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.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages14 Page
-
File Size-