|
|
|
Subject:
Analyzing War Theories: Jones?s Maxims versus Proponents of Martin Van Creveld's Expanded Theory of
BraddockCaesar
1/12/2006 2:20:16 PM
|
Analyzing War Theories: Jones?s Maxims versus Proponents of Martin Van Creveld's Expanded Theory of War
By Terrance Jones ARNG
Against the backdrop of the traditional Clausewitzian model, authors have advanced alternate theories as to the nature of war and the shape of future warfare. Beginning with Baron Antoine Jomini, theorists have advanced opposing views on the nature of war and strategy. More recently, in 1978, Ambassador Robert T. Underhill advanced the idea that wars are no longer useful or rational in modernized societies. [7] This he felt was due in large part to the huge cost which modern societies would have to bear in order to tolerate warfare in their midst. Modern societies are so dependent on the delicate infrastructure of electricity, communications, and transportation that if war did break out, the society itself would cease to exist. He predicted that this trait would tend to force wars into the less developed corners of the world. To him, paradoxically, war should be most common precisely where there is little worth fighting over.
Clausewitz vs. the Scholar:
Martin Van Creveld's Expanded Theory of War
The highly exertive effects of total war are extremely hard on a society. This reality has plagued military planners from antiquity to the current age of multi faceted global and region specific threat variables. The constant threat of having to endure warfare within its own borders has facilitated a paradigm shift concerning the strategic initiatives of firmly established G-8 nations that are geared towards preventing wars within its borders. The paradigm shift allows these nation-states to attain the maximum benefits strategic and multi regional force projection benefits proxy war tandem alliance facilitation. China and Russia have clearly benefited from the following benefits of this multi regional exertion/ force projection strategy:
Premise for Multi Regional Exertion/Proxy Force Projection Strategy
China is the most relevant and clearly detailed example of a firmly established G-8 nation has successfully executed a multi regional exertion strategy that evolves into a proxy force projection strategy upon its successful implementation.
Example
Over the last 20 years, China has used its advanced technology to establish diplomatic relationships that have increased their global standing. China has often shared military technology with nations to establish these relationships. China?s relationship with Iran is a perfect example of this type technology sharing that has increased China?s global and region specific interests, as China has been successful in obtaining diplomatic and economic reciprocity from Iran due to China?s willingness to share missile and nuclear technology with Iran. By helping Iran develop their weapons of mass destruction ?means of dispersal? and nuclear weapons program, China has increased their ability reap force projection benefits in the Middle East. This has played a major role in the renewal of China and Russia?s strategic relationship.
Dual Phase (economic/ military) Economic Alliance Benefits
Using Russia as a model, we have the perfect example of a firmly established G-8 nation whose economic alliances have clear and specific military goals and initiatives which will strengthen their global and region specific influence.
Example
Russia?s technological assistance to the nuclear weapons program of Iran establishes a prosperous economic alliance with one of the world?s most influential nation in a region of extreme importance in a strategic sense due to Iran?s natural resources in addition to the significant and rapidly expanding influence of Iran over Syria and Iraq in addition to Iran?s considerable influence over events in Lebanon and Palestine. Theoretically, it is important to note that Russia has stepped up their efforts to increase their level of influence in the region around Palestine. These events are of extreme importance when considering the fact that Iran is believed to be capable of developing a nuclear weapons capability well within a short term window of 3 years. Some experts have stated that Iran can possibly develop a nuclear weapons capability within a few months. A Russian presence in Palestine and an Iran with nuclear weapons leading a Shiite triumvirate comprised of Iran, Iraq (upon Iraqi requested/projected U.S. withdrawal) and Syria, clearly elevates Russia?s influence over a Russia/ Iran proxy war tandem alliance that wields considerable influence in the Middle East. In this scenario, a seemingly routine economic alliance prevents clarity and transparency in regards to the strategic intentions of Russia and Iran.
?Modern societies are so dependent on the delicate infrastructure of electricity, communications, and transportation that if war did break out, the society itself would cease to exist. He predicted that this trait would tend to force wars into the less developed corners of the world.?
Clausewitz vs. The Scholar: Martin Van Creveld's Expanded Theory Of War
Martin Van Creveld
The rise and acceleration of proxy war tandem alliances have disproved the deductions of Martin Van Creveld on several points. While wars have been forced/initiated in less developed corners of the world like the Middle East, the rise and acceleration of proxy war tandem alliances has used these wars to expand the global influence and initiatives of firmly established nations like Russia and China. This facilitates an environment where small wars are used to stretch the defenses of America across diverse regions of the globe due to the need to neutralize regional threats and the multi regional allies of proxy facilitating nations like Russia and China. In this type of scenario, America must neutralize an insurgency in Iraq, the proliferation exploits of Iran while also implementing preparatory warfare measures against Russia and China, who are the proxy war facilitating nations in the China/Russia/Iran, China/Iran and Russia/ Iran proxy war tandem alliances. North Korea and various European nations also figure into America?s daunting task of neutralizing nuclear proliferation, conventional and asymmetrical threats over diverse regions across the globe, as they are subordinate proxy war allies of China and Russia.
*Cautionary Note
It is also important to note that the proxy war relationships that are geared towards stretching the defenses of America has a terrorist contingency factor that increases the lethality of proxy war tandem alliances. The current theater realities in undeveloped regions has facilitated an environment where terrorist nation-states like Iran are allowed to establish significant strategic alliances with firmly established G-8 nations like China and Russia. This significant concession on the part of China and Russia clearly motivates and facilitates provocative aggression from Iran in training and dispatching members of terrorist organizations on global and region specific terrorist missions. In this scenario, limited wars in undeveloped regions have been manipulated for inverted use by proxy war tandem alliances. These factors increase the probability and likelihood of attacks against America, therefore, Ambassador Robert T. Underhill?s belief that wars are no longer useful or rational is tantamount to psychologically disarming and weakening the resolve and strategic initiative of America?s military. To believe that war is not useful or rational is to believe in a theory that works against all known rules of warfare, as the facultative elements of war keep nations spinning on a theoretical axis that ensures that the global and region specific initiatives of nations is manifested through intermittent and or continuous use of diplomacy and military engagements. There has not been a recorded time in our history when war has not been explored or used as a provocative act with the goal of forcing concessions from a singular or set of nations. This is not to suggest that our plans should entertain the option of initiating war at all times, however our military planning deal with the harsh reality that our enemies unfulfilled desires and initiatives put America?s national, global and region specific interests and allies in harm?s way 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. These factors demand that we prepare combat effective contingency plans that keep military options on the table, as the permeable abilities of the terrorist components of proxy war tandem alliances has seen successful terrorist attacks launched in Paris, Spain and Africa in addition to those implemented throughout the Middle East.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
