Unfortunately for contemporary U.S. strategic military planners the most powerful side in war does not always win. Defeat is a real possibility; even in a unipolar world. While the combination of a variety of strategic factors can lead to the defeat of a superior force, four stand out as the most likely explanations for why less powerful actors can, and do, win wars. These four are; the fundamentally unpredictable nature of war, a fatally flawed military strategy adopted by the more powerful adversary, an unforeseen and therefore decisive technological advantage by the less powerful side, and a sheer lack of military effectiveness of the greater power. This paper will analyze these four strategic characteristics in an effort to persuade …show more content…
Chief among these is a fatally flawed strategy adopted by the more powerful adversary that negates material superiority and battlefield success. This is sometimes referred to as “winning the battle but losing the war.” There are several reasons why military strategy can go awry and lead to defeat of even the most powerful militaries. Michael Howard discusses potential strategic pitfalls in his well-written journal article entitled “The Forgotten Elements of Strategy” published in 1979. Howard argues, quite convincingly, that to be successful, modern-day strategy must address four dimensions (logistical, operational, societal, technological) all of which can dominate depending on the circumstances of the strategic setting. Perhaps most important to us today is his assertion that the societal dimension has become the most important in warfare since 1945, particularly in the decolonization or counterinsurgency context, despite an obsession with technology and nuclear strategy. Howard’s post-Vietnam War article undoubtedly resonates with the current generation of American military leaders who despite their numerous tactical and operational victories, have been so far unable to nominally succeed (let alone declare victory) in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in large part because our strategies failed to account for essential sociopolitical factors, just as our predecessors had during the fiasco in
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.
In order to have any chance at winning any kind of war you need some kind of strategy.
Fawcett, Bill. 2006. How to lose a battle: foolish plans and great military blunders. New York:
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”.
'We Fought a military war; Opponents our Fought a political one. We sought physical attrition, Opponents Aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process, we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerilla war. The guerilla wins if he does not lose, the conventional army loses if it does not win. The North Vietnamese used their forces the way a bullfighter uses its cape - to keep us lunging into areas of marginal political importance. ' (Kissinger, 1969, 214)
For this media evaluation paper, I watched a movie called The English Patient. The movie was about a nurse named Hana who, is from Canada but is a war nurse in Italy, takes care of a severely burned man who was found in the desert after his plane smashed into the ground and was caught on fire. Hana believe that she was cursed because everyone she loves dies and this is because her coworker who was a nurse dies and so does her fiancé. So that is when Hana left everything from being a war nurse for the soldiers to take care of this English patient in an abandoned Italian villa, since he has nobody to take care of him. She cooks, cleans, bathes, and takes care of the English patient. The patient is known as the English patient
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...
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)
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...
“More than most professions, the military is forced to depend upon intelligent interpretation of the past for signposts charting the future.... The facts derived from historical analysis he [the soldier] applies to conditions of the present and the proximate future, thus developing a synthesis of appropriate method, organization, and doctrine.... These principles know no limitation of time. Consequently the Army extends its analytical interest to the dust-buried accounts of wars long past as well as to those still reeking wit the scent of battle. It is the object of the search that dictates the field for its pursuit.”1
Earl, Edward M., Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler. (Princeton University Press, 1943) 62, 66.
Jimenez was successful in Wichita not because of the monthly chats, weekly baseball games or Keller, but because she set up an environment conducive to attaining results she needed. This achieved two critical goals- it enabled the employees develop cross-functional solutions and fostered a sense of ownership and commitment. Jimenez misunderstood what made the Wichita project successful. Instead of trying to set up circumstances conducive to developing site-specific solutions in Lubbock, she simple imported the methods that the Wichita employees had created.
	The pounding of shells, the mines, the death traps, the massive, blind destruction, the acrid stench of rotting flesh, the communal graves, the charred bodies, and the fear. These are the images of war. War has changed over the centuries from battles of legions of ironclad soldiers enveloped in glimmering armor fighting for what they believe to senseless acts of guerrilla warfare against those too coward to be draft-dodgers. Those who were there, who experienced the terror first hand were deeply effected and changed forever. In their retinas, images of blood and gore are burned for the rest of their life.
The objective of this assignment is to describe, identify and justify two of the most important qualities that the United States Armed Forces must possess in order to, achieve operational success during war. Currently, the military is in the middle of a seven-year phase force reduction process totaling 562,000 soldiers in 2010 to 450,000 soldiers in 2017. Therefore, the United States government specifically, the Department of Defense will expect the Armed Forces to “do more” “with less” as the result of the unknown variables (i.e. insurgent activities) of the National Defense Strategy. Hence, competent leaders and effective doctrine remain essential components of mission accomplishment and replicated from doctrine. Lastly, explain how the
Geography is a branch of science that seeks to learn about the physical aspects of the earth, and how human activity is having an impact on it. War, on the other hand, is a militaristic conflict between two opposing parties, where violence and strategic thinking plays a big part. War relies on several aspects in Geography to help win battles such as using maps to have an overview of a battlefield, understanding how the land can be used to a commander’s advantage, and so on. Wars or other kinds of militaristic conflicts can sometimes occur due to the nature of Geography in many ways: expanding the territory of a country, conquering another nation for its resources, or for other reasons. Geography matters very much in warfare because the types