FINISHING BUSINESS: WHERE AND HOW PRINCIPLES OF WAR AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM ARE RELEVANT TO DEFEATING GLOBAL TERROR

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "FINISHING BUSINESS: WHERE AND HOW PRINCIPLES OF WAR AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM ARE RELEVANT TO DEFEATING GLOBAL TERROR"

Julianna Arnold
5 years ago
Views:

1 FINISHING BUSINESS: WHERE AND HOW PRINCIPLES OF WAR AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM ARE RELEVANT TO DEFEATING GLOBAL TERROR A Lecture delivered by Dr. Harlan Ullman on November 9 th, 2004 (The first part of these notes came directly from the speaker with sections in square brackets showing clarifications made during the actual lecture.) Four questions frame this lecture: ---first, when are principles really principles and not formulas to rationalize slogans or substitutes for check lists? --second, are there universal principles of sufficient weight such as Archimedes and others defined in the physical sciences that actually determine the causes and interactions of war? --third, given what are considered traditional principles of war, which of these has changed, which have not and why? --fourth, what does this mean for the future and for the United States as it wages its global war on terror? I. Principles: If one reviews what the two most sophisticated military powers of the day the US and the UK argue are the principles of war, there is great commonality and great superficiality. Far be it from me to criticize because some of these principles are more than merely platitudes. But many are not. Both the US and the UK agree that the aim (the British term) and the objective (the US term) are crucial to defining the reasons for using military force. But when has that last happened? Did it happen in Iraq? Did it happen in Afghanistan or Somalia or Kuwait or in most places? The answer is no. The reality is that military force was applied before the final outcomes and end points were either understood or defined. So, while this principle is correct in that end states should determine means, this is a principle that tends to reflect more lip service than reality. Both the US and the UK emphasize the need for the offensive. The British put this in terms of offensive and aggressive action. Nicolo Machiavelli in the Prince and Discourses agrees. But Clausewitz tells us that defense is to offense as three is to one. So who is right? The Americans talk about mass and the British concentration. But is this really a principle in an era when our first rounds rarely miss and usually kill and the enemy is not always in military formations denominated by ships, aircraft, tanks and artillery?

2 Both states stress economy of force or economy of effort. But what does this mean? Is this the Rumsfeld/Early/Stuart doctrine [Donald Rumsfeld/ Jubal Early/ Jeb Stuart] of getting there firstest with the mostest or does it reflect other criteria? The Americans talk about unity of command---yet did not apply any such principle in Iraq when the Central Provisional Authority and US Central Command were separate and distinct and elsewhere [without good communications] denigrating authority, responsibility and accountability to political expediency. The British like to stress flexibility, cooperation and other such criteria. But what do these mean? Are they any more precise than achieving information superiority, situational awareness, focused logistics and the other phrases that define how we [Americans] fight wars? Finally, both the US and the British agree that security, surprise, maneuver, morale and sustainment are important principles. But for an operational planner or general or admiral in charge and responsible for operational missions, how and where are these principles helpful or useful? The answer is that they are not. There are other views. Clausewitz is very knowledgeable. Clausewitz argued that war was a clash of wills, a series of violent duels in which the defense was three times more powerful than the offense. However and critically, [Clausewitz tells us] war was always subordinate to policy an admixture of policy by other means [as translated directly from the German.] The ultimate aim of war was to break the will of the adversary to resist almost always by destroying the ability to resist, namely the destruction of the enemy army. Clausewitz also wrote about other means as well as fog and friction both of which are ingredients and realities, not principles of war. [Objective and aim must always hold force subordinate.] And from Sun Ze, the greatest perhaps of philosophers of war comes the principle of knowledge of thyself and the enemy, perhaps the most overridingly important principle for us to remember. And there is the human element, the central cause and reason for war [which is often forgotten.] It is after all human behavior, rational or not, predictable or not, and enduring or not that must be a basis for deriving principles of war. [We usually forget the psychological and irrational elements involved in warfare.] [More extensive note from the following sections of the lecture are below.] II. There are then universal principles: War is about affecting behavior [control of the other s behavior most important] War must be subordinate to policy, i.e. Aims and objectives To wage war is to know the enemy; know thyself 2

3 To wage war means to prepare accordingly and consider every option [Ullman s Prinicple] Knowledge is therefore a KEY principle III. IV. What has changed? Nuclear and thermonuclear war in which there are no winners Accuracy and lethality Effects Based Operations (EBO) And of sovereignty: no armies or states to fight What to do? Understand the danger knowledge Reform at home: understand the limits Global strategy abroad Section II. Universal Principles General Marshall noted that if you set your objectives correctly, the lieutenant can carry out the war plan. We didn t understand what our objectives were in September 2003 before invading Iraq o Getting rid of Saddam was a tactic not a strategy o This problem is not unique to this administration or period of time o Had same problem in Kosovo where we expected the enemy to quit right away Know thyself and the enemy and the enemy is always underestimated o Need to use the Ullman Principle: to wage war means to prepare accordingly and consider every option We don t do this very well May do it well at the squad level but not at the national level Section III. What has changed? Thermonuclear weapons mean there can be no victors o Historically, victors would have complete control over losers o With nuclear weapons, losers could still destroy victors Accuracy of weapons o Until very recently (after Desert Storm) millions of rounds were wasted trying to destroy selected targets o Now we can hit a target with the first strike and go on to hit many more aim points on other targets Effects Based Operations let us determine exactly what the results will be prior to an attack o This permits one aircraft with many targets vs. the old way with many aircraft going against a single target Non-state actors without borders or a political doctrine we can understand 3

4 Section IV. What to do? Without specifically going through the standard Principles of War, we should consider the following required steps: o Greater understanding of ourselves and our enemies o Repair our governmental structures / organizations many are broken o Develop a global strategy for using our power abroad We have been told that our enemies hate us and our way of life. If that is the root of the problem, why have there been no more attacks since 9/11? o 9/11 was really a demonstration to the Arab/Muslim world, not us o In 9-10 years there could be a regime in the Middle East worse that the Taliban. One that: Preys on the causes of discontent poverty / unemployment Controls Saudi and other oil fields as well as Pakistani nuclear weapons Could have even more aggressive views about their place in the world order which would be more dangerous to us than now May be hard to believe now but look at history 100 years ago no one believed Lenin and company would be a threat 80 years ago no one believed an insignificant Hitler would be a threat But both won the hearts and minds of their citizens through propaganda o We need to see the broader political issues involved Osama bin Laden and his group have hi-jacked a religion to use in their political power battles Osama made his recent tape to win the leadership of the Muslim world Not to have an effect on the US election Maybe also because could see that Arafat was dying and there would be a leadership vacuum in Palestine, too Problem: The Hart-Rudman Report stated that the national security system was broken o Example: Department of Homeland Security reports to 88 Congressional committees o There has been no real structural change in the three years since 9/11 Three years after Pearl Harbor, World War II was almost won o We are still dealing with too much information to make use of o We are not prepared for sustained warfare or long term nation building The US Congress is the most dysfunctional part of government o Too many committees and budget processes o But no one in Congress wants to fix it Need a Sarbanes-Oxley Bill for the US Government o Make agencies and their directors specifically accountable for how they handle their portfolios o Executive Branch agencies would have to affirm that their budget estimates are accurate for proposed items or suffer the consequences o Congressmen and Senators should affirm that they read a specific bill before voting on it 4

5 Also need to streamline the Congressional committee structure A single National Security Committee would help Could coordinate with the National Security Council before we got into a war Need a real global strategy o We say we are in a Global War On Terror but we lack a World Strategy o Need to rethink what NATO is doing for one thing Working in Afghanistan rather than Europe where it was meant to be Afghan and Iraq situation is pulling apart the Alliance To make NATO countries improve their forces, we tried to depend more on their troops in recent non-european emergencies but deployments only made them worse o China / Korea issues The Six-Party talks should be extended to include all nuclear powers or those suspected of having or nearly having nuclear weapons If China attacks Taiwan without provocation, US should support Taiwan If Taiwan decides to declare independence, all previous arrangements should be called off If US employs the above strategy, then China should be more willing to take on the task of dealing with North Korea o In the Mid-East we have been focusing on symptoms We need to look more closely at the Israeli/Palestinian issues More treaties and peace-keeping forces Reduce the current level of violence Cool the red hot tempers that cause the violence cycles Needs a Greater Marshall Plan to deal with unemployment and related problems To be paid for with the $18B already authorized by Congress but not used in rebuilding Iraq No one yet complaining about money not being spent If we do not spend such large sums on prevention efforts, then we will spend a lot more in fighting more wars over there We need a National Security University o Rather like National Defense University but with a broader base in the rest of the government The military has a good system to use as a model Need to educate up-and-coming executives from the Departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Health and Human Services, etc. All of these areas become more important with the development in bio-terror and bio-technologies o Double the enrollment of the Service academies but give the graduates more options to work in different fields non-dod agencies, Capitol Hill, etc. o Need a renovation of everything from senior leadership to people in the ranks o Loss in Viet-Nam had no strategic consequences but loss in today s conflicts could be devastating Especially since we do not understand all that is happening 5

6 Complicated by those trying to hi-jack a religion Problems of WMD are of less concern than the possibility of disrupting normal American life which would happen if: o Oil reached $100 a barrel or stopped flowing all together o More 4 th Amendment Rights get eaten away in the name of security No law says we must show a picture ID at the airport o Problems may not be all that bad for awhile but could effect the lives of our children Decline and fall of American way of life is not inevitable but the speaker stated his view for the future outlook for the country is not completely optimistic Comments Made During the Question & Answer Session National Security Education: The Cold War allowed linear education but now even Army captains in Iraq may need war college training Service academy students need to study interagency relations o Must stress that learning continues throughout careers o Students prefer to absorb information rather than think things through o Need to force them to read more books o Include training about strategy building and budgeting issues o Could spend a whole year getting all aspects ready for a major exercise Different part of the world in each of 4 years at the Academy Naval Post Graduate School has 500 students available for any useful study o They could be used to respond to real world problems o Not all results would be useful but some should be o They could learn when to use the Principles and when to bend them in the real world Principles of War in Iraq: We were many times more capable in OIF than we were even in Desert Storm With such overpowering advantages, could not really see the effects of the Principles of War Problems: o Our aim should have been more than just get to Baghdad o Intelligence left us surprised by the lack of WMD and the war s aftermath o We didn t understand the human behavior issues Reorganization of DoD and the Government: If you want to get anything fixed in the Defense Department, it will have to be done by the Secretary of Defense o Not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs o Also needs White House and Congressional leadership or pushing 6

7 We need to expand the Goldwater-Nichols Law to cover other aspects of DoD such as acquisition and procurement which is where all the money is. Issues involved in the reorganization within DoD All the service staffs are organized differently Need to focus more on management Need a more professional civilian service 9/11 issues make it that much more important Defense Science Board made a good series of recommendations Develop more area experts Develop an Office of Strategic Communications especially since the future will be a battle of ideas o Currently, Muslim world only sees American killing Iraqis and Muslims in Fallujah we will be tainted no matter what we do o We have not talked to the religious leaders who do exist o We need programs where Pakistanis teach Pakistanis International Issues: Future enemies will be working against our interests, and not just in the area of oil Religious issues will bring many enemies together against us This will be more difficult to handle than Communism or Nazism o Attacks were not based on suicide bombers then We cannot just leave them alone to eventually fall under their own weight Would the Civil War had been different if there had been CNN at the battle of Shilo? Communications are relative to their own times In 19 th Century Europe, communications should have been good since all the royal heads of state were related to each other o Communications would have been slower, of course, but still possible Changes such as these in communications do not change any Principles of War Other Major Problems In National Security: The All-Volunteer Military is broken and needs to be fixed We could do with a lot less military capability o Still need to maintain a strong fist but a smaller one would do o We need a less expensive military o Instead we need more forces trained for nation building The risk of inaction is too great 7

There have been bleak moments in America s history, battles we were engaged in where American victory was far from certain.

There have been bleak moments in America s history, battles we were engaged in where American victory was far from certain. I support our troops, wholeheartedly and without reservation. But I cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering any alternative plan to win. There is too much at stake.