DOCSLIB.ORG

What Constitutes Victory in Modern War?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Constitutes Victory in Modern War? What constitutes victory in modern war? Victory as a concept is problematic in general and even more so in the context of modern war and armed confl ict. First, defi nitional issues occur. Diff erent lenses can be used to look at the idea including the tactical, strategic and grand strategic levels of war, or the way in which the status quo is aff ected. Second, some factors impede a clear understand- ing of what victory entails. These include challenges around the clear and unambiguous defi nition of the desired end state or the goals and the way how to measure them once established. War is a complex social phenomenon that could be considered as a so-called wicked problem, complex and ambiguous. So, what constitutes victory in modern war? The result is at best patchy and probably not very satisfying. Colonel E.A. de Landmeter* VICTORY IN MODERN WAR ‘Once you hear the details of victory, in the context of nuclear weapons: ‘no victory it is hard to distinguish it from a defeat.’ would be worth the price.’5 It was after this Jean Paul Sartre, Essays in Aesthetics, 1964. period and the rise of armed conflict with limited aims that the interest in victory recurred. Therefore, for this article, the term modern war istory shows numerous examples of represents the wars and armed conflicts that Hbattlefield victors eventually losing the war, occurred since the end of the Cold War. or the defeated coming out as winners. More recent armed conflicts such as the wars in Iraq This article will first seek to explain the general and Afghanistan have illustrated that strategic ideas around the concept of victory by address- success cannot be achieved by military force ing some of the interpretations of victory and its alone and that victory requires not only the components as well as the relation between defeat of the opponents’ military capabilities but victory and defeat. This part will show that the also the successful resolution of the deeper concept of victory in general is contested. problems at the root of the conflict. Additional- Subsequently, some factors that impede a clear ly, the character of war since the end of the Cold understanding and use of the concept will be War has changed, because of changing technolo- examined. First, we will look at the difficulties gies and the re-emergence of a wide variety of of defining victory as a desired end state and the non-state actors often contesting the authority assessment of progress towards success. Second, of the state, driven by identity politics.1 More- the issue of victory’s inherent subjectivity is over, perceptions of winning and losing may explained. Perceptions of the various actors in often diverge widely from the realities on the conflict on different levels will vary according to ground.2 As early as 1969 O’Connor concluded their beliefs and manipulation and this diversity that victory in terms of the defeat and surrender in perceptions may change over time. Then, the of the enemy is the exception rather than the article will address the complex and ambiguous rule in the modern world.3 So, how then should nature and character of war and armed conflict we value victory in these changing contexts? Or, that may create challenges for the utility of in other words, what constitutes victory in modern war? For many, the end of the Second World War * Colonel Eric de Landmeter attended the 2017 course at the UK Royal College of resembles the epitome of a clear ‘grand strategic Defence Studies. During this time he read for a Masters International Security and victory’ that restructured world order and shaped Strategy at King’s College London. This article is based on one of a series of three our image of victory.4 However, during the Cold award-winning essays he wrote for this study. The author is currently Defence Attaché in Moscow. War the realisation emerged that the concept of 1 Mary Kaldor, ‘In Defence of New Wars,’ in: Stability, 2 (1) 4 (2013) 2. victory had no longer any practical significance 2 Dominic Johnson, Dominic Tierney, Failing to win: Perceptions of Victory and Defeat in International Politics (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 2006) 1. 3 Raymond G. O’Connor, ‘Victory in Modern War,’ in: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, No. 4, Special Issue on Peace Research in History (1969) 367. 4 Alex Weisiger, ‘Victory without peace: Conquest, insurgency, and war termination,’ in: < President George W. Bush speaks to sailors on the fl ight Confl ict Management and Peace Science, Vol.31, No.4, (2014) 357. deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln during his address to the 5 William C. Martel, Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Strategy (Cambridge, Nation on May 1, 2003 PHOTO US NAVY, L. HUNSAKER Cambridge University Press, 2011) 127. JAARGANG 187 NUMMER 3 – 2018 MILITAIRE SPECTATOR 137 DE LANDMETER PHOTO MCD, A. SCHOOR The US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to interpretations that look beyond war to examine ‘whether outcomes in these events are consistent with victory’ victory. Based on this argument it could be is. When it is addressed, it is usually ‘in passing, concluded that victory is not just problematic as an assumption, or as an excursion from their but possibly not meaningful at all in relation to primary topic.’6 This lack of theory is even more contemporary wars and conflicts. However, that surprising considering the fundamental argument would overlook the positive aspects of victory as in the scholarship that ‘how one defines victory is motive for action and agent of progress. These crucial to whether the state achieves it.’7 aspects will be addressed before coming to some conclusion. Derived from Latin (victoria, from vinco victus, ‘to conquer’),8 the word victory is mostly associated with fighting, battle, and competi- Victory is contested tion. One of the most common synonyms for victory is winning, meaning to prevail, to Although many books have been written on the triumph whilst another common synonym is question how to win wars, not many offer a success.9 Although apparently similar, these theoretical construct that addresses what victory words convey slightly different meanings and these linguistic variations contribute to the lack of precise understanding of the meaning of 6 J. Boone Bartholomees, ‘Theory of Victory,’ in: Parameters, Summer 2008, 25. victory10 that could reflect on the design and 7 William C. Martel, ‘Victory in scholarship on strategy and war,’ in: Cambridge subsequent outcome of policy. Review of International Aff airs, 24:3 (2011) 518. 8 Martel, Victory in War, 21. 9 Ibid., 23. Defeating an opponent militarily is not identical 10 Ibid., 22. to achieving the object of war, the reason for 138 MILITAIRE SPECTATOR JAARGANG 187 NUMMER 3 – 2018 VICTORY IN MODERN WAR which the war was fought. However, most of the pretation is offered by Mandel21 who makes a time it was ‘men of the military profession’ that distinction between military victory and developed the thinking about war thus leading strategic victory linking these to ‘two highly to a ‘natural tendency to lose sight of the basic interconnected yet distinct time phases.’22 The national object, and identify it with the military first phase constitutes of ‘war winning’: the aim.’11 As a result, policy has often been guided military outcomes on the battlefield leading to by military aims, losing sight of what was successful military conclusion and favourable intended by policy.12 In understanding victory, conditions for the second phase, which he calls a clear distinction between the political aim (the ‘peace winning’, the battle to win the peace end) and the military aim (one of the means to when the state tries to ‘reap the payoffs of war’ achieve the end) is essential. Victory can be by managing the transition afterwards through looked at as an outcome (result), a descriptive reconstruction and reconciliation.23 Following statement of the post-war situation, or as an this two-phase distinction Mandel describes aspiration (ambition or goal) being the driver to strategic victory in terms of interrelated accomplish specific objectives through use of informational, military, political, economic, force.13 social, and diplomatic objectives or elements.24 Strategic victory, thus, ‘entails accomplishing Regardless of whether victory is addressed as an the short-term and long-term national, regional, outcome or as an aspiration, both must be and global goals for which the war was examined on several levels: the tactical, strategic fought.’25 and grand strategic level.14 ‘Tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, Since war is a battle of wills between oppo- the use of engagements for the object of the nents26 it is interactive in its nature; the war.’15 This presupposes a hierarchy where the ‘collision of two living forces’ as Clausewitz accumulative winning of battles automatically writes succinctly.27 This interaction links the leads to winning the war. Liddel Hart describes notion of victory inextricably to defeat: one’s the ‘higher’ grand strategic level as a sense of victory is the other one’s defeat. ‘policy in execution’ in which all the resources Consequently, the results of any war are of the nation, or coalition, are coordinated and inde pendent for each side and may vary by directed towards the attainment of the political participant. One side winning does not automati- object of the war.16 Strategy is about winning cally mean that the other side lost hugely. ‘It the war, grand strategy rather ‘looks beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but regulate 11 B.H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Tactical Implementation of Strategic Guidance During the American Revolutionary War: Pedagogical Application for Classroom Use Ryan Menath
    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects January 2018 Tactical Implementation Of Strategic Guidance During The American Revolutionary War: Pedagogical Application For Classroom Use Ryan Menath Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Recommended Citation Menath, Ryan, "Tactical Implementation Of Strategic Guidance During The American Revolutionary War: Pedagogical Application For Classroom Use" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 2285. https://commons.und.edu/theses/2285 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC GUIDANCE DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR: PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION FOR CLASSROOM USE by Lieutenant Colonel Ryan Thomas Menath Bachelor of Science, United States Air Force Academy, 2001 Master of Arts, American Military University, 2012 A Final Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Arts Grand Forks, North Dakota May 2018 The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
    [Show full text]
  • A Swift and Decisive Victory the Strategic Implications of What Victory Means
    A Swift and Decisive Victory The Strategic Implications of What Victory Means BY CHONG SHI HAO “The mission of MINDEF [Ministry of Defence of Singapore] and the Singapore armed forces is to enhance Singapore’s peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy, and should these fail, to secure a swift and decisive victory over the aggressor.”1 he national purpose driving the build-up of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to its third generation has been the deterrence of any potential adversary and achieving victory if war T does break out. Because the mission statement above serves as a guide for SAF’s defense policy and also its transformation efforts, it is important to be clear about what this “victory” entails. The adjectives “swift and decisive” help to illuminate the nature of this victory that we seek to obtain. As Clausewitz puts it succinctly, “no one starts a war or rather no one in his senses ought to do so without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.” This quote sums up the concern of this essay, which aims to add clarity to what victory should look like, in light of recent events and the evolution of modern warfare. It is to help us be clear about the victory we want to achieve (i.e. what is winning?). The definition of the victory SAF aims to accomplish has to be re-examined within the context of today’s debate over the future of war. The texture and nature of this victory have obvious implications for our conduct of war – strategy, operations and tactics (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Airpower for Strategic Effect Air University Series on Airpower and National Security
    Airpower for Strategic Effect Air University Series on Airpower and National Security Divining Victory by William M. Arkin (2007) The Quest for Relevant Air Power by Christian F. Anrig (2011) Airpower for Strategic Effect by Colin S. Gray (2012) Bomber: The Formation and Early Years of Strategic Air Command by Phillip S. Meilinger (forthcoming) Airpower for Strategic Effect Colin S. Gray Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama February 2012 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gray, Colin S. Airpower for strategic effect / Colin S. Gray. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-58566-218-0 1. Air power. 2. Air power—United States. I. Title. UG630.G75 2011 358.4'03--dc23 2011035404 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Copyright 2012 by Colin S. Gray The author retains all rights to this work granted under 17 USC §106. The US Air Force retains nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish and distribute this work. AFRI Air Force Research Institute Air University Press Air Force Research Institute 155 North Twining Street Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 http://aupress.au.af.mil iv This book is dedicated to the memory of my father, William “Bill” Gray, who said that the proudest moment of his life was when he was awarded his “wings” in the RAF in 1943.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Strategic Intentions
    APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Russian Strategic Intentions A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) White Paper May 2019 Contributing Authors: Dr. John Arquilla (Naval Postgraduate School), Ms. Anna Borshchevskaya (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), Dr. Belinda Bragg (NSI, Inc.), Mr. Pavel Devyatkin (The Arctic Institute), MAJ Adam Dyet (U.S. Army, J5-Policy USCENTCOM), Dr. R. Evan Ellis (U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute), Mr. Daniel J. Flynn (Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)), Dr. Daniel Goure (Lexington Institute), Ms. Abigail C. Kamp (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Roger Kangas (National Defense University), Dr. Mark N. Katz (George Mason University, Schar School of Policy and Government), Dr. Barnett S. Koven (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Jeremy W. Lamoreaux (Brigham Young University- Idaho), Dr. Marlene Laruelle (George Washington University), Dr. Christopher Marsh (Special Operations Research Association), Dr. Robert Person (United States Military Academy, West Point), Mr. Roman “Comrade” Pyatkov (HAF/A3K CHECKMATE), Dr. John Schindler (The Locarno Group), Ms. Malin Severin (UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC)), Dr. Thomas Sherlock (United States Military Academy, West Point), Dr. Joseph Siegle (Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University), Dr. Robert Spalding III (U.S. Air Force), Dr. Richard Weitz (Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Prefaces Provided By: RDML Jeffrey J. Czerewko (Joint Staff, J39), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Editor: Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy James R
    Naval War College Review Volume 60 Article 17 Number 4 Autumn 2007 Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy James R. Holmes William C. Martel Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Holmes, James R. and Martel, William C. (2007) "Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy," Naval War College Review: Vol. 60 : No. 4 , Article 17. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol60/iss4/17 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen BOOK REVIEWS 143 Holmes and Martel: Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Military Policy has seen its standard of living decline forgot to prepare his country for life af- and its people suffer.” ter oil and has left it with a castrated Why the scramble for African oil? Be- economy.” cause African oil is of high quality and “Cameroon and Congo are much the therefore relatively cheap to refine. Af- same story, but in the latter country, oil rica is surrounded by water, so access to has fueled a bloody civil war that has the sea and less expensive maritime left the population traumatized and transport further reduces costs (in com- afraid to speak out against the country’s parison to Central Asia, which must high-level corruption.” ship by pipeline), and there is increas- “Angola is the sleeping giant where bil- ing global demand, in which Africa rep- lions of dollars have disappeared and resents a larger percentage of new where government maintains deep dis- discoveries and production.
    [Show full text]
  • China-Burma-India Rep
    US Japan China-Burma-India Rep. of China The forgotten front of World War 2 Great Britain India Burma Introduction CBI had two separate but related wars: o The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937 – 1945) o The War for Burma (1942 – 1945) However, to fully understand the impact on the post-war world we also have to look at the Chinese Civil War (1927- 1937 & 1945-1950) Main Combatants and their objectives Japan- Complete control of China as a colony; Resources and o isolation of China (Burma) o China - Self-preservation (KMT & CCP to take control of China) US – Protect China, keep her in the war, and tie up Japan there as o much as possible o Britain – Protect India and recover Burma (preserve the empire). o Thailand – Support Japan (Asia for Asians). What we’re going to do • The emergence of modern Japan up to 1933 • The emergence of modern China up to 1937 • The runup to and Phase one of the Second Sino-Japanese War • The Japanese strategic shift to South-East Asia and the conquest of Burma • Japanese invasion of India • Phase Two of the Sino-Japanese War (Operation Ichi-Go) • The Allied re-conquest of Burma • The end of World War Two in the CBI • The Chinese Civil War (1945-1949) • The impact of CBI on WW2 & the post-war world Opening Comments •Strategic level emphasis •Facts vs. Opinions •Questions •Why was it the “forgotten front”? C. W. Riffer Why am I interested in CBI? 3d Pursuit Squadron • Flying Tigers January 1942 Chinese/English • Wade-Giles vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Philippine Counterinsurgency Strategy: Then and Now
    SMALL WARS JOURNAL smallwarsjournal.com Philippine Counterinsurgency Strategy: Then and Now by Mike Fowler Shortly after the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, an insurgency campaign began against the US occupational force in the Philippines. In less than four years, the counterinsurgents were able to claim victory as the last of the major insurgent leaders surrendered. As of 2010, an entirely different insurgency campaign in the Philippines dragged into its fifth decade. This analysis provides fresh insights into effective counterinsurgency strategy while offering a heavy dose of caution to the transferability of lessons learned from one counterinsurgency to the next. While this study confirms many key factors of a successful counterinsurgency strategy, the findings of this study also indicate that lessons cannot be universally applied in all counterinsurgencies due to wide variations in insurgent strategy. This study is a comparative analysis of two periods of major insurgency in the Philippines: 1899-1902 and 1969-2009. The analysis compares both insurgent and counterinsurgent strategies between and within the two periods. Although there is no ―recipe‖ or checklist that will ensure a successful insurgency or counterinsurgency, there is significant overlap among the best practices recommended by both academics and the military.1 From this overlap, this study employs five factors to analyze insurgency and six factors to analyze counterinsurgency. Of the five key factors for insurgency, arguably the most important is the insurgents’ primary objective. The primary objective varied widely among the insurgencies from social and political revolution to local autonomy and independence. Knowing the objective is an important part to understanding how to defeat the enemy or negotiate a path to victory.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Development Aid to Address Root Causes in Counterinsurgency
    Working Paper Leveraging Development Aid to Address Root Causes in Counterinsurgency Balancing Theory and Practice in “Hold” and “Build” Ben Connable RAND National Security Research Division WR-983-USG February 2013 Prepared for the U.S. Government CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE RAND working papers are intended to share researchers’ latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by the National Security Research Division but have not been formally edited or peer reviewed. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. RAND® is a registered trademark. Preface This working paper examines the ways in which the U.S. military applies development aid to address popular root causes in the “hold” and “build” phases of counterinsurgency (COIN). It specifically examines three critiques of current practice, and explores the suitability of alternative paradigms for contemporary U.S. operations and doctrine. It also offers draft recommendations designed to help U.S. policymakers and practitioners improve the efficiency and effectiveness of development aid in COIN. This research was conducted within the Intelligence Policy Center of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD). NSRD conducts research and analysis on defense and national security topics for the U.S. and allied defense, foreign policy, homeland security, and intelligence communities and foundations and other nongovernmental organizations that support defense and national security analysis. For more information on the RAND Intelligence Policy Center, see http://www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/intel.html or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page).
    [Show full text]
  • American Way of War
    History 211 US Military History Discussion Transcript for January 28, 2021 Main Reading: essay by Antulio Echevarria The initial reading assignment in this class describes a scholarly debate that emerged after the publication in 1973 of a work by military historian Russell Weigley called, The American Way of War. Echevarria describes how Weigley and some his critics have explained the evolution of American war-fighting strategies, while pointing out how some of the problems they have raised –especially concerning the disconnection between politics and strategy (which is the opposite of the classic maxim from Clausewitz)—have continued to affect and often impair American strategic thinking. The following selections come from student comments ARGUMENT OVERVIEW STUDENT COMMENT: In Toward an American Way of War, author Antulio Echevarria writes about the “American way of war,” defining it as viewing conflict through “holistic” a lens (iii). To further elaborate, he cites Russel Weigley’s The American Way of War, in which he examines early American interpretations that [centered] on the pursuit of a crushing military victory – over an adversary.” As opposed to other European forces, Weigley’s perspective views the annihilation of one’s opponent as “an alternative to bargaining” (1). As the foundational ideas and expectations of war, there exists overlapping ideas between different interpretations of the way of war. In Germany, for example, Prusso-German General Hemulth von Moltke once argued that policy cannot interfere with military operations. Although his ideas were prominent during his time in power, similar way of thought can be found in British and French literature written during the late 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • How Insurgencies End
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. How InsurgencIes end Ben Connable and Martin C. Libicki Prepared for the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE The research described in this report was prepared for the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Margin of Victory: Five Western Ideas in the Early 1900S
    tribal-based societies, he lambasts the was appointed the British Secretary of U.S. expectation that such a fractious War in December 1905, reformed the country would embrace American-style British army despite its well-established democracy and freedom. The author naval supremacy and significant spending details how the United States, in its at- restraints. After analyzing the strategic tempts at post-invasion order, simply environment, Haldane concluded he did replaced Iraq’s Sunnis with its Shia not know precisely which power or alli- population in the ruling structure, ance Britain would face in the next war. setting the stage for a sectarian govern- He asked first-order questions: Whom do ment, reprisals, and the eventual start we fight? Where do we fight? And how of Iraq’s brutal insurgency and civil war. do we fight? The reforms were nested Mandelbaum describes the Iraqi mission under the answers to these questions. as one doomed to fail from the start—a The subsequent battle of Mons in 1914 “struggle between American will and the would reveal that Haldane’s reforms laws of gravity of the region.” The U.S. served the British army well. The British involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Expeditionary Force proved to be stra- peace process is similarly described as an tegically decisive in protecting France attempt to force dissimilar cultures to until the Allied powers, which eventu- accept American concepts of negotiation, ally included U.S. forces, could defeat acceptance, and rule of law. Germany. The thread that ties together Mission Next, Macgregor details the Japanese Failure is the repeating theme of disin- rise to power and embrace of many terested, unfocused, and mismanaged Margin of Victory: Five Western ideas in the early 1900s.
    [Show full text]