All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

War Aims and War Outcomes: When Powerful States Lose Limited Wars
Unformatted Document Text:  8 maximum use of physical force with the objective of disarming the opponent. “Combats’ aim”, he asserts, “is to destroy enemy forces” (1976, 97). At the same time, a number of contemporary scholars provide empirical evidence that direct counterforce strategies, in which the aim is to decisively destroy the enemy’s capacity to resist, are more effective than military strategies that are intended to erode an adversary’s will to resist (Pape 1996; Stam 1996; Clodfelter 1989). There is little doubt that the prescriptions for victory in war advocated by military strategists and reflected in military manuals are appropriate for the pursuit of unilateral political objectives. Sheer brute force can be used offensively to impose one’s will on an adversary, or defensively to deny the enemy its objective. Mass, initiative, maneuver, and firepower have all been used to great effect in campaigns to conquer neighboring nations, seize territory and defend against invading armies. Mack (1975) critiques “the prevalent military belief that if an opponent’s military capability to wage war can be destroyed, his ‘will’ to continue the struggle is irrelevant” (178). But this belief is warranted in campaigns with unilateral political objectives. When a state pursues unilateral war aims, the attainment of military objectives is closely aligned with the achievement of the state’s political objectives and war-fighting capability is highly correlated with attainment of the desired political outcomes. The more dependent the objective, however, the more difficult it is to translate that political objective into operational military objectives and to establish a link between killing people and destroying things and the desired results of a campaign. The use of overwhelming force can increase a state’s destructive power and raise the cost of resistance for the adversary, but greater military effectiveness will not necessarily convince that adversary to change its behavior. Cimbala (1994) notes, “Planners frequently approach the problem of targeting as a

Authors: Sullivan, Patricia.
first   previous   Page 9 of 38   next   last



background image
8
maximum use of physical force with the objective of disarming the opponent. “Combats’ aim”,
he asserts, “is to destroy enemy forces” (1976, 97).
At the same time, a number of contemporary scholars provide empirical evidence that
direct counterforce strategies, in which the aim is to decisively destroy the enemy’s capacity to
resist, are more effective than military strategies that are intended to erode an adversary’s will to
resist (Pape 1996; Stam 1996; Clodfelter 1989).
There is little doubt that the prescriptions for victory in war advocated by military
strategists and reflected in military manuals are appropriate for the pursuit of unilateral political
objectives. Sheer brute force can be used offensively to impose one’s will on an adversary, or
defensively to deny the enemy its objective. Mass, initiative, maneuver, and firepower have all
been used to great effect in campaigns to conquer neighboring nations, seize territory and defend
against invading armies. Mack (1975) critiques “the prevalent military belief that if an
opponent’s military capability to wage war can be destroyed, his ‘will’ to continue the struggle is
irrelevant” (178). But this belief is warranted in campaigns with unilateral political objectives.
When a state pursues unilateral war aims, the attainment of military objectives is closely aligned
with the achievement of the state’s political objectives and war-fighting capability is highly
correlated with attainment of the desired political outcomes.
The more dependent the objective, however, the more difficult it is to translate that
political objective into operational military objectives and to establish a link between killing
people and destroying things and the desired results of a campaign. The use of overwhelming
force can increase a state’s destructive power and raise the cost of resistance for the adversary,
but greater military effectiveness will not necessarily convince that adversary to change its
behavior. Cimbala (1994) notes, “Planners frequently approach the problem of targeting as a


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 38   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.