POS 404: THEORIES OF WAR & STRATEGIES OF PEACE (PART ONE)

INTRODUCTION

WE propose to consider first the single elements of our subject, then each branch or part, and, last of all, the whole, in all its relations—therefore to advance from the simple to the complex. But it is necessary for us to commence with a glance at the nature of the whole, because it is particularly necessary that in the consideration of any of the parts the whole should be kept constantly in view.

We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. Therefore, we will understand war to mean conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or coalitions, with this conflict being conducted in order to achieve certain political goals.

War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war).  Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations or Niger Delta militants might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands.

War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, who is a member and who is not, which laws get made, what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on. War is the ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or resolution can't be agreed upon.

The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force.

Let us here cite, by way of support, the views of the one and only (so-called) “philosopher of war,” Carl von Clausewitz. Clausewitz famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means.” Surely, as a description, this conception is both powerful and plausible: war is about governance, using violence instead of peaceful measures to resolve policy (which organizes life in a land). This notion fits in nicely with Clausewitz's own general definition of war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.” War, he says, is like a duel, but on “an extensive scale.” As Michael Gelven has written more recently, war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance. In fact, we might say that Clausewitz was right, but not quite deep enough: it's not just that war is the continuation of policy by other means; it's that war is about the very thing which creates policy—i.e., governance itself. War is the intentional use of mass force to resolve disputes over governance. War is, indeed, governance by bludgeon. Ultimately, war is profoundly anthropological: it is about which group of people gets to say what goes on in a given territory.

War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of violent, physical force between combatants or upon civilians. Also, War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.

War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

Peace is commonly understood to mean the absence of hostilities. Other definitions include freedom from disputes, harmonious relations and the absence of mental stress or anxiety, as the meaning of the word changes with context. However, there are others who would say that the absence of hostilities would refer to only those hostilities which are evident and that true peace only derives from the mind of each individual.

Some people believe peace is a way to slip through self consciousness, as with hippies in the 1960's. An affirmative definition for the concept of peace, one that expresses the condition as a state unto itself, rather than as the lack of its antithesis, is: "PEACE: the state or condition of restfulness, harmony, balance, equilibrium, longevity, justice, resolution, timelessness, contentment, freedom, and fulfillment, either individually or simultaneously present, in such a way that it overcomes, demolishes, banishes, and/or replaces everything that opposes it." (by Sevi Regis)

Peace may refer specifically to an agreement concluded to end a war, or to a lack of external warfare, or to a period when a country's armies are not fighting enemies. It can also refer more generally to quietude, such as that common at night or in remote areas, allowing for sleep or meditation. Peace can be an emotion or internal state. And finally, peace can be any combination of these definitions.

Evolution of Warfare

Warfare started with fists, sticks and stones, yelling distance. People usually knew their enemy, not always by name but they could see the fear in his as bled to death at their feet. Combat was more personal and direct. As weapons evolved so did the method of using them. With a bow and arrow it was easier to sneak up on the enemy and shoot an arrow in him or throw a spear at him. When groups started waging war on each other new technologies forced them to use different tactics. Armor and shields reduced the effectiveness of bows and arrows.

Until the nineteen hundreds, soldiers fought in big formations where Generals could mass their troops where they would do the most damage to the enemy. As guns became more common troops were equipped with them and deployed in several ranks. A bullet fired from a black powder musket could penetrate all but the strongest armor and so massed cavalry charges of knights could be slaughtered by a group of poorly trained peasants armed with guns.

Technology has changed the way war is fought to an incredible extent. With current advances in technology it could change even more. With more widespread and instantaneous media coverage citizens are quickly informed of world events. With vivid, realistic views of what their fellows are facing in distant lands people are becoming less interested in seeing their sons and daughters die in battle. In turn they pressure their government to end the war.

This is starting to have great effect in the way wars are fought. Those in power are, perhaps for the first time in history, beginning to care about the loss of human life. Stand off weapons, that do not risk the lives of citizens are becoming preferred. The cruise missile, which can strike with pinpoint precision is now more important than ever.

One cannot predict the way wars will be fought in the future. With the growing number of weapons of mass destruction one can assume that to avoid the attention of these weapons combat units will be smaller, faster and more evasive. They will not assemble for mass destruction and they will try to avoid detection by the enemy whenever possible.

An orbital satellite can count eggs on a table. How long before they marry a satellite weapon with the imager and use it to attack individuals on the planets surface. Special imagers can detect missile silos and transmit their location to attack units. Of course this is not perfect yet (as Iraqi Scud Missile launchers proved in the Gulf War).

Technology is becoming more precise and lethal. Already, unmanned aircraft are employed by US forces. Right now these are unmanned recon craft, they are working on combat craft. A remote controlled aircraft is less restricted by high gravity forces which can cause a pilot to black out. Without a pilot, remote controlled aircraft have many advantages. If it is shot down you don't have to worry about a pilot for one. It can maneuver and probably fight better than a manned aircraft and they can be built smaller.

Root causes of war

1. Culture of violence

The culture of violence pervades our society, glorifying war rather than educating for peace, nonviolence, and international cooperation.

2. Globalization

Economic globalization has marginalized broad sections of the world’s population, further widening the gap between rich and poor.

3. Use of environmental resources

The use of environmental resources is neither sustainable nor un-equitable. The world’s dominant consumers are overwhelmingly concentrated among the well off, but the environmental damage from it falls most severely on the poor.

4.Colonialism and neo-colonialism

Indigenous and un-represented peoples are suffering from the suppression of their right to self-determination, ethnic and cultural genocide, the violation of their cultural, language and religious freedoms, and the militarisation and nuclearisation of their lives, lands and waters.

5. Racial, ethnic, religious, and gender intolerance

Ethnic, religious and racial intolerance, and nationalism are among the principal sources of modern armed conflict.

6. Gender injustice

The costs of the machismo that still pervades most societies are high for men whose choices are limited by this standard, and for women who experience continual violence both in war and in peace.

7. Lack of protection and respect for children & youth

Children and youth continue to be exploited and victimized, particularly in violent conflict situations where harming children have become not only a consequence, but frequently a strategy of war.

8. Lack of democracy and just global governance

The promotion of democracy at all levels of society is a prerequisite for replacing the rule of force with the rule of law.

9. Belief that violence and warfare are inherent in human nature

It is commonly assumed that violence and warfare are inherent in human nature.

10. Local community violence

Violence in local communities paves the way for conflicts at national and international levels.

11. Religions

Religions have been a cause of war. Religion can cause wars if the nations involved cannot agree on what is morally right or wrong. Religious texts, customs, beliefs and ways of life may prohibit compromising with another nation or force.

12. They have or perceive no other options for resolving differences or grievances.

13. They face an immediate or perceived threat from an aggressor.

14. They want something that another nation has, such as land, a kind of wealth, etc.

15. An immediate need for essential provisions for survival (food, water, and shelter) may push a nation to go to war in order to secure these resources. For example, if a nation gets its water supply from a single river, and an enemy force captures that river, that nation would then go to war for the purpose of securing that river again so it can continue to use it as its water supply.

16. Areas of a country (such as provinces, states, and colonies) may choose to fight for their independence from that country.

17. A long standing hatred between nations that has built up over a number of years (rivalry or other antagonisms).

18. Belief in one nation's or race's superiority over others may cause wars as that group attempts to cast aside people it sees as inferior.

19. Ideological differences can often trigger conflict in a manner similar to religion. For example, Nazism's hatred of Communism contributed to the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The Sino-Soviet Split nearly became an armed conflict between the Soviet Union and China over the goals of Communism.

20. Some nations may wish to pursue global domination, but all historical attempts at this have failed.

Types of War

Regardless of whether aircraft, ground forces, space ships or waterborne shipsare used, some of the different types of war that can be waged. The most common type is called Attrition Warfare. This is what most movies and books portray. It is simply a matter of force on force. "The enemy is here, we attack at dawn" type mentality is attrition warfare.

In attrition warfare, forces attack in an attempt to destroy enemy forces. Units move to trap and concentrate fire on the enemy. In this case, quantity is usually the key. Three men firing at one man are usually going to win, all else being equal. Three battalions attacking one are usually going to win, all else being equal. World War One and Two were wars of attrition, men were sent against enemy forces and attempted to overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers and firepower. In the Pacific during World War Two, it was almost a different kind of war. Entire Japanese held islands were ignored in order to capture islands closer to Japan.

Attrition war is often bloody and can be decisive. It can be easily measure in ground captured and enemy destroyed.

Maneuver War is different. While Attrition War is fought to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, Maneuver War is fought to destroy the enemy's will to fight. This is not as easily measured as Attrition War, however, the effects of Maneuver War can be devastating. Desert Storm was an example of Maneuver War on a grand scale. While many Iraqi's were killed they still remain a powerful force today.

A practitioner of Maneuver War frequently goes around main battle units, infiltrating or breaking through the enemy battle line. Once behind enemy lines the Maneuver Warfighter attacks the enemy support structure, headquarters, or whatever is available. Frequently a target is already decided before the penetration.

By attacking the enemy's rear, the enemy's morale is attacked. The front line soldier begins to realize that the enemy could come at him from any direction. If his supply lines are cut he begins to starve and get thirsty. If his headquarters is destroyed he doesn't know what is going on and what he should do.

An enemy commander who has his lines breached can rapidly lose control of the situation, especially if the attacker acts quickly and takes advantage of his situation. The commander needs information and time to decide what to do, the attacker makes every effort to deny the enemy that advantage. By the time the enemy commander has devised a plan, it is obsolete and the situation has changed again. For instance the commander is informed of a breach so he sends his reserve to deal with it. By the time his reserve gets the command, the attackers have taken out an artillery battery and allowed another unit to breach the enemy lines.

Attrition War is simple because it works like clockwork. Units follow a set battle plan, initiative is encouraged in smaller units because it might upset the battle plan. Coordination and planning is the key to Attrition War. Maneuver War is almost the opposite, the fighters enter combat and act aggressively. War is about taking risks, the bigger the risk, usually the bigger the gain. Attrition Warfare seeks to minimize the risk by using a formula. An example of this 'formula' is that a unit will only attack an enemy if it has three to one odds in its favor. Three platoons (a company) will attack one platoon, three squads will attack one squad, ect.

Another formula of Attrition War is that the objective will be heavily bombed before the attack in order to soften up the opposition. These are formulas for success, they don't need brilliant commanders to execute, just a lot of firepower and cooperation between the units. Very simple and strait forward, you don't need smart troops, just troops that will follow orders.

Maneuver warfare pratictioners don't play this 'game'. A practitioner of Maneuver War must be willing to take risks, he must be able to realize when a situation presents itself so he can take advantage of it. This means small unit leaders must be well trained and encouraged to take the initiative. In most militaries this is discouraged, especially in peace time. Non-Commissioned Officers are the key to maneuver warfare. They are usually there, on the ground seeing what is going on. By the time he has explained what is going on over the radio, the situation may have changed already and the opportunity lost.

There are many differences between Maneuver War and Attrition war that are not obvious to the beginner. The easiest way to understand this is that in Attrition War soldiers are trained to follow orders, not to think for themselves. Officers are the ones who make plans and give the orders, synchronizing the operation so it is successful. In Maneuver War it is the small unit leader, the platoon commander, the squad leader who uses the natural chaos of the battlefield to seize an advantage. In Maneuver War a leader may not wait for orders before taking action.

In Attrition War a commander gives very detailed orders to his subordinates telling them exactly what he wants them to do and they do it. If ordered to do so a unit will throw itself at the enemy repeatedly, suffering horrible casualties because they were ordered to do so. In Maneuver War a commander will tell his subordinates what he wants accomplished and why, not how. He leaves it up to his leaders to get the job done.

For example. In Desert Storm, the US Marines penetrated the Iraqi lines and drove strait for Kuwait City. For the most part they ignored the Iraqi units to either side and they penetrated in several different areas. The average Iraqi soldier learned very quickly that there were Marines in front of and behind him, feeling surrounded and helpless (especially after so many weeks of being bombed) he quickly surrendered. Iraqi units who were in the rear were suddenly faced with enemy forces they didn't expect to see and feeling surprised and scared they surrendered or died. The Iraqi's were not prepared for such a sudden vicious thrust into their territory.

The Army went around the Iraqi's flank. Their mission was to cut off Kuwait and destroy the Republican Guard. However, because of failed coordination, they did not move fast enough. One unit saw the Republican Guard fleeing and had a chance to destroy it, however, they did not have orders to advance further at that point and felt that by continuing to advance they were taking too much of a risk. So the Republican Guard got away.Had a Marine Unit been there instead of an Army unit they would very likely have attacked without orders because that was part of their mission.

Maneuver Warfare allows a smaller force to defeat a larger one because the smaller force concentrates its firepower on a specific enemy weakness. Maneuver Warfare can be used in the defense quite well also. 

Maneuver Warfare recognizes that the enemy soldier is intelligent and is not a simple stupid automaton. The enemy soldier has hopes and fears. Maneuver warfare attempts to exploit the enemy's weaknesses and fears. Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher who wrote "The Art of War" advocated a form of maneuver war. He wrote that you don't hit the enemy where he is strong, you hit him where he is weak.

The third type of war is Revolutionary War. This is one bloody war. Vietnam, Ireland and Afghanistan were Revolutionary Wars. In this kind of war there are no definite front lines, there may be safe areas but it may not always be possible to identify the enemy. The Guerrilla seeks to evade destruction while slowly grinding away at the enemy. Attrition war does not work against someone practicing Revolutionary War. The enemy is not interested in staying and fighting, the enemy thrives on ambushes. If the enemy cannot stand up and fight, it fades away, disappearing into the local population. Guerrillas attack the government and kill its leaders. They seek to turn the people against the government and the government against the people. In this way the Guerrilla movement grows and the government is weakened.

Revolutionary war is one of the most difficult types of wars to deal with because the Guerrilla is usually willing to keep the war going for ten or more years. If not dealt with effectively this long term war will slowly weaken the national resolve and strengthen the enemy. Wars are expensive, the cost in dead and wounded alone can be staggering. In Vietnam the insurgents were more than willing to bleed the US dry, pint by pint. They knew they couldn't defeat the US in a stand up fight but they knew they could destroy America's will to fight. The same thing happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets. The Soviets had the raw firepower to deal with any rebels that opposed them but the rebels were not willing to stay around long enough so the Soviets could focus their firepower. They killed the Soviets a soldier at a time and in fear and frustration, the Soviets massacred innocent women and children. Those massacres only made the rebels fight more viciously and it caused the rebel's numbers to grow. Eventually the cost, psychological as well as financial, forced the Soviets to withdraw.

There have been several Revolutionary Wars that failed. In Burma, the British prevailed by killing insurgents and going out of their way to make peace with possible insurgent recruits. In Brazil the government did the same thing. Instead of trying to fight a war of attrition the government forces sought to isolate the guerrillas by offering the locals more than the guerrillas, the government forces also sought to protect the locals from the guerrilla terror tactics. In effect, the government turned the locals against the guerrillas. Without support from local people the guerrillas became nothing more than a unit cut off behind enemy lines.

In a way, Revolutionary war is about not killing more than anything else. Revolutionary war is about intangibles, about emotions and beliefs rather than killing enemy troops. Killing the enemy is a means to an end, not an end to itself.In my opinion Attrition Warfare is the exact opposite of Revolutionary War and Maneuver War is somewhere in between. It should be noted however, that not every warfighter will remain strictly with one method of warfighting. Frequently they will occasionally display a characteristic of another method of war.

One thing to note is that there are many different arguments about which is better, Attrition War or Maneuver War. It should be noted that Attrition War is best for a government that wants a great deal of control over their troops. For example, the Soviet Army was an attrition Army to the full. Operations were carefully planned, personal initiative was discouraged. Perhaps the Soviet Army feared to teach its soldiers to think for themselves because they might rebel. Who knows.

A Maneuver Warfare military is a true asset to a nation. Generally Maneuver Warfare style armies are smaller, more professional and able to defeat a larger more 'powerful' foe. Maneuver Warfare militaries also make a point to insure wars are as brief and bloodless (for them at any rate!) as possible.

Other type of war is World War. This refers to a war that is global and which in most cases goes beyond mere ideological differences. It usually involves many countries of the world fighting in two or more fronts on things which in most cases do not even concern them. A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.

What is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.

 The Cold War  was the protracted geopolitical, ideological, and economic struggle that emerged after World War II between capitalism and communism, centering around the global superpowers of the Soviet Union and the United States, and their military alliance partners. It lasted from about 1947 to the period leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. Between 1985 and 1991 Cold War rivalries first eased and then ended.

The global contest was popularly termed The Cold War because direct hostilities never occurred between the United States and the Soviet Union. Instead, the "war" took the form of an arms race involving nuclear and conventional weapons, networks of military alliances, economic warfare and trade embargos, propaganda, espionage and proxy wars, especially those involving superpower support for opposing sides within civil wars. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was the most important direct confrontation, together with a series of confrontations over the Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Wall. The major civil wars polarized along Cold War lines were the Greek Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghan War, along with more peripheral conflicts in Angola, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

The greatest fear during the Cold War was the risk it would escalate into a full nuclear exchange with hundreds of millions killed. Both sides developed a deterrence policy that prevented problems from escalating beyond limited localities. Nuclear weapons were never employed as weapons during the Cold War.

The Cold War cycled through a series of high and low tension years (the latter called Détente). It ended in the period between 1989 and 1991, with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and later the Soviet Union. Historians continue to debate the causes in the 1940s, and the reasons for the Soviet collapse in the 1980s.