. ...
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...