Friday
5 November 1999
0830-1030 (IS)
Contemporary "strategic" thought . . . is fundamentally flawed; and, in addition, is rooted in a "Clausewitzian" world-picture that is either obsolete or wrong.
Martin van Creveld
The nature of warfare does not change, any more than does that of the human beings who lie behind it. . . . Wars in all eras have more in common with each other than they do with other activities of their respective time.
Colin S. Gray
Introduction:
Over the past several weeks you have studied military theory as it has evolved since the French Revolution and the wars of Napoleon. That evolution has been shaped by mankind's various experiences with warfare and by the concurrent changes in political, economic and social systems, in demographics, in industrial and technological capabilities, and so on. Warfare is a fundamental human activity, rooted in the prevailing human condition and capability. As that condition and capability change, so does the character and conduct of war. So too does the theory that explains it.
The previous topic on the Revolution in Military Affairs introduced the idea that today's sweeping changes in technology herald a revolution in the character and conduct of war. In other words, the resulting improvements in the capabilities of military forces to identify an enemy's critical capabilities, deliver suitably destructive weapons precisely on target, and exercise real-time control over rapidly moving, far-flung, simultaneous operations combine to produce a new form of warfare, thus demanding new approaches to its conduct. That is only one vision of the future, however. Others point to the disintegration of nation-states, rise of large numbers of non-state entities, and other social, demographic, and environmental changes as the key factors that will dramatically affect the incidence, purpose, and conduct of warfare. Authors such as Martin van Creveld, Alvin and Heidi Toffler, and Carl Builder contend that future warfare will be determined by the non-technological issues that beset the world. For these writers, scarcity of water, mass migrations of people, and growing disorder within states are the dominant factors, bringing about increasing low-order violence, terrorism, and insurgency warfare. For them, the Gulf War was not the first look at future warfare but an anachronism; Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were the first looks at war in the future. Your task for this topic is to examine these contending visions and determine how they affect your personal theory of war.
Our purpose in this last lesson in Course 5602 is two-fold: to take a final look at the ground we've covered the past six weeks and to examine your own beliefs in light of the contending visions of the future. The readings represent some of the more recent thinking about the changes that may affect the character and conduct of war in the future. They also probe how military theory may need to adapt to those changes. Indeed, Joint Pub 1, the final required reading of the course, provides current thoughts from the Joint Chiefs of Staff about how best to integrate the various components of American military power to achieve success in future conflicts. Take advantage of this opportunity to continue synthesizing the various notions you have found most useful to you. More importantly, be alert for new ideas, and be willing to assimilate them into your personal theory of war. By now you should realize we all are military theorists in that we have definite ideas about what war is and how we should conduct it. Our responsibility is to keep refining those ideas--analyzing our experiences and broadening our knowledge of others' thinking--so that when the time comes we can make sound decisions about the development and employment of military power.
Objectives:
- Understand how political, social, and economic/environmental changes may affect the nature, character, and conduct of war.
- Integrate the key concepts guiding the evolution of military thought since the French Revolution.
- Refine your personal theory of war.
Issues for Consideration:
- What, in your mind, are the most fundamental ideas defining the character and conduct of war today? How might these concepts evolve? What do you foresee as the next "revolution in military affairs"?
- What, in your mind, have been the most important trends in the evolution of military thought over the past 200 years? What have been the most important influences on that evolution? Do you expect the trends and influences to continue? Why or why not?
- Which of the military theorists you have examined in this course have exercised the most influence on the evolution of military theory? How? Which have influenced your own ideas about the nature, character, and conduct of war? Why and how?
- Do the conditions that surround war--the causes of war, who fights wars, how wars are fought and terminated, and where wars are fought--differ today from the past 200 years? What changes do you foresee?
- Does war remain an effective instrument of policy? Why, or why not?
Required Readings:
* John Orme, "The Utility of Force in a World of Scarcity," International Security, Number 3, Winter 1997/1998, pp. 138-167. (Reprint)
* Colin S. Gray, "The Changing Nature of Warfare?" Naval War College Review, No. 49, Spring 1996, pp. 7-22. (Reprint)
* Brian Bond, "The Pursuit of Victory in the Nuclear Age," in The Pursuit of Victory from Napoleon to Saddam Hussein (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 171-198. (Reprint)
* Alvin and Heidi Toffler, War and Anti-War (New York, NY: Little Brown and Co., 1993), pp. 108-152. (Reprint)
* Joint Pub 1, "Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces," 11 November 1991. (Student Issue)
Supplementary Reading:
* A. J. Bacevich, "The Use of Force in our Time," The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1995, pp. 50-63. (Reprint)
 |
 |