Why Decisive Victory is Much More Difficult to Achieve in Modern Warfare - Essay Example

"Why Decisive Victory is Much More Difficult to Achieve in Modern Warfare" Achieving decisive victory in war is much more difficult today. In the past, countries or nations will use all of their resources to destroy another country's or nation's capability to wage war. The 20th century term to describe this type of war is 'Total' war. The principles of 'Total' war was formulated by Carl von Clausewitz (June 1, 1780-November 16, 1831), a Prussian general who wrote the book Vom Kriege (On War). The horrific consequence of 'Total' war has been the distruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure being the targets for destroying a nation's capability to wage war. The American Civil War is one example of such war. It involved the whole population fighting for a 'Total' end, in the attempt to the defeat the Confederacy. US Army General William Tecumseh Sherman's 'March to the Sea" destroyed the resources required for the South to make war. He is considered one of the first military commanders who knowingly use 'Total' war as a military tactic. In recent history, it was Germany's blitzkrieg strategy used during World War II that demonstrated the decisive victory campaign by using new military equipments such as tanks, aircraft, and radio. However, time had changed as well as the public perception and opinion about war. The emergence of modern communication such as the media and the changing public opinion has greatly influence the government's policies on war. Additionally, factors such as global terrorism, globalization, new advance weaponry, and the increasing influence of international organisations such as the European Union and NATO all contributed, in some way, to the changing the face of modern warfare. The establishment of International criminal court and the highly publicised prosecution of war criminals made political leaders think twice before even considering any war strategy. Today, there are two general factors that limit the pursuit of Total war policy, one being political and the other is military strategy. The political factor, as being influenced by public opinion, seeks to control escalation via consensual arrangements with the adversary, while the military strategy factor, as being influenced by civilian government's policies, seeks to forestall escalation by precisely destroying the enemy's military capability in a rapid manner1. The public opinion about war had changed significantly over a couple decades especially after the world experienced the two world wars. Most people have seen and read about the horrors of war over the news, documentaries, books, and modern day media. Most people don't want it to happen again especially during their lifetime. The culture of today demand for expedient success in war with very few casualties and governments are pressured into limiting their objectives. Combined with instantaneous communications and the unrealistic expectations of the networked classes, the global media has fundamentally altered the acceptable timetable for tactical combat. Speed of tactical execution has emerged as the new critical demand upon military forces2. The acceptability of Total war, that is to say of organised violence for political ends, is declining markedly both for practical reasons of its inutility, and because of a cultural taboo, hopefully one eventually of global domain. By far the most influential cause of the possible trend towards the delegitimisation of warfare is the global media. With live video feeds via satellite to a global market, much of the ugliness of war is brought into homes almost everywhere. The claim is not that there is a trend of moral improvement which regards war as all but immoral, save in the most desperate cases of self-defence, but rather that publics around the world now can see what is perpetrated in their names. Since war, except of the cyber variety, necessarily involves killing people and breaking things, confrontation with some of its brutalities can hardly help but be shocking to those who lead sheltered lives. The global media thrives on warfare and treats it as entertainment and as a spectator sport, all the while hypocritically leading the charge to condemn every deviation from the most pristine standard of what constitutes acceptable military behavior3. Global media and world travel also greatly influence how each culture relate to each other. Most people, especially the young, are more willing to accept and respect other cultures. The lack of this is could lead racial discrimination or even worst into genocide. The most widely known example is the Holocaust (the mass killings of various ethnic groups, especially the Jews, during World War II by Nazi Germany and its allies). Additionally, Stalin's forced starvation of Ukrainian farmers, and Mao's murder of 20 to 60 million Chinese. Human rights violations as these had spawned several groups that aim to protect and monitor violations of basic rights of mankind. Several human rights groups have been forming over a couple of decades since World War two to campaign and report human rights abuses around the world. One such organisation is the Amnesty International, which is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights. Human rights organisations undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights4. Most of today's market-driven governments, with the exception of the few, are very much concern of its human rights record. Poor human rights record would result in poor business confidence among investors while having an excellent human rights record would boost the confidence of the business sector for the country. Governments rarely want to 'Totally' defeat enemy these days and their objectives are also limited. In most democratic states, the changing civilian government's policies are reflected in its military policies as well. With today's advances in media technology, the general public has more access to news and commentaries which affect their opinion and eventually influence their government. Justification has to be made to the public before any decision of going into war is to be made. Government's decisions are also bounded by the fact that a total destruction of a county can affect neighboring nations as well as worldwide security. The emergence of Globalization and economic integration amongst neighboring nations such as the European Union, NAFTA, and the proposed East Asian Community had led to dependencies amongst nations. One example of this is the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Thus such dependencies create constraints on the use of full military might by any country because it will affect not only itself but also its neighboring nations. Additionally, The UN and NATO's increasing influences are being used to resolve disputes amongst nations. The United nation has provided tools in dealing with some erring rouge states as an alternative to total warfare. Economic sanctions, trade embargoes, establishment of UN peacekeeping force can all be exhausted before any attempt to deal the situation forcefully. Conducting a war without support from internationally recognized body such as the United Nations is becoming more difficult today. This made countries who want to go to war seek international support earnestly. Moreover, the high financial burden of war, made nations, even the United Kingdom and United States to seeks allies in order to share the risk, burden, and human cost of war. Should became war is inevitable, the conduct of war is closely monitored by various types of international organist ions. Member nations of the United Nations have to abide with rules on war with respect to the treaties of Geneva and Hague. The Geneva and Hague rules aim at limiting certain types of warfare. Efforts to control, limit, and regulate warfare by international political, legal and normative-ethical measures and attitudes are well worth pursuing. However, the benefits from such endeavours will always be fragile, vulnerable to overturn by the commands of perceived belligerent necessity5. Aside from the societal and political factors, the military factor also contributed to the way war is being waged today. The emergence of massive armies and advanced weaponry--and the concomitant decline in the effectiveness of cavalry--had diminished the practicality of pursuit, producing campaigns that bogged down short of decisive victory. Great battles had become curiously indecisive, decisive campaigns virtually impossible6. The revolution of military affairs that has spawned weapons such as air-launched precision guided munitions has enabled remarkable accuracy and devastating effects7. By exploiting advanced technology, the military hope to limit the costs of war by defeating their adversaries in a rapid, decisive manner8. This type of high-tech warfare was first demonstrated in the Persian Gulf War fought by the US and its European allies in 1991 and was fine-tuned in the NATO engagement in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid- to late-1990s. And by all accounts, smart weapons were militarily very effective in Afghanistan, and in the new war on global terrorism. The great reduction in the potential for casualties by using smart weapons has significantly affected public opinion about military engagement, and has minimized opposition within the country9. However, despite the emergence of technology on the battlefield, the requirement to close with and engage the enemy is the 'decisive' act that leads to victory. One example to this is the recent invasion of Iraq by UK and U.S. group forces. The toppling of Saddam Hussein's bronze statue in addition to the occupation of Baghdad is what seems to be the symbol of decisive victory, at least to the 'allies of the willing' point of view. Further to this is the complication of matching tactics and doctrine in coincidence with technology and strategists will need to dictate their application rather than playing catch-up. An additional issue with the preponderance of precision strikes by allied forces, in an attempt to produce a swift and clinical victory, is complicated by the tactics of an enemy who is willing to immerse himself within the civilian population. This serves to negate the effects of precision technology when attacks could lead to civilian casualties that can be relayed around the world as they are occurring by the media10. Lastly, global terrorism and terrorist groups such as the Al Qaeda had reshaped the face of modern warfare significantly. Today's global terrorists don't have territory or center of gravity. Neither global terrorism nor the declared war on terrorism fits the norms of conventional warfare. Global terrorism is executed by small invisible networks of individuals who are not identified with a particular nation-state. Whilst these networks often have defined political objectives, they are not directly associated with the traditional type of national objectives. For example, the Al Qaeda network does not seek to take over a particular nation or government, nor does it target the military defeat of a particular government of a nation. Moreover, its armed units are not organised into traditional armies and do not engage their enemy with conventional strategies and tactics. Thus, the new war on global terrorism by necessity will differ from conventional warfare. Because the enemy is not a nation-state, victory cannot be achieved by defeating an opposing government, even when it may be deemed necessary - as in the case of Afghanistan - to defeat a regime that collaborates with terrorists. Whilst a combination of high-tech weaponry and strong support for internal forces opposing the Taliban led to the defeat of that regime, it is questionable that the same military strategy can be used effectively to destroy the capability of Al Qaeda and other networks. Alternative technologies and strategies will need to be employed if global terrorism is to be defeated11. Achieving decisive victory in warfare is becoming more difficult today as the society, through communication advancement, is becoming more open and transparent. The changing public opinion on war as well as globalisation had influenced civilian government's policies. Consequently, military strategies are dictated by the civilian authority especially in most democratic countries. All of these changes in society are even expedited by the development of advance mass media technology such as satellite and cable television. New technologies in military weaponry such as smart bombs and satellite imagery help destroying military targets more precisely thus reducing friendly and civilian damage significantly. However, despite the advancement in high tech weaponry, technologically sophisticated armies are not effective against primitive, unsophisticated, or irregular forces such as terrorist groups. In many, if not most, conflicts since 1945, the enemy has looked very much like the local civilians. For example, the British experience in Cyprus in 1951 found the garrison there involved in a conflict with a local resistance well armed with large amounts of explosives that were from the religious and professional ranks. The experience was much the same in other post- colonial struggles, to include Vietnam. Armies increasingly had to deal with opponents whom were hard to track down and destroy12. Moreover, whilst the nations of the world are gradually adapting the new methods of warfare, global terrorist organization such as the Al Qaeda are using what seemingly a total war strategy on nations they consider to be enemies. These religion-driven terrorists and other extreme warriors are determined to win the war at any cost. Today's terrorists are irrational in their goals, but practical in their techniques13. This dilemma continues to haunts the peace loving nations of the world today, thus war today has to be fought on many fronts. On of this is the war for public opinion. The war on public opinion is as essential as any best military weapon and strategy since war of today is covered by media beamed throughout the world as it happens. Winning the war on public opinion is especially essential on 'war on terror' since it involves sensitive religious issues because public opinion whether comes internally or externally will greatly influence on how war is waged. Avoiding too much civilian casualties in contrary to Total war is what the modern culture demands. But according to some military experts, public opinion is also vulnerable to change in response to the nature of enemy and the passing of time. Bibliography "Amnesty International." (2005), Amnesty International, available from :< http//web. Amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng>. [21 Oct. 2005], p.1. "Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (20 Oct. 2005), Wikipedia, Wikimedia, available from :< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomicbombingsof_Hiroshima and_Nagasaki> [21 Oct. 2005]. Creveld, Martin Van. (27 April 2005). Clausewitz vs. The Scholar: Martin Van Creveld's Expanded Theory Of War, Global Security .org, available from: . [28 Oct. 2005], para. 42. Citino, Robert M (2002), Quest for Decisive Victory (Kansas: University Press of Kansas), p.1. "Deterrence Theory." 20 Oct. 2005, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, available from:< http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory>. [21 Oct. 2005]. "European Union." 05 Jan. 2005, Europa, European Union, available from: . [21 Oct. 2005]. Gray, Colin S. (2004), How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War Prepared for the U.S. National Intelligence Council, p.16. Gray, Colins S. (2004), Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory. Peters, Ralph. (2004), Virtuous Destruction, Decisive Speed, NIC, p.2, 7. Stone, John (2004), Politics, Technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs (Routledge) , Volume 27, Number 3 /pp. 408 - 427. "Teaching Guide for New War." (2005), (New York: Social Science Research Council), p.1. "Total War." 21 Oct. 2005, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, available from:. [21 Oct. 2005]. "United Nation." 19 Oct. 2005, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, available from Read More