enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each
Since World War II ended, the United States has been involved in several other conflicts, all of which were much further from total war than was the Second World War. Many of these were “small wars.” During the Cold War, the military’s goal was preparedness to fight two simultaneous major contingency operations. Once the Soviet Union disintegrated, and the United States emerged as the lone superpower, there appeared to be a period of peace on the horizon. The peace dividend never fully materialized
The United States of America fought within the last two decades two major wars against Iraq, which were totally different in their character. On the one hand, in 1990 America conducted Operation Desert Storm to defeat Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, mainly with traditional also called conventional warfare. On the other hand, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2003, which was after the declared defeat of Saddam Hussein’s military forces a brutal conflict of U.S. forces together with the new government
us.” The United States faces this dilemma. The question remains how to prepare for this amidst competing interests and threats. The U.S. military should prepare for both conventional and irregular warfare, while prioritizing conventional warfare, recognizing irregular warfare as the most significant short term threat to national interests and conventional warfare the most threatening in the long term. This paper will compare and contrast the considerations for these types of warfare, explain why
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
Irregular warfare has become the centre of much military and academic study in recent years, due mostly to the ongoing NATO operations in Afghanistan. However irregular warfare is by no means a recent revelation in the evolution of warfare and strategy, numerous examples exist throughout history in which irregular warfare tactics and strategy have been adopted and later analysed by academics and military professionals. This author will focus on the key issues that governments face in creating effective
in response to acts of violence and aggression. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes this point extremely clear: “nothing…shall impair the inherit right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations..” Before 9-11, it was understood within the international community that ‘armed’ attacks were planned and executed by nation States against other sovereign States. According to Theresa Reinold however, the terrorist attacks on the
The United States Army Special Forces The first military establishment was formed before the United States was officially declared a country for the purpose of meeting the needs of the colonists during the American Revolution. The Army’s mission is to fight and win the Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across a full range of military operations. Although the history of the United States Army is deeply rooted in the country’s history, the implementation of the United States
include Africa in another one. As Huntington illustrated, the United States never historically regarded Africa as serious or significant. Thus, it never set Africa as a priority of its strategy or of its foreign policy, which hindered its actions and achievements on the continent. Consequently, the US military never had a strong footprint, and never did actually well there. Until the late 60s, internal racial tensions in the United States itself simply prevented policy makers to consider changing the
The United States up until the early 90’s spent all it military resources preparing to fight the evil empire of the Soviet Union. These potential enemies dominated not only the tactics and weapon system of its days but also the remote sensors designed for this enemy. The United States created multiple Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance (ISR) platforms, most of which were designed and used to monitor the behemoth Cold War forces of the former Soviet Union. With these impressive sensors