In the hallowed halls of war colleges, the approach to war has been a consistent subject of debate for students of professional military education. Each generation of military strategists have different perspectives shaped by knowledge of past history and their experiences gained from the contemporary application of war. The discussions around these perspectives usually are focused on the differences and similarities between two approaches. The “Scientific” approach, usually attributed to Jomini, asserts that there are certain assumptions and principles that can be methodically used to develop a war plan and successfully carry that plan into execution. The “Clauzwitzian” approach seeks to understand the nature of war as series of interactions that cannot be predicted or constrained, with a path that does not follow a linear logic pattern.
This essay will explore three concepts that use attributes of both approaches to the conduct of war, and assess how they were applied to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. First, civilian and military leaders must understand the complicated two-way relationship between political objectives and the military strategy. Second, it is essential that civilian and military decision makers comprehend the nature of the war and be able to adapt to its changing character. Finally, execution at the tactical and operational level of war must be connected to the greater political context to achieve strategic success.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussain is still recent in the memory of today’s national security leaders. There are many critiques and assessments of what went wrong after the initial military success of the invasion. However, it still is hard to comprehend how the most powerfu...
... middle of paper ...
...trinsic to any approach to war [Bassford, 6]. It would be unwise to assert that if the US decision makers during the 2003 Iraq invasion had fully embraced the principles of a “Clausewitzian” approach the result would have automatically been a success. In the post-assessment of any war, the goal should be that current and future leaders have the opportunity to analyze past decisions and actions through the lens of a framework that accepts war for what is rather than what one wants it to be.
Works Cited
Bassford, C. Lesson 4, Reading 1
Beyerchen, A. Lesson 4, Reading 2
Douhet, G. Lesson 3, Reading 2
Gray, Colin S. Airpower for Strategic Effect. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2012
Jomini, A. Lesson 3, Reading 1
McMaster , H.R. “On War: Lessons to be Learned.” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 50:1 (March 2008): 19-30.
Miller, B. Lesson 2, Reading 2
Von Clausewitz, Carl. Translated and edited by Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret. On War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
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...
Clausewitz emphasizes that “war is a branch of political activity, that it is in no sense autonomous” (Clausewitz, 605). This principle is especially applicable to the post-war period of World War II. The political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism would entail global focus for the next 50 years, and the events that brought about the defeat of Germany shaped the landscape of this political struggle.
Reisman, W. Michael, "War Powers: The Operational Code of Competence" (1989). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 742.
Vasquez, John A. "The Probability of War, 1816-1992. Presidential Address to the International Studies Association, March 25, 2002, New Orleans." International Studies Quarterly 48.1 (2004): 1-27. Print.
This I’ll admit was a very interesting book that looked at what could have really caused the Iraq war and whether we really had to go to war. The book talks about the flaws with the reasons that Bush proposed for going to war with Iraq and why we haven’t had a fuller victory yet. The book basically goes into details about the four observations that arise from examining certain aspects of the war and afterwards. In the next few pages I’ll be summarizing the book then stating my analysis and opinions about ideas presented in the book.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
Williams, Charles F. "War Powers: A New Chapter in a Continuing Debate." Social Education. April 2003: 128-133. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
Warfare can be conducted for many reasons. In the case of the Vietnam conflict, the conflic...
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
Sun Tzu’s strategy on war is still a very respected and influential book. The book breaks down war in a very strategic and intelligent way that gives extremely useful advice to those reading it. The book emphasizes the importance of strategy and positioning
2000 - 2004 -. The War to End All Wars. Michael Duffy. Original Material. Primary Documents Online -.
Although there is a level of complexity, an inherent and deterministic logic underpins traditional warfighting operations. Planners can apply certain principles to contingency planning for traditional warfighting. Once planners understand relationships between the parts of the problem, they recognize that every action has a consequence, and although some actions reinforce the adversary system’s power, others degrade that power. The typical wargaming method of action, reaction, and counteraction significantly contributes to this oversimplification of combat, which, after all, is a human endeavor and thus subject to fog and friction. Traditional wargaming is an extremely useful tool, but planners must understand that whereas the wargaming outcome is deterministic, combat is not. In complex, ill-structured problems, wargaming is still required, but the real benefits do not necessarily come from the results. The far greater benefits are derived from the discussions of possibilities and probabilities from the interaction of systems and actors within and between
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...