Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

THE WESTERN WAR MODEL IS WRONG… (Sorta)
HERE IS WHY:
–“THEORY: U.S. and NATO military strategists are taught that the decisive part of a war resides in the major combat operations phase. BUT: America’s post-9/11 wars and the Ukraine War have proven that’s not so. INSTEAD: Rather, using force during major combat operations, and after, together form the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve the strategic political objectives of a war.”–

I’m not sure why we have to keep learning this every century, but the Western position is a remnant of European war between monarchies and states over economic control of resources.

In the european theatre of war, and part of our civilization’s concept of war (See The Culture of War by Von Creveld, and The History of Warfare by Keegan). Why? You must defeat an enemy on his civilization’s terms, and in doing so achieve political and strategic victory.

There is a tendency of ‘Gentlemanly’ European historical warfare, because of our domestication of warfare (yes really), certainly from the peace of Westphalia thru to the Geneva convention, in various agreements on the rules of war, culminating in the declaration of human rights. (Something that we cannot hold other civs to – it’s a degree of morality alien to them.) We cannot civilize uncivilized people. They must civilize themselves out of incremental self interest.

Instead, either (a) war is an extension of politics, or (b) politics is a proxy for war, or (c) both. In other words. you must defeat both. And you must defeat the will to fight on the terms by which those who fight will modify their behavior.

So you cannot win the war with battles on your terms, and instad you must defeat the enemy on the terms by which the political order (who decides), in their civilization (the men who fight), will change from what they are doing to what you wish it to be doing.

This is easier with governments, but it is impossible with religions and ideologies. In other words, you must defeat (or kill) the carrier (host) of the idea that is causing the aggression. So it is better to fight a government than a religion or ideology, because the latter requires not just attacking the. military, or the leadership, but the population as a whole.

This is the law of war. Clausewitz, Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu all failed to see the entire picture. But Machiavelli was closer to the most important insight: morality does not exist in war. It is a purely empirical pursuit, with the utility of the post-conflict relations the only constraint on the degree of violence that must be inflicted to end the conflict.

Why am I stating this right after a post on Nietzsche? Same reason: Historical theorists lacked a global understanding of war in a period of marginal indifference in warfighting.

In other words, the culture must be defeated on its terms, not yours.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle