W&C 503 Q&A

QUESTION: Based on your readings, how would you define levels of war?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Here is a possible definition of levels of war--Levels of war and conflict are actor's military responses executed in pursuit of political objectives.

QUESTION: What do we mean by the terms total and limited war?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Total war includes the complete destruction of the enemy's military forces and government. Limited war is fought for limited political purposes, and involves the capture or recapture of strategically located or economically important territory.

QUESTION: AFM 1-1, Essay E discusses characteristics of war. How do level of objective Intent, and level of effort relate to total or limited war? What are some examples of these characteristics in recent wars?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: AFM 1-1, Essay E lists the "Level of Objective Intent." The essay notes that the concept of unlimited versus limited war is partially based on a decision on the part of the belligerents (actors) to fight for limited political objectives. The essay also notes that wars are fought to achieve political objectives. These objectives, which can change during the course of a war, may range from totally annihilating or subjugating the enemy, to adjusting borders, to inflicting punishment. The level of effort is closely related to the objective intent. The essay notes that "to discover how much of our resources must be mobilized for war, we must first examine our own political aim and that of the enemy." In other words, we must relate ends to means. If the enemy's objective is conquest and our objective is unconditional surrender, the passions aroused will likely result in both sides employing a maximum effort involving national mobilization. If the political objectives of either opponent are limited and do not incite popular passions, the level of effort expended by that side, at least, is also likely to be limited. In Desert Storm the coalition pursued limited war against the Iraqis. In the Bosnian War the Serbs are pursuing a total war of eliminating the Bosnian Muslims from their territory.

QUESTION: AFM 1-1 discusses intensity in terms of high medium and low. How are these defined? What are some recent examples?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: High intensity conflict could be considered a series of battles in a campaign as contrasted with low intensity conflict which would be similar to guerrilla hit and run campaigns. High intensity conflict was the norm in Desert Storm and in the Iran Iraq war. The Sendero Luminoso has pursued low intensity conflict in Peru for years.

QUESTION: What would a graphic depiction of Papp's typology of war look like?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Papp's typology (Reference, Papp, Contemporary International Relations, Ch 24)

Intl Crises LIC Terrorism Civ War/Rev Intl War Peace

Note: This model, like most models of war reduce the levels of war to a linear, symmetrical model. War, of course, is not normally linear or symmetrical. Papp's typology offers a way to understand the various types of war waged by actors today. The model provides a point of departure for discussion.

QUESTION: How does Papp define each category of the typology?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE:

Intl Crises: Four sets of circumstances prevail: 1. High priority goals of an actor must be threatened; 2. A limited amount of time is available before action must be taken; 3. The situation must be for the most part unanticipated; 4. The situation must not escalate into armed conflict.

LIC: Limited either in frequency or in level of violence. May be used as a tool of policy by a state actor or a nonstate actor, or it may on some occasions spontaneously erupt.

Terrorism: Lenin says "The purpose of terrorism is to inspire terror." It is a tool of violence used by nonstate actors against state authority.

Civil War/Revolution: Civil wars are conflicts within a state between two or more groups fought because of disagreements over the future of that state.

International War: Conflict between or among states carried out by their armed forces.

(Reference: Papp, Ch 24)

QUESTION: Do you agree with Papp's typology? Why or why not? What is missing? Where does Conventional War, Nuclear War, MOOTW fit in?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Be aware that there is no completely right answer, many scholars have proposed different ideas regarding a spectrum of war. Students may disagree because the model is too simple and linear. They may say that war cannot be put in such neat little compartments. Missing could be such things as conventional war (defined as primarily regular armies fighting each other) or nuclear war. Conventional war would fit in under Civ/Rev War and International War and Nuclear War would be under International War.

QUESTION: Where on Papp's typology do you see most wars and conflicts unfolding today? How about in terms of total or limited war? At what intensity are wars being waged today?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Most wars today reside in low intensity conflict, or military operations other than war. Contemporary wars are generally fought for limited objectives, and that will continue in the future. It is still possible that a Desert Storm type of Major Regional Contingency (MRC) will erupt, therefore we must train and plan for that type of conflict. We realize that an MRC scenario is probably less likely since the end of Desert Storm due to the fact that there is no actor who will take on the US in that type of scenario. (Reference: Papp, Ch 24)

QUESTION: How does Clausewitz say each element (govt, military, people) affect levels of war?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: The three elements heavily impact the levels of war. The government declares the war or commits troops to fighting and should determine the national objectives of the war. The government should decide what level of war is appropriate and communicate that clearly to the military. The military should execute the appropriate level of war. The military makes plans to achieve the national objectives and then carries those plans out at the operational and tactical levels. The people provide "support" (or lack of support) for the effort. This support can come in many ways, by emotional support for the military and the government, by working in war related industries, by volunteering time to support military organizations. The people also can show lack of support by protesting, by violence, by elections, and by refusing to serve. (Reference, Chaliand, p. 688)

QUESTION: According to Bade, why should war and conflict resolution be considered in the war planning process?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Future wars will have constraints on them due to objectives being limited, the use of coalition forces, international norms, limited resources, legal or moral considerations and the potential for mass destruction with nuclear weapons. It is not just up to the political leadership to determine the end of a war. Strategists need to know the limitations to help achieve those objectives. If one does not have clearly defined objectives how will they determine when their objectives have been met? As a strategist if one does not have a way in which to obtain a quick victory or the ability to prolong the war, then war fighting strategies should be developed that make negotiation possible and likely. Essentially if the military does not do it, who will? (Bade article)

QUESTION: According to Bade, is War Termination an event or a process?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: War termination has been thought of as just a break in the action, or a ceasing of hostilities (an event), but if fighting can be stopped prior to a nation or army being totally exhausted or annihilated (a process) it then becomes a political choice and is a process of cost avoidance which demands attention in our planning.

QUESTION: Bade says: "Virtually every study of war termination concludes that failure to define objectives is the most common obstacle to rational war termination." With war termination objectives being so important, why are they ignored?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Domestic political pressures sometimes undermine willingness to pursue limited objectives rather than all out war.

Allied pressure put on to not state objectives because it might undermine their positions.

Conflicts arise between military and political leaderships over war aims that may limit the use of military might. (Bade article )

QUESTION: What effect has the American public had upon war and conflict resolution planning?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Americans think that war and conflict resolution takes care of itself and therefore there is no need to plan for it. We have used a strategy of overwhelming force which has been effective in defeating our enemies (e.g. Civil War, W.W.I, W.W.II). Korea and Vietnam were limited wars which reinforced our thoughts that using overwhelming force is the only reliable solution. The Weinberger Doctrine and comments by Samuel P. Huntington also supports the idea that war and conflict resolution will take care of itself if only we get in and win. In reality there have been limits to the Cold War and even to the recent Gulf War. Any future conflicts requiring the use of force will be limited what with exceptional demands and constraints thus making it all so very important that war and conflict resolution be included in planning our military strategy. (Bade article)

QUESTION: The ACSC research project titled "Planning and Execution of Conflict Termination" discussed two means of terminating wars. What are these two ways?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE:

- The two main categories have been "negotiated settlements" and "unilateral action"

- Negotiated settlements: An agreement reached by both sides to terminate hostilities. They include the following:

-- Formal Peace Treaties: The primary method of war and conflict resolution up to WW II. There have however, been no formal peace treaties since WW II. A major reason for this is the emergence of organizations such as the UN. Their involvement aimed at brokering peace agreements has revolutionized the patterns of war and conflict resolution emphasizing negotiated settlements rather than military defeat of one of the parties.

-- Armistice or Truce: Originally a temporary cessation of hostilities, but the break has often been used to negotiate a permanent peace settlement. If lasting negotiations are not successful, the interim agreement may become the de facto peace settlement and can even change the borders relative to the position of troops at the time the truce becomes effective. Some experts believe that the armistice or truce has taken the place of the formal peace treaty as the normal means of war and conflict resolution.

-- Stalemate: Reached when neither side is capable of achieving a significant advantage on the battlefield, resulting in an informal or even a formal agreement to terminate hostilities. Often results in very little change in the post war arrangements.

QUESTION: What are the unilateral means of war and conflict resolution according to Bade?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE:

Capitulation or surrender: One belligerent imposes the solution on the other. Normally a military decision made by the commanders. Extreme form of this pattern is "unconditional surrender" which results in total military defeat of one side giving the victor the option to occupy territory or make other demands of the loser.

Withdrawal: One or both sides cease fighting and withdraw from the battlefield. This may be due to military disadvantage, exhaustion of resources, or most often, to avoid surrender or capitulation.

Extermination or Expulsion: One belligerent simply ceases to exist. Although rare today, extermination and expulsion were common in ancient times. Surrender often meant the slaughter of all males and enslavement of all women and children. An all out nuclear attack would probably fall into this category.

QUESTION: How can we start planning for war and conflict resolution according to Bade?

ANTICIPATED RESPONSE: Political objectives, military objectives and American military strategy needs to develop closer links. Joint operational doctrine should be revised to reflect requirements for establishing and evolving war and conflict resolution objectives and techniques. This doctrine should guide war time strategy and establish a basis for dialogue between military planners and policy makers throughout the entire planning process.