. Military Space News .




.
SUPERPOWERS
Outside View: A (new) American way of war
by Harlan Ullman
Washington (UPI) Jul 6, 2011

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only

War, according to the great Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz was most profoundly a conflict of wills through an admixture of policy with "other means." But Clausewitz never fully defined "other means." There was little need.

For most of history, war was a contest between more or less like military forces. Defeating the enemy usually meant defeating his armies as a precondition for victory. Of course, insurgencies were as old as war. And, of course, insurgencies had relatively fixed geographic boundaries that, after the Duke of Wellington's brilliant peninsula campaign during the Napoleonic Wars, became known as guerrilla or small wars.

The American way of war remains firepower intensive. We won World War II, with the Soviet army, literally blowing away the Wehrmacht with our superior firepower.

As technology improved dramatically, so did mobility and maneuver. The Iraqi military was shattered twice by this onslaught first in 1991 and then a dozen years later. And the initial and stunning success in Afghanistan in late 2001 demonstrated the effectiveness of this technology in support of Northern Alliance ground forces in routing the Taliban, at least for the moment.

Unfortunately, Clausewitz's genius has been partially trumped by a critical question: How do even amazingly capable military forces defeat an adversary who lacks an army and uses insurgent, terrorist tactics, metastasized by a radical ideology in which suicide is a preferred weapon while possessing global reach manifested by the September 11th and other attacks against the U.S. and European allies?

Two answers: one has been to allow the military to take on nation-building missions designed to neutralize the attraction of the radical insurgents. Second is through a campaign of what the Israelis call targeted assassination by intelligence and special operations forces designed to kill the insurgent leadership.

Unfortunately, nation building is better accomplished by government institutions other than the military that Washington has dismally and consistently failed to mobilize for decades. And assassinations often create more new enemies than are killed off.

There is nothing new about killing top leaders in war as a means to shorten them. In 1943, U.S. Navy Adm. Chester Nimitz approved a mission that shot down and killed Japan's greatest admiral, Isokuro Yamamoto. In Vietnam a generation later, the Phoenix Program assassinated tens of thousands of South Vietnamese suspected of being Viet Cong or agents of the North with mixed effects. Since Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. strategy has relied heavily on CIA and Joint Special Forces Operating Command assets to hunt down and kill Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani insurgents and al-Qaida.

The most visible program is the drones that are being employed in half dozen or so countries from Libya to South Asia. Many are controlled from Creech Air Force Base near Las Vegas in the most antiseptic form of war imaginable with officers launching Hellfire missiles to kill human targets, hopefully "high-value," from thousands of miles away. Some worry about the psychological effects of depersonalizing war. However, that isn't the crucial issue. War in a technical age can be depersonalized.

Writing in 1991, 50 years after the Battle of Britain, British air force ace and hero Brian Kingcome coolly observed that he was fortunate to be stationed at Biggin Hill in the south of England which was "ideally situated operationally and socially," meaning his Spitfire squadron was usually first to take on the Luftwaffe and that London wasn't far away for a respite after the day's fight. To some degree, the same situation existed in Vietnam and for the U.S. Air Force stationed in Thailand then.

The larger and more perplexing questions are to what degree has U.S. strategy become dependent on this interface of intelligence and special forces operations and the use of targeted assassinations against suspects who aren't traditional military forces and hence fair game and indeed haven't been accorded any sort of due process or juridical oversight and what are the long term consequences? Despite the best of intentions, CIA excesses and instances of misconduct by Special Forces in the past cannot be assumed away in the future.

Clearly, covert operations must be kept covert. This complicates oversight and makes legal and moral imperatives difficult to define and implement. What American, for example, would argue that the killing of Osama bin Laden was illegal or immoral on our part? Yet, killing a 15-year-old "Taliban" based on dubious intelligence is a different matter.

It is reported that in Afghanistan, like Iraq before, 10-20 raids a night are being carried out to eliminate Taliban and al-Qaida militants. No doubt the military has clear rules of engagement. However, the growing dependency on drones and intelligence/special operations forces could become perverted with grave moral and legal risks. We must ensure now that such outcomes won't happen!

(Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and chairman of the Killowen Group, which advises leaders of government and business.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)




Related Links
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com

.
Get Our Free Newsletters Via Email
...
Buy Advertising Editorial Enquiries






. Comment on this article via your Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail login.

Share this article via these popular social media networks
del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg RedditReddit GoogleGoogle



SUPERPOWERS
Commentary: Topsy-turvy alliance
Washington (UPI) Jul 6, 2011
The ingredients for a pluperfect national storm coupled with a pluperfect action completed at or before the time of another past action are the best way to try to understand the crazy mixed-up - but still critically important - alliance between Pakistan and the United States. Fickle friends and strong enemies at the same time is the hard to decipher mojo at either end of the strategic ... read more


SUPERPOWERS
New Missile Warning Satellite Delivers First Infrared Imagery

Israel to join U.S. Mideast missile shield

Raytheon gets $1.7 billion Patriot deal

Raytheon to Upgrade Patriot for Saudi Arabia

SUPERPOWERS
Raytheon UK Awarded Four-Year Support Contract for U.K. Paveway

Taiwan testfires own sub-launched missile: report

Northrop Grumman-Led ICBM Prime Integration Team Participates in Test Launch of Minuteman III Missile

Iran fires medium-range missile in war game

SUPERPOWERS
Unmanned Global Hawk Completes First Production Acceptance Multi-Intelligence Sensor Flight

Northrop Grumman to Help US Navy Study Options for Developing Fleet of Carrier-Launched Unmanned Systems

Flapping micro air vehicles inspired by swifts

Auto-pilots need a birds-eye view

SUPERPOWERS
US Army Builds and Tests Future Network During NIE Exercise

Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Guardrail System

Russia launches Cosmos-series military satellite

Spain aims at military-civilian satellites

SUPERPOWERS
Australian military shifting focus

F-35 Jet Blast Deflector Testing Underway at Lakehurst

Boeing Awarded B-1B Bomber Upgrade Contract

Lockheed Martin Achieves Significant Information Technology Services Milestone

SUPERPOWERS
Israel trusts Germany over secret Saudi tank deal: minister

Denmark stands by ruling not to extradite gunrunner to India

Thales forms new company

Serco firms up Aussie Middle East contract

SUPERPOWERS
Outside View: A (new) American way of war

Commentary: Topsy-turvy alliance

US lawmakers rally behind Dalai Lama

Vatican's ties with Beijing suffer fresh setback

SUPERPOWERS
System Integration of High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator Completed

Raytheon Acquires Directed Energy Capabilities of Ktech Corporation

MLD Test Moves Navy A Step Closer To Lasers For Ship Self-Defense

US Navy And Northrop Grumman Accomplish Goals For At-Sea Demonstration Of Maritime Laser


Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily Express :: SpaceWar Express :: TerraDaily Express :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News
.

The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2011 - Space Media Network. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement