Mark Hertling
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEARS to have gone to war against Iran with two assumptions: First, they assumed they could adjust their objectives as the war went on based on how much they thought they would accomplish; and second, they assumed that because the United States and Israel are, together, militarily superior to Iran, they would have complete control over the timing, intensity, domains, repercussions, and outcomes of the conflict, and they could determine the end of the conflict when they decided.
Those are dangerous assumptions. Just a few weeks into the war, they are being tested. While it’s common for war aims to shift over the course of a conflict, doing so is a complicated and delicate process that requires military leaders and politicians to balance political desires against military realities. This administration, which has repeatedly proven to be improvisatory in its approach to policy and rhetoric, has so far in this conflict not been able to manage that balance between political desires and military actions.
As for the second assumption—every soldier, sailor, marine, airman, and guardian knows and often repeats this truism: The enemy always gets a vote.
WAR ALWAYS BEGINS WITH POLITICS. Political leaders define the objectives of the conflict—the ends that the nation seeks to achieve. Military planners then develop the ways to pursue those ends through campaigns, operations, and even specific battles. Finally come the means: the forces, resources, and capabilities required to execute the plan. This framework—ends, ways, and means—is not simply an abstraction taught in war colleges. It is the basic logic that connects political objectives to military action. When those three elements align, military operations can achieve meaningful strategic outcomes. When there is even the slightest misalignment, leaders discover that even the most powerful military can find itself operating without a clear direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment