Harrison Schramm
The purpose of war is to, eventually, stop being at war. So much the better if war achieves an objective otherwise unobtainable by peaceful negotiation. But how wars end is famously an oft under-studied strategic consideration. While there are many references on the theory of war, modern readers will be most familiar with the eponymous Powell Doctrine,[i] itself based on Fred Ikle’s[ii] earlier work. Powell lists seven conditions for entering into a military conflict, two of which involve war termination, restated here:
These two criteria suggest that when embarking upon a course of war, political and military leaders have a mandate to define termination conditions. Beyond the Doctrine, as a practical matter, it is difficult to get a legislature… let alone electorate – to sign on to a ‘protracted’ conflict. Furthermore, there are the double devils of a tendency for optimism that the war will be short and victorious, as well as the inclination to kick the proverbial ‘can down the road’ and claim it will be impossible to think about war termination before war because there is too much (perceived) uncertainty.[iii] Paradoxically, one source of perceived uncertainty is the difference between the efficacy of a fighting force in theory vs. in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment