Tuesday, March 19, 2024
01:37 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Thursday, May 23, 2013
HASEEB ANSARI's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 2,803
Thanks: 93
Thanked 1,321 Times in 834 Posts
HASEEB ANSARI is a glorious beacon of lightHASEEB ANSARI is a glorious beacon of lightHASEEB ANSARI is a glorious beacon of lightHASEEB ANSARI is a glorious beacon of lightHASEEB ANSARI is a glorious beacon of light
Default Win wars not battles

Win wars not battles
By Harlan Ullman

Today, the Obama White House has succumbed to ignoring the differences between fighting battles and winning wars.

Doha, Qatar: If there is one strategic weakness or Achilles’ heel in American geostrategic thinking, it is a fixation with winning battles and not winning wars. The North Vietnamese famously crowed: “America won every battle and lost the war.” In Afghanistan and Iraq four decades later, the same critique applied. America and the coalition won virtually every battle.

But if winning the war meant establishing a safe, secure and stable state under the rule of law, by any definition America and its allies have lost in both countries.

How did this happen? What has transformed or metastasised American strategic DNA and thought to emphasise winning battles above winning wars? Are wars today, when like conventional forces no longer meet on the battlefield in combat, winnable by military means alone if they ever could be, thus reinforcing the need to focus on battles? Or does the fault lie elsewhere perhaps with electing leaders who are largely inexperienced and unready for the demands of high office and become seduced by the ease with which battles can be won militarily and ignore the need to win wars?

The United States won independence from England not because it won every battle, which it surely did not, but by concentrating on winning the war, a strategy purloined by North Vietnam.

Other than the War of 1812 and the Civil War, until 1917, American wars were against relatively weak adversaries from ill-equipped Indians in the west to the Spanish in Cuba and the Philippines.

In World War II, America set unconditional surrender as the basis for winning the war. America did not win every battle, merely enough at the right time and place so that its overwhelming economic and industrial might, buttressed with two nuclear bombs, overpowered the enemy and won the war. And while veterans of that war would continue to serve in high office for more than four decades, psychological mission creep gradually metastasised into the fixation with winning battles and not wars.

Korea marked the beginning of fixating on battles not wars by making the aim reestablishing the borders between north and south at the 38th parallel. In the Cold War, the concept of winning wars was challenged by the massive if not societal destruction that would follow in a war that could escalate to using thermonuclear weapons. In a sense, deterrence had to work and that became the battle.

As the US inched and then plunged into Vietnam under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, the generals of that war had served in World War II and Korea. In those wars, the battlefield tactic was to employ overwhelming firepower to destroy the enemy. In Vietnam, Search and Destroy missions relied on firepower from artillery and fixed wing fighter-bombers and helicopter gunships to defeat and destroy the largely invisible and elusive Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. Body counts became the war’s metric and the obsession of winning battles to attrite the enemy was the strategy. Killing one’s way to victory rarely works. And the US lost.

After the Vietnam War and as the Soviet Union increased its conventional forces, the US turned to technology and precision or ‘smart’ weapons to offset conventional military numerical inferiority. Winning ‘the first battle’ became doctrine because if the first battle were lost, the belief was that the Soviets would quickly overrun and occupy Western Europe.

The two wars in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and in Afghanistan in 2001were indeed extensions of winning the first battle. Saddam’s army was twice eviscerated and the Taliban routed in matters of hours and days. Tragically, George W Bush’s White House, unlike his father’s in the first Gulf War, became infatuated with winning the battle and failed to think about winning the war. So, as in Vietnam a generation earlier, every battle was won and both wars were lost.

This failure to focus on winning wars was not unique to Republicans. Bill Clinton did no better in Serbia in 1999 when it took 78 days to force a tin pot dictator to withdraw from Kosovo, a battle that if fought as a war should have taken hours to win. Yet, NATO had no stomach for even threatening the use of ground forces until week ten of the conflict.

Today, the Obama White House has succumbed to ignoring the differences between fighting battles and winning wars. Libya was a battle. Who knows what will happen in Syria or in Iran and North Korea. Limited uses of force through no fly zones and safe havens in Syria as well as preemptive air strikes to eliminate Tehran’s nuclear facilities are routinely debated as options. Tragically, this returns to the failure to think about wars and not battles first. But will America learn?

The writer is Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council, a Washington, DC based policy centre and Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...3-5-2013_pg3_3
__________________
"Nay! man is evidence against himself. Though he puts forth his excuses." Holy Qur'an (75:14-15)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US Affairs (Important Articles) Roshan wadhwani News & Articles 31 Monday, May 13, 2013 12:59 PM
Essay:The Hidden Costs of War xubishah Essays 0 Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:30 PM
Are Most Wars the Result of Religious Belief? Umer Zeeshan Islamiat 0 Sunday, November 13, 2011 03:14 PM
The Top Ten Battles of All Time Call for Change Humorous, Inspirational and General Stuff 0 Saturday, April 30, 2011 03:12 AM
Causes of War A Rehman Pal International Relations 0 Saturday, March 17, 2007 03:57 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.