fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
view: Aims of war Shaukat Qadir
Our military successes have offered the political leadership a priceless opportunity. Please dont squander it through a sheer lack of understanding of your responsibilities
Why do nations go to war? If we begin by accepting Clausewitzs famous maxim that war is an extension of policy, we have a logical starting point: in effect that nations have clearly defined aims/objectives (some considered vital) and, in the pursuit of these, nations use all their elements of power and the recourse to war is one of the options available to achieve its aims/objectives.
Two obvious conclusions from the foregoing statement are: a) that a war must have clearly defined aim(s) to be achieved; and b) that nations initiating a war do not expect to lose the war.
I am a perpetual student, and one of the subjects of my interest is warfare it used to be the prime subject as long as I was soldiering. One of the first things we learnt was that a war had a political aim, which was up to the political government to define. Once defined, the senior military leadership would define for itself a military aim, which would then achieve the political one.
If, for example, Country A wanted to go to war with Country B so as to force Country B to resolve an outstanding territorial dispute over territory X. It is not necessary for the military of Country A to attack and recapture X; if X is well defended, but Y, which is equally or more important to Country B is not as well defended, the military could attack and capture Y, which would be the military aim and thereby still achieve the political one. That is the extent of liberty that the military enjoys how to achieve the political aim of the war.
All this necessarily assumes that the political government knows what it wants and the senior military leadership is sufficiently competent to define for itself a military objective that would achieve the political one, particularly if it intends to adopt the indirect approach in the example above.
To continue with the theoretical study, before broaching the practical aspects; since the days of conquering and annexing territories are in the past, a fact that the US continues to find incomprehensible, students of war have begun to raise a question: shouldnt the ultimate aim of any war be lasting peace? If so, there has never been a war between nations in contemporary times, nor is likely to be any, that will bring a lasting peace in its wake.
I could begin with the United States and question its political and military aims, starting from Korea and concluding with Afghanistan, but I intend to confine myself closer to home. I have already written on both the 1965 War and Kargil; and while some kind of an excuse of a political and military aim was defined for the latter after it had been launched, I can find no reasonable excuse for 1965. Needless to state, both were crass idiocies. I am leaving the 1971 war out, since we didnt initiate it.
However, what I am concerned with most today is the fact that we are in the throes of another war; one that challenges our very being; a war with our own citizens. The political government has still failed to define an aim for this war, and has left it to the army to define both the political and the military aim.
Our current military leadership may, in fact, be competent enough to define both, but there are complications in handing over such a responsibility to the military. Apart from the fact that such avoidance of responsibility by the political leadership is tantamount to a tacit acceptance of a continued political role of the military, no military can, or should, possibly be expected to cater for all political considerations.
What is more, modern wars are fought not only by the military alone. Nations go to war, which means that wars cannot be won without the support of the people. Mobilising the people is not something that any military can do. We are fortunate at present to have a nation that is virtually united in its desire to rid itself of the scourge of terrorism, even though there is a minority that disagrees with the current methodology. However, all such support is transient and, unless the political leadership demonstrates its desire to carry its citizens along with it, this support could be lost as quickly as it appeared.
Our political leadership, in defining their aim, should realise that this is one war that has to conclude in a lasting peace. I can assure them that no insurgency commences, moving onto terrorism, without the presence of a complaint against the government. Therefore, while the use of force is essential to eliminate the structure that breeds terrorism, it will be of no use without the speedy provision and permanent guarantee of justice, equality, freedom, and political empowerment; in other words, good governance. And finally, unless the ever-increasing religious extremism is also eliminated, this war is not going to end and you will soon lose the transient national support that you are presently enjoying.
So someone in our political hierarchy, please find yourself a political aim for this war for the military to aim for, and then formulate a wholesome national security policy using all elements of national power to support the military and achieve your aim. Our military successes have offered the political leadership a priceless opportunity. Please dont squander it through a sheer lack of understanding of your responsibilities.
This article is a modified version of one originally written for The National. The writer is a former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Insititute (IPRI)
Our military successes have offered the political leadership a priceless opportunity. Please dont squander it through a sheer lack of understanding of your responsibilities
Why do nations go to war? If we begin by accepting Clausewitzs famous maxim that war is an extension of policy, we have a logical starting point: in effect that nations have clearly defined aims/objectives (some considered vital) and, in the pursuit of these, nations use all their elements of power and the recourse to war is one of the options available to achieve its aims/objectives.
Two obvious conclusions from the foregoing statement are: a) that a war must have clearly defined aim(s) to be achieved; and b) that nations initiating a war do not expect to lose the war.
I am a perpetual student, and one of the subjects of my interest is warfare it used to be the prime subject as long as I was soldiering. One of the first things we learnt was that a war had a political aim, which was up to the political government to define. Once defined, the senior military leadership would define for itself a military aim, which would then achieve the political one.
If, for example, Country A wanted to go to war with Country B so as to force Country B to resolve an outstanding territorial dispute over territory X. It is not necessary for the military of Country A to attack and recapture X; if X is well defended, but Y, which is equally or more important to Country B is not as well defended, the military could attack and capture Y, which would be the military aim and thereby still achieve the political one. That is the extent of liberty that the military enjoys how to achieve the political aim of the war.
All this necessarily assumes that the political government knows what it wants and the senior military leadership is sufficiently competent to define for itself a military objective that would achieve the political one, particularly if it intends to adopt the indirect approach in the example above.
To continue with the theoretical study, before broaching the practical aspects; since the days of conquering and annexing territories are in the past, a fact that the US continues to find incomprehensible, students of war have begun to raise a question: shouldnt the ultimate aim of any war be lasting peace? If so, there has never been a war between nations in contemporary times, nor is likely to be any, that will bring a lasting peace in its wake.
I could begin with the United States and question its political and military aims, starting from Korea and concluding with Afghanistan, but I intend to confine myself closer to home. I have already written on both the 1965 War and Kargil; and while some kind of an excuse of a political and military aim was defined for the latter after it had been launched, I can find no reasonable excuse for 1965. Needless to state, both were crass idiocies. I am leaving the 1971 war out, since we didnt initiate it.
However, what I am concerned with most today is the fact that we are in the throes of another war; one that challenges our very being; a war with our own citizens. The political government has still failed to define an aim for this war, and has left it to the army to define both the political and the military aim.
Our current military leadership may, in fact, be competent enough to define both, but there are complications in handing over such a responsibility to the military. Apart from the fact that such avoidance of responsibility by the political leadership is tantamount to a tacit acceptance of a continued political role of the military, no military can, or should, possibly be expected to cater for all political considerations.
What is more, modern wars are fought not only by the military alone. Nations go to war, which means that wars cannot be won without the support of the people. Mobilising the people is not something that any military can do. We are fortunate at present to have a nation that is virtually united in its desire to rid itself of the scourge of terrorism, even though there is a minority that disagrees with the current methodology. However, all such support is transient and, unless the political leadership demonstrates its desire to carry its citizens along with it, this support could be lost as quickly as it appeared.
Our political leadership, in defining their aim, should realise that this is one war that has to conclude in a lasting peace. I can assure them that no insurgency commences, moving onto terrorism, without the presence of a complaint against the government. Therefore, while the use of force is essential to eliminate the structure that breeds terrorism, it will be of no use without the speedy provision and permanent guarantee of justice, equality, freedom, and political empowerment; in other words, good governance. And finally, unless the ever-increasing religious extremism is also eliminated, this war is not going to end and you will soon lose the transient national support that you are presently enjoying.
So someone in our political hierarchy, please find yourself a political aim for this war for the military to aim for, and then formulate a wholesome national security policy using all elements of national power to support the military and achieve your aim. Our military successes have offered the political leadership a priceless opportunity. Please dont squander it through a sheer lack of understanding of your responsibilities.
This article is a modified version of one originally written for The National. The writer is a former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Insititute (IPRI)
