Over the years, there has been a huge controversy over the importance of military power for states. Military power can be defined as an aggregate of a state's entire material and intellectual resources and its ability to mobilize these resources to achieve military objectives or to fulfill other tasks. Generally, military power is materialized directly in the armed forces (Krillov, 2005). A strong military force is also a necessity for other states who want to pursue goals that require intervention of other state’s sovereignty. With that being said, the big question remains “The most important factor in whether or not states get their way is always the amount of their military power” is true or false. My position on this statement is that military power has been the primary instrument nation-states have used to control and dominate each other and subtly use force to obtain their interests except in cases of asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare provides states with weaker military power and alternative way to retaliate against adversaries which is a stumbling block for states with military power. However, apart from the asymmetric strategy, states usually inflict their strong military force to achieve certain goals. The significance of the military in state power is a legacy of the era of wars, expansion of territories and clash of ideologies. Military power has been always been paramount. The entire history of the world is plagued with the limitations of dominant military powers, starting from ancient Rome, China, France in the 1700s, UK in the 1800s, etc. States with military power use two military strategies by liberalists and realists. The liberalist’s strategy is known as compellence and the realist strategy is deterrence a... ... middle of paper ... ...er in other forms that their military strength cannot uphold. This is visible in the Vietnam War and terrorist attacks launched against the U.S and other dominant countries. Therefore, Military is strong and cohesive and helps dominant states enforce their desires on weaker but one thing it cannot sustain is asymmetric power. Works Cited 1. Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter. 2006. “The Strategies of Terrorism.” International Security 31 (1): 49-80, especially pages 66-69. 2. Kilcullen, D. (2006). "Counter-insurgency Redux." Survival 48(4): 111-130. 3. Kirillov, V.V. " Military power: the nature, structure, problems. - Military Thought | HighBeam Research - ." Research - Articles - Journals | http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-144497113.html (accessed March 8th, 2011). 4. Mingst, Karen A.. Essentials of international relations . New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
Throughout history there have been few military theorists who have influenced military thinking. The military revolution that occurred during the American Civil War changed the face of warfare. The theories of both Antione-Henri Jomini and Carl von Clausewitz, the two most prominent military theorists of the 19th Century, can be seen in many aspects of the conflict. While Jomini’s tactics played a large role on the battlefield, the strategic concepts of Carl Von Clausewitz best characterize the nature of the Civil War. The writings of Clausewitz proved prophetic in three distinct areas: the strength of the defense over the offense, the concept of “Total War” used by General Grant, and the theory of war as an extension of policy.
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.
The next theory, while still relying on the realist principles of power maximization, turns it on the Power Transition Theory on its head. Instead of two exceptionally strong states competing for domination, it focuses on weak states struggling to appear strong, so they will not be dominated. This theory is the most original of those included in this document, it combines elements of the internal disunity theory of war with the need of states to project power in an anarchic international system. In a predictive context, it can be referred to as the Theory of Overcompensation. In the specific application to the First World War it could be aptly referred to as “The Weak East Theory” because its base assertion is that in 1914, the traditional European powers in the East, the Romanov Russian and Hapsburg Austrian Empires were in their last throes, struggling to stay relevant.
John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” It has been said a few decades ago but the theme of war is relevant at all times. One might share Kennedy’s point of view, when another one not. The most obvious example of different views and approaches on how to deal with conflicts are of the Western and Eastern civilizations. The Western is focused on physical aggressiveness and getting things done through power and coercion, while the Eastern approach is more philosophical, rational, and strategic. We see such method of approach in Sun Tzu’s military treatise, “The Art of War.” Even though he wrote a manual on how to defeat an enemy, Sun Tzu emphasized that a large portion of success is based on the army’s moral duty, which is cultivated by incentives, leaders’ examples, and the ability to listen to their soldiers.
In a recent verbal bout with my History of the Military Art professor, I contended that the true might of a nation may be inversely proportional to the size of its military during peacetime. My thinking, though perhaps idealistic, was that the maintenance of a large military during relative international tranquility is an overt admission of weakness and increases the likelihood of unnecessarily employing that force—it is contextually irrelevant. Instead, I proposed that a strong and stable economy is the best metric of national prowess, for such an economy can resource many opportunities as they arise. On the contrary, a robust standing military has a much narrower utility. To be sure, this author is not one that intentionally seeks to take an interdisciplinary approach to academia, but the connection seems relevant given the nature of this assignment. Whereas a nation may accomplish a strategic goal through military force, a leader may accomplish a task relying upon coercive power; whereas a nation may transform and develop the world through its economic strength and versatility, a versatile leader may transform others through the employment of one or many leader development principles—both theoretically based and experientially acquired. This piece serves to describe acquired PL499 course concepts and their relevance to my project team and the West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS). Only through a...
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...
...ionship between leaders and the military. In European countries like Germany, military forces developed with the motives of political expansion and security of the nation, but unlike in Nigeria, the government controls the military and limits its power.
Vego defines the center of gravity as the “source of massed strength—physical or moral—or a source of leverage whose serious degradation, dislocation, neutralization, or destruction would have the most decisive impact on the enemy’s or one’s own ability to accomplish a given military objective.” (Vego, 2007). On the strategic level, a nation’s strength arises from its political, military, economic, and informational power. Nations use these powers against opponents to achieve political goals. Successful campaigns leverage a nation’s strengths against enemy’s weaknesses.
“A prince, therefore, must not…take anything as his profession but war…” these are the words of Nicollo Machiavelli and which he exclaims very clearly in his philosophies, that a good ruler must be great at the art war to succeed. One of the ways M shows his outlook on war, is by explaining how important it is to bear arms at all times and to never be without a weapon, for weapons are the tools of war and if used correctly and intelligently you will prevail over all during times of war. Secondly, M explains that a necessary induced order, unity, and fealty to the leader of a nation by projected and incited fear of that leader or leadership is the only way a leader can be looked can be respected by his own military. Moreover, with the respect of that military, a leader must have a good knowing of his home terrain in order to plan both offensive and defensive actions, and also to know history of great past leaders bouts with other countries, for this knowledge gai...
By definition, a successful military invasion gives the occupier superiority on the ground and in the air, in the ability to use physical force and violence. Despite that, when a military invader loses control of what the people read and believe, of when and if they work, of how they spend their money — when the occupiers are constantly on the defensive, as they try to maintain their position — their ability to command events is detached from their ability to use violence.
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...
Military law is a system of rules established for the government of persons in the armed forces.It is the law which governs the Members of the Armed Forces and regulates the Conduct of officers and soldier as such, in peace and war, at home and abroad. Its object is to maintain discipline as well as to deal with matters of administration in the armed forces. As distinguished from the ordinary civil law, it is administered by military commanders, military courts and is chiefly concerned with the trial and punishment of offences committed against its enactments; but on becoming subject to military law the soldier does not cease to be subject to the ordinary criminal and civil law (Halsbury, 2nd Ed. 1938, Vol.28, n. 1217).
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...
The oxford dictionary has attempted to define power as the “ability to influence people or control the behaviour of people”. Power has been related to different forms such as political economic, military and even psychological. Power has widely been considered to be the classic determinant of conflict between interstates. Realists view power as a source of state preference. Animosity is constantly caused around power relations which in turn determine why states go to war and why politicians emphasize the role of power in conditioning distance. There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi...
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...