The Illusion of Peacetime

The following article is important, but it barely touches my concern with our collective illusion of peacetime, where we seek to deter and prepare for war, but fail to develop a strategy for the war we're in. The condition of peace is a relationship between two or more entities, throughout all of history I doubt if peace has ever been a condition that has existed worldwide between all entities. As for the U.S., it has not been at peace in the purest sense in decades (if ever). We have persistently used our military or intelligence services' paramilitaries' (and other means) to impose our will on other entities (state or non-state actor groups), and states and non-state actors have been at war with us.

The character of these wars vary considerably, but it can still be viewed as war. Chinese military theorists in "Unrestricted Warfare" wrote,

Quote:

---

This kind of war means that all means will be in readiness, information will be omnipresent, and the battlefield will be everywhere [global]. It means that all weapons and technology can be superimposed at will, it means that all the boundaries lying between the two worlds of war and non-war, of military and non-military [involves more than military means], will be totally destroyed,

---

Articles on Russia's non-linear warfare argue that battles are only part of a larger strategy, they are rarely intended to be decisive in themselves. Not surprising, the U.S. being excessively influenced by Clausewitz's view of war and the center of gravity in "On War" seek victory by capturing an adversary's capital (Baghdad) or attriting the adversary's military so they can no longer resist. In short, we attempt to make battle decisive in all cases, because it fits our view of war. How war is supposed to be. When al-Qaeda and other groups present a situation where our traditional way of war fails to produce desired results we're perplexed. We fell back on colonial era COIN as a potential solution, with some even arguing it isn't war. Those arguing it isn't war can't define war, so it makes calling it something other than war a convenient argument, but one that isn't well supported.

I think we should simply embrace the reality that we're in a persistent state of confrontation, conflict, or war with a few adversaries and develop a strategy to appropriately wage it. That isn't a call to arms in the traditional sense, but a call to synergize all of the elements of national power with a greater degree of seriousness focused on defeating our adversaries. These wars in most cases will be waged differently than our preferred way of war where battle is decisive. Instead, they will be waged largely by shaping, political warfare, legal warfare, netwar, and an occasional requirement for a relative major combat operation.

Our adversaries have developed complex, global strategies to pursue their ends as we see in the South China Sea, Ukraine, and with various non-state actors such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Lebanese Hezbollah. To be frank their strategies and their ability to carry them out are quite limited, yet they often seem like they're 10 feet tall because we fail to develop comprehensive strategies to counter them. I suggest one reason we fail to adapt is because we fool ourselves with the illusion we're at peace and not at war.

There’s No Such Thing as Peacetime

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/13/...vil-liberties/

Quote:

---

As Dudziak puts it in War Time, “Military conflict has been ongoing for decades, yet public policy rests on the false assumption that it is an aberration. This enables a culture of irresponsibility, as ‘wartime’ serves as an argument and an excuse for national security-related ruptures of the usual legal order. If we abandon the idea that war is confined in time we can see more clearly that our law and politics are not suspended by an exception to the regular order of things.… Wartime has become the only kind of time we have, and therefore is a time within which American politics must function.” She adds, “A cultural framing of wartimes as discrete and temporary occasions, destined to give way to a state of normality, undermines democratic vigilance.”

---

Much more in the article.

Excellent article. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

The character of these wars vary considerably, but it can still be viewed as war. Chinese military theorists in "Unrestricted Warfare" wrote...

---

The discussion on Chinese military theories was awhile ago, there is a 2007 thread where this post appeared and is added for reference:

Quote:

---

Unrestricted Warfare was written by two Chinese Colonels in 1999. The CIA translated the text and its been an ongoing area of concerned discussion ever since.

URW doctrine is a means by which a weaker opponent can defeat a stronger opponent through widely distributed attacks across multiple domains (i.e., computer networks, communications, financial markets, media, terrorist acts) and without abiding by any commonly-held rules of engagement.

There have been two symposiums held so far on URW, both organized by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab and sponsored in part by DARPA and the National Intelligence Council, among others. Here are the links to the original book, as well as the papers presented at each symposium.

Unrestriced Warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
Unrestricted Warfare Symposium Proceedings 2006
Unrestricted Warfare Symposium Proceedings 2007

---

There are many threads with 'unrestricted' in and only a few refer to the Chinese viewpoint.

"Political Warfare" "Gray Zone Conflicts" "The Long War" "Unrestricted Warfare" etc., etc., etc.

To what end? To what purpose? What do we possibly gain by allowing those who work within the military profession to convince us to label and think of all forms of competition between powerful organizations with diverse interests as some form of "war"?

Is peace so frightening? I have never seen a nation that is both so desirous of, and at the same time fearful of, peace as is the United States of America. It is an odd dichotomy.

Peace has always been a messy business. Are we still so mentally abused by our experience in Vietnam that we now must insist that every time our national leaders feel the need to employ our military forces in dangerous and violent competition that we must also burden our nation by making each of those situations also a "war" that we therefore must win?

We must not be Pollyannaish about peace, but nor need we fear it. Those who wish too hard for perpetual war may find to their chagrin that prophesies of that nature are all too often self-fulfilling.

Seeing every revolutionary insurgent and insurgent group as some form of "terrorist" has been a strategic disaster for the US over post 9/11 era. To see every state competitor working outside the lines of the rules and policies we have put in place to shape the global competition in our favor promises to produce strategic backlash of an even greater nature.

We have defined an approach to the world that has us in a posture of playing not to lose, while our competitors are all playing to win. We do not need a grand strategy of perpetual warfare, but we do need a grand strategy that defines a game we too can play to win.

Professor Michael Howard covered the subject well in The Invention of Peace, Profile Books, 2000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Compost

Professor Michael Howard covered the subject well in The Invention of Peace, Profile Books, 2000.

---

Yes he did, and basically said it was an illusion, a condition we attempt to construct via social engineering, but that process itself leads to war. The bottom line is we're not at peace and to pretend that we are can be likened to Chamberlain's willfulness blindness. To treat the lower end of war as strategically as important as the high end of war is a better way to prevent to escalation than pretending we're at peace. The post is intended to be provocative, because I'm searching for a more comprehensive lexicon that can describe the full spectrum of war. As for peace, that is easier (it isn't messy), we're at peace with Canada, we're not at peace with Russia and we're not in all out war with Russia. We're at war with al-Qaeda.

America is a nation at peace. Period.

We have interests in competition with a wide range of actors in a wide range of forms. But we are a nation at peace.

This call for perpetual war is far more dangerous than a naïve belief that peace means absence of conflict. If everything is war, then nothing is war.

America's biggest problem is not perpetual war; our biggest problem is that we think being a global leader means being in charge of everything and enforcing a family rules made up by us to facilitate our success.

We need to change our scope. We need to stop leading like the worst 2LT in the battalion who makes rules he is either unable or unwilling to enforce; attempts to exercise control over everything in his domain; delegates nothing; and is constantly telling everyone that he is in charge.

America's problem is not that we are at war with the world, or that the world is at war with us. Our problem is that we don't know how to be America in the world as it actually exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

America is a nation at peace. Period.

We have interests in competition with a wide range of actors in a wide range of forms. But we are a nation at peace.

This call for perpetual war is far more dangerous than a nave belief that peace means absence of conflict. If everything is war, then nothing is war.

America's biggest problem is not perpetual war; our biggest problem is that we think being a global leader means being in charge of everything and enforcing a family rules made up by us to facilitate our success.

We need to change our scope. We need to stop leading like the worst 2LT in the battalion who makes rules he is either unable or unwilling to enforce; attempts to exercise control over everything in his domain; delegates nothing; and is constantly telling everyone that he is in charge.

America's problem is not that we are at war with the world, or that the world is at war with us. Our problem is that we don't know how to be America in the world as it actually exists.

---

Our adversaries love view points like this. As for war, that is word that has lost its meaning decades ago when we quit declaring it. Al-Qaeda declared war against us, we don't have the option of sitting it out (we tried to prior to 9/11). Other actors, much like we do, are conducting undeclared war against us. Call what it you will, but so far you have managed to dodge the challenge of defining war, but it is evident we're not at peace. Peace is peace, it isn't messy. When it gets messy it transforms into something else entirely. Again peace is a relationship between specific actors, not a general condition.

Quote:

---

our biggest problem is that we think being a global leader means being in charge of everything and enforcing a family rules made up by us to facilitate our success.

---

This comment is logical, but on the other hand as both Kissinger and Colin Gray have said, order is not self-sustaining, it must be enforced. Considering who the alternatives are for enforcing an international order, I'm quite happy with the U.S. doing it within reason. We just haven't found the sweet spot yet. What must we enforce? What can we allow to change without it threatening our interests? I'm still not sure why we state Iraq must continue to exist within its current borders, yet we promoted the separation of Sudan into a North and South Sudan? Since peace is a socially constructed reality, it would seem we could get there if we allowed some borders to change.

Bill, I am trying hard to grasp how smart, reasonable people are coming to this position that you are advocating. I just can't get there. The logic of it escapes me. More importantly, what escapes me is how anyone would thing that seeing all things as war helps solve the problem that we face. Problems, which by the way, compared to being at war, are really quite small. But then anyone living in a nation truly at war would quickly point that out. When one is truly at war, one knows it, and there is no debate.

How can you declare that "peace is not messy"? When has peace ever not been messy?? Far more Americans died at the hands of the Comanche in our own gray zone effort to wrest the Southern plains away from native Americans than AQ has ever killed. And far more viscously to boot. ISIL looks like a bunch of school girls compared to the Apache, yet we battled them primarily with civilians as well. In the first half of the last century we beat up on every weaker place we could reach out to where we thought there was a military interest to serve, or profits to be made; and don't even start on all the coups and revolutions we either fomented or attempted to block as the bloody back story to our Cold War containment of the Soviets. Peace is messy.

As to what our opponents love? AQ had to love it when we declared war on a tactic and went absolutely bat#### crazy, invading countries to topple dictators on one hand, and wrecking all manner of chaos in a dozen other countries to keep our protected dictators in power. American influence plummeted, and AQ influence soared on our confused quest to declare peace to be war and treat it as such.

We are lost as a nation. We have been treating peace as war for so long that we can't simply accept the reality of our situation. We are incredibly secure as a nation. Our security is the envy of nearly everyone else, yet we squander it with Quixotic expeditions in hot pursuit of noises in the dark.

George Washington had it largely right in his farewell address. An address as valid now as it was the day he penned it. We were never an isolationist nation, but were always a maritime nation dedicated to the pursuit of global commerce. We need to get back to the principles and perspectives we were founded upon. There will always be Kings and Pirates who violate the rights of others to advance their own selfish ends. Sometimes that will be our business and demand our firm response - but mostly it is business we do not make better by putting our noses in.

To set the record straight, UBL declared war on America in 1996. After 9/11 we declared war on a tactic. We got to that point by ignoring we were at war prior to 9/11. If we realized it there is a real possibility 9/11 never would have happened, and the war would have been contained at a much lower level of intensity.

We conduct war now, as others without declaring it.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

Quote:

---

In contrast to an authorization, a declaration of war in itself creates a state of war under international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants, the seizure of enemy property, and the apprehension of enemy aliens. While a formal declaration was once deemed a necessary legal prerequisite to war and was thought to terminate diplomatic and commercial relations and most treaties between the combatants, declarations have fallen into disuse since World War II. The laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, apply to circumstances of armed conflict whether or not a formal declaration or authorization was issued.

---

I found your example about the Comanche's interesting. I'll have to take your word on the number of U.S. citizens they killed compared to Americans (including Mexicans). Why did they kill so many? Were they perhaps waging war to impose their will, or avoid us imposing our will on them? Why do you think we shy away from calling an armed conflict war? Of all people, I find it odd you embrace an outdated view of war. By your description war can only exist in a classical European sense between states who declare war, and then end wars with a peace treaty. Those will probably still happen, but they are not the only type of war. The quote I provided above were from Chinese officers, yet Russians (and others) see the same way.

https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.c...on-linear-war/

General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation

Quote:

---

In the 21st century we have seen a tendency toward blurring the lines between the states of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared and, having begun, proceed according to an unfamiliar template

---

.

Quote:

---

People like, for instance, Georgy Isserson, who, despite the views he formed in the prewar years, published the book “New Forms Of Combat.” In it, this Soviet military theoretician predicted: “War in general is not declared. It simply begins with already developed military forces. Mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the onset of the state of war as was the case in 1914 but rather, unnoticed, proceeds long before that.” The fate of this “prophet of the Fatherland” unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.

---

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/05/...nting-warfare/

Quote:

---

The Kremlin, according to Barack Obama, is stuck in the "old ways," trapped in Cold War or even 19th century mindsets. But look closer at the Kremlin’s actions during the crisis in Ukraine and you begin to see a very 21st century mentality, manipulating transnational financial interconnections, spinning global media, and reconfiguring geo-political alliances. Could it be that the West is the one caught up in the "old ways," while the Kremlin is the geopolitical avant-garde, informed by a dark, subversive reading of globalization?

---

It's competition, but it isn't peaceful competition. The ends are not simply to gain market share, but rather strategic in nature. Unfortunately, the proposed political warfare paper revisited the Cold War and missed the implications of globalization.

Mexicans invited in American settlers to serve as a buffer between them and the Comanche. And no, it was not really war. For the settlers it was what they believed to be an acceptable risk. Life. A chance for opportunity they could not afford in the East, and probably enabled by a belief that the Indians weren't nearly as bad as the stories claimed. For the Comanche it was just being Comanche. Raiding was part of life for them, and the Americans brought riches with them. But for 95% of America this was all legend and the nation clearly was not at war.

Just because AQ, some handful of guys, declare war on the most powerful nation, it does not mean that nation is at war. Does it mean we need to pay attention and deal with those guys? Sure, but "war" is perhaps the least effective way do so. At least judging by the effects of that approach.

The reality is that we need new laws, policies, practices, etc for more effectively deterring state actors that are not deterred by our old approaches in the current environment. We need the same for actively engaging, when necessary, short of war, to impose costs and to disrupt their actions. This is not that war has changed, it is simply that in a time of laws and being a nation of laws, we build boxes that shape the way we classify and can in turn respond to situations. We also need better legal/policy constructs for dealing with non-state actors. War status and CT strategies are a proven disaster. We need to get smarter and smaller, not more reactive and bigger.

I do not believe the best answer is to simply make all things war, to do so is in effect for the US to openly declare a perpetual state of war on the world. What could be more isolationist than that??

Quote:

---

The reality is that we need new laws, policies, practices, etc for more effectively deterring state actors that are not deterred by our old approaches in the current environment. We need the same for actively engaging, when necessary, short of war, to impose costs and to disrupt their actions.

---

I agree, our lexicon, our rules, our laws, our approaches, are hopefully outdated. In the end I don't care if we call it war, as long as we recognize it isn't peace and that what we're engaged in (or ignoring) is seriousness and requires real strategy.

We evolved from low intensity conflict (LIC), which included a spectrum of conflict from low to high intensity. That is telling, because high intensity conflict (though subjective) could include major combat between conventional forces and even nuclear weapons. Yet, we called it conflict, not war. When the Cold War ended, we transitioned to military operations other than war (MOOTW). We harped on the importance of interagency collaboration and synergy, but the further we got away from using the construct of war the more stove piped our various agencies became. We identified problems in clean little stove pipes. Oh that is a law enforcement problem, and that is a development problem, and that is a military problem, and we'll use a little information to solve that one. The military has its own problems with its definitions and reducing a problem to insurgency, terrorism, etc.

The concept of war hasn't been in vogue for decades in the U.S., because apparently it is better that we can conduct it almost persistently without calling it war. We don't have a CT strategy, we have a decapitation strategy that has been a miserable failure. We don't have a COIN strategy, we have a nation building strategy. This gets to my underlying point, why I recommend calling it war (for now). In theory, war requires a holistic strategy that is closely monitored by national security. It is not an excuse for different agencies and services to compete with each other for a slice of the national budget. If the leaders can't work with each other, then they should be fired. War is too serious for maintaining the status quo.

Moreover, I think treating some security threats with the seriousness that war deserves (e.g. al-Qaeda in 1996) would result in much less violence world wide, because we would pursue solutions instead of engaging in endless conflict due to half-hearted efforts that are not part of a coherent strategy. The old view of war as China and Russia theorists point out is not widely applicable today. In fact, they assume we're waging war, and they don't buy we're waging a messy peace. They respond appropriately, while we continue our willful blindness. Not all wars require bombers, tanks, or even major battles. If you buy into Sun Tzu, in theory you can win the war before the first shot is fired.

Why do you think we can have a messy peace, but war can be clearly defined (again you failed to define it)?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...-servant-state

(worth reading, and the article and perspective starting this whole thread is definitely an example of the sad syndrome Andrew Bacevich describes...)

As to defining war, I have not "failed" in that task, I simply have not taken it on yet here in this thread. Even the department of defense shies away from defining war these days.

I think there are important components to something being "war":

1. I believe war must be between two or more complete systems of governance.

A system of governance need not be a state, but must have some form of governing body/system, a security force of some sort, and a distinct population. I think there probably needs to be a territory requirement as well to create a degree of tangibility necessary for war. (So AQ lacks the prerequisite characteristics to participate in war, regardless of what they might declare, or how they might act).

2. War may be legal or illegal, but I believe must be violent.

Many forms of competition occur day in and day out between systems of governance. Usually this competition is legal, but often it is illegal. This is business.

3. War must threaten to compromise the sovereignty of one system of governance to the advantage of the sovereignty of another.

We can say that war is politics or policy by other means, but it is for many reasons, most often to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties. This naturally affects politics, and is a matter of policy.

So, my 5-minute, Army of One stab at defining what the entire US Department of Defense shies away from is as follows:

"War is a violent interaction between two or more systems of governance with the intent of changing the nature of sovereignty between the contestants."

This then leaves things that are not war. I do not think that revolutionary insurgency that occurs within a single system of governance is war, and that more importantly, that it is counterproductive for a government challenged by revolutionary insurgency to think of that illegal challenge to governance as "war."

Increasingly senior leaders are agonizing over what they call "gray zone conflicts" - and what Russia does in Ukraine and what China does in the South China Sea are good examples. The US also was a major proponent of gray zone conflict when we were a rising power. Nothing new here, but it is frustrating for those being challenged all the same. I do not believe that this is a type or form of conflict, but rather it is a "space" between what is perceived as legal/proper, etc and those activities that would trip a clear redline leading to "war."

There is advocacy for conducting "political warfare" within that space, and for defining these conflicts as political warfare as well. That works at a certain level, but does run the risk of an overly expansive use of the term "warfare" - which in turn can lead to dangerous and unnecessary risk of escalation. What I would offer is that these actions are only "warfare" if they meet the criteria I sketched out above; and that the first response should be one of determining and putting into effect actions designed to shrink the gray zone one's opponent is taking advantage of to expand their sovereignty.

A visual take on that perspective:

(Seeing if a JPEG is easier to read)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...-servant-state


"War is a violent interaction between two or more systems of governance with the intent of changing the nature of sovereignty between the contestants."

---

BW,
That is why we keep loosing. In old time Special Warfare as opposed to General Warfare there was always a violent illegal means combined with non violent legal means to overthrow, subvert or sabotage the normal operation of the target nation or state. Remember a nation does always have a state.

Slap,

So, my definition, created today, is "why we keep losing"? Ha! Such power I have!!

I would offer that the primary reason we "keep losing" is that we take on things we shouldn't take on, and then define winning in impossible terms.

Of course there is a spectrum of competition - but everything on that spectrum is not necessarily "special," "general," or "warfare."

(And I was very clear in my definition that a system of governance as I defined it did not need to be a state).

A wise old spook friend from the Berlin days has a simple political view;

I am a socialist because the American political and economic system has basically failed Americans --I am a patriot because we the US have nothing to be ashamed of in our values.

If we finally got our own house in order and it truly functioned then that alone is a strong message to other civil societies that decide to emulate the US--meaning they can succeed whatever their views are towards the rule of law, transparency and good governance.

BUT we must be willing to allow them to go their own ways in order to achieve their determined paths without fear that it is directed against us.

Example---how loud have we made statements about Syria--which many forget that it kicked off four years ago with small demos about the rule of law, fair elections, and good governance and then exploded when the ruling minority government cracked down on the majority.

Now 250K killed, 8M IDPs/refugees and over 1M wounded AND the second round of chemical gas attacks (chlorine) on civilians last night killing more men, women and children--just normal civilians---where is that US red line again --where are our so called values?

Our problem is that we shout out to the world our so called values and then in the end fail to support those values--we have a super split personality and then when someone takes up arms against those perceived values then we flip out and get physical about it without realizing that maybe our concept does not fit their civil society but that society might in fact adopt some of them in their own ways.

Example--Ukraine---the Ukrainians in their Maidan movement were actually displaying the best of what we assume democracy to be--demanding transparency, fair elections, rule of law and good governance based on their own civil society and a massive dislike for wide scale corruption and a longing of what they viewed as European "values".

In bitter freezing temperatures when the US and Europe assumed they would fold they did not and young and old, men, women, children, military members, police and just plain citizens stood their ground much as they did at Lexington--- what is our own governmental reaction by this administration in supporting them further along that path--tap dancing, silence, excuses, words --- but training and defensive arms to support themselves after "trusting" the US in 1994--total silence and waffling.

And we wonder why the world questions our intentions?

You cannot shout out values and demand the world accept them and then simply look the other way without having a "third way forward".

Socialist/patriot--kind of makes sense--the world would then actually understand us better.......if we made that clear by our own actions.

This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.

The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.

The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.

---

So right---when one looks at the world today we see a number of different civil societies attempting to emulate either our values or those of the EU--the interesting question is why though the US or the EU--I think all civil societies regardless of religious beliefs, regardless of whether in Africa or the Pacific, regardless of past political history ie Warsaw Pact or the Far East--all civil societies strive towards a set of norms that ensure them physical security in their society, ensures them employment and a safe environment for their children and opportunities for the children to grow educationally and economically--and if there are fair elections as they define them along the way and a transparent government that responds to their needs so be it.

They would normally then see no need to lash out at the US--there might be inherent differences in approaching common problems but lashing out--hardly.

We simply believed that these societies had to be exact replication of ours in order to be successful and therein lies the core problem they all do not speak English, did not evolve out of the British Empire--and they have their own histories we somehow overlooked.

Would I love the ancient Persian society to once again bloom in the ME--most certainly but along the way they have to lose their revolutionary religious zealous drive and back away from supporting terror as a political means--which IMHO that is at least 20 years away---would I like to see a stable and prospering Russian must certainly as it would lend an additional layer of security to Europe and their civil society has truly suffered since 1917 and desire far better and the list goes on.

So while we have our own issues to work on--I am afraid to say a number of irrationally acting nation states and non state actors will be with us for a long while to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Slap,

So, my definition, created today, is "why we keep losing"? Ha! Such power I have!!

I would offer that the primary reason we "keep losing" is that we take on things we shouldn't take on, and then define winning in impossible terms.

---

BW,
Not power..... but force, political force vs combat power.The commies understood and exploited the difference. So when you define something and the leadership accepts that definition you will be misdirected and end up targeting the wrong object and thus lose. Which is why we (USA) keep loosing by not understanding that our enemy combines political force and combat power to
achieve their goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Of course there is a spectrum of competition - but everything on that spectrum is not necessarily "special," "general," or "warfare."

---

War is a two party system. If the other system says they are at war with you and you refuse to accept that, you are in denial and will loose, which is part of Special Warfare.

The creation of Psychological Paralysis and make an incorrect choice, through subversive propaganda.

Quote:

---

I was very clear in my definition that a system of governance as I defined it did not need to be a state).

---

Sorry,
You were clear. That comment was for the larger audience.

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

---

Someone wiser than me once said--until we the US is at peace among ourselves there can be no global peace---something to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

---

Hold on for a bit. Have to go to work. Will continue the sales pitch later.;)

Posted by Bob's World

Quote:

---

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

---

This comparison has little to do with what we're dealing with today. Much like Bacevichs endless polemics that attempt to wish threats away, and worse none of his arguments are supported by facts. It is simply an endless diatribe against the Cold War (hell, he should have moved to the USSR where he could have assisted them with their "peaceful competition" efforts to expand communism), and now he claims Islamists don't threaten the U.S. Oh I forgot, U.S. politicians actually rigged the world trade center with explosives, it wasn't Islamists who conducted the attack. Enough on Bacevich and back to reality.

Whether we disagree or are just talking past one another I can't ascertain at this point. I do agree with Slapout's point that war involves more than combat. We tend to recognize that with illusionary strategies (the strategies we want to have) that integrate and synergize the elements of national power to achieve our national security objectives. It isn't restricted to special warfare, but from a military perspective the writings on special warfare best capture the logic of a holistic approach.

I do appreciate you providing a definition of war, so at least now we have a position to debate. This will come as no surprise, but I found your definition too limited in scope. If you're in the camp that Clausewitz wrote all we need to know about war, then it could be sound. While recognizing CvC's brilliance, I also think the world has moved on from the wars he studied and wrote about, yet recognizing in some cases they still exist and will exist again. However, what he described in beautiful detail is a slice of a larger whole.

Sun Tzu came closer, and since I'm too lazy to what over and pull the book off the shelf. His points about winning without fighting, and setting conditions to win before the first battle is waged are relevant. A lot of so called security experts (specifically those who think COIN is the end all be all in modern warfare) fail to appreciate that our technical dominance does matter, and few Americans would want to go to war in an environment where our forces didn't dominate the air and maritime domains (now add space and cyber). What we failed to grasp is that we can dominate all the physical domains, and still fail to dominate the human domain. A lot of writing on the topic, but in my view our writing pales in comparison to our adversaries who actually appear to be more effective in manipulating this domain. A lot of that is due to the asymmetry in our laws, and the false assumptions that our liberal democratic culture promotes.

I digress, back to peacetime competition and war (and maybe something in between). Peacetime competition for markets and political influence, is different than competition between actors for markets, political, information, military influence when the aim to (using your words):

Quote:

---

War must threaten to compromise the sovereignty of one system of governance to the advantage of the sovereignty of another.

We can say that war is politics or policy by other means, but it is for many reasons, most often to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties. This naturally affects politics, and is a matter of policy.

---

You also wrote,

Quote:

---

2. War may be legal or illegal, but I believe must be violent.

---

It would sound pedantic if I asked you to define violence, so I'll just jump to the point. Would "force" be more appropriate than violence in today's context? Since war is a contest between two or more opponents where each attempts to impose their will upon the other, can will be imposed by means other than violent warfare? Sanctions (though almost never effective it is an attempt to force our will upon others), what about cyber attacks (different form espionage)? If whatever state attacked Iran's nuclear facility with a worm, were they engaged in an act of war? Finally, jumping to the gray zone, what about subversion? Why did the USSR (Bacevich conveniently neglects to cover this in his numerous diatribes) consider the U.S. promoting human rights as an act of war?

Your first point,

Quote:

---

I believe war must be between two or more complete systems of governance.

---

Quote:

---

A system of governance need not be a state, but must have some form of governing body/system, a security force of some sort, and a distinct population. I think there probably needs to be a territory requirement as well to create a degree of tangibility necessary for war. (So AQ lacks the prerequisite characteristics to participate in war, regardless of what they might declare, or how they might act).

---

On first glance, my strongest disagreement with your definition of war is your comment above. I think al-Qaeda can and has waged war, and considering the number of states under duress due to the movement al-Qaeda promoted they actually present an existential threat to many governments. The beauty of netwar is that owning territory is not required. Yes wars will still be fought over territory, and conventional forces will continue to clash (probably increasing in likelihood), but stateless people can wage what appears to be intangible war

Quote:

---

to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties.

---

In some cases it isn't about expanding their power as much as it reducing ours.

Back to my initial concerns. First, if we ignore others are waging war against us we forfeit the initiative and remain in a reactive role (often after we are in a position of disadvantage). Second, failure to recognize it as war (or some other term) that compels us to develop a holistic strategy (operationalize Phase 0) to win without fighting, or at least limit the fighting required will lead to higher intensity conflicts (wars) in the future. The type of war we're engaged in now doesn't require us to mobilize additional forces, but to treat shaping operations with the same level of seriousness we give to major theater wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

---

In some cases what you mention is nothing but bad parents and a severe marriage problem.

BUT if the 4 year old is part of a Revolutionary Youth Group and his parents belong to the Parent group, it is an act of War and should be dealt with at the level of force.

If sexual blackmail of a senior political official is being used for the purpose of some foreign state or revolutionary group that to is an act of war and should be dealt with by the appropriate force also.

People forget that we "won" the cold war because we recognized it was a War not a competition. People forget competitions have rules, boundaries and referees and penalties if one party breaks the rules. There is no such mechanism outside of the borders of America. We recognized that during the Cold War and we kept it from getting "Hot" by using Diplomatic warfare, Information Warfare,Economic warfare and Covert Warfare.


If you can still find it read a copy of Ike's "Goals for America". The man had clear vision of what America needed to do to remain strong. And as time went by we have violated most of it and we know find ourselves in the predicament we are in.

Occupation GI Blues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSojtkl4hB8

I think the myth of the nature of Western victory in the Cold War is as dangerous to us as the "victors" as the actual loss was to the Russians.

We never give the Russians credit where credit is due. Certainly not for their role in the defeat of the Germans in WWII; nor for the role of Gorbachav as a visionary leader who's policies served to empower the people of Eastern Europe to stand up, and who's decision to not crush those who led the revolutionary actions that led to the collapse of the deeply flawed Soviet system in truly leading to our victory.

But the Cold War was not war, and most of our most troubling baggage coming out of that time is from those places where we opted to conduct operations in a war-like manner. It will be generations before we overcome the negative side effects of our decision to employ a containment strategy, and certainly how men like the Dulles brothers opted to implement the same.

Bill

I think Clausewitz does handle war pretty well. Where we get in trouble is when we try to apply Clausewitz to problems that are not war, internal revolution, for example; and also terrorist campaigns conducted by non-state political action groups like AQ.

If you call it war, the Clausewitzians will try to apply his theories. It just doesn't work.

The realities of peace is that there will always be individuals and organizations that threaten you, but that are not a threat to you. AQ certainly fits that description. Likewise ISIL and dozens of other groups that we insist on labeling as "terrorist" in order to enable our use of tactics that are incredibly erosive of our national influence, and that too often serve to validate the accusations of those who threaten us and to expand their influence.

We need a new category of competition. Clausewitz saw only tactical and strategic levels of war, but we find defining an operational level helpful. A zone in the middle that serves better than efforts to stretch the two ends to meet. There is a zone between legal peacetime competition and war as well. Many now call that the "Gray Zone" - but without better understanding of the nature of those conflicts and better policies, authorities, and approaches a mere naming convention serves little purpose.

Rising powers will always paint outside the lines to expand their sovereignty. Smart ones will do so in a manner that does not trip clear triggers that bring war down upon them. When the US was a rising power we had no problem with this. Now that we are the primary keeper of the status quo we are losing our minds in frustration. I can laugh or cry at our response to this change of roles, and do a bit of both.

We need a fix, but "forever war" is no fix. At least not for this nation as it was designed and intended to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

But the Cold War was not war.

---

That is absolutely correct and that was the whole point of it. There was Small wars (called brush fire wars) back then, General War and Special War(nick named the Cold War). Because of Nukes we had to find something different besides all out war and it was not just a small war (guerrilla war) but something between those extremes.

It is certainly much more then a mere competition. As I said competition is for sports......dosen't work when whole industries can be wiped out and millions loose there livelihoods and destroy there entire way of life. To say that it is just a competition is to show how well psychological ops work at confusing the moral basis of human decision making.

The modern version of this is China's rare earth policy. A combo economic/war strategy/political policy. They snatch up all the critical materials for war production and call it peace. Forget CvC he is old school.

War is a type of problem demanding a war solution. That is the only value really for any classification of this type. To expand that classification to a broad range of problematic forms of competition that di not demand, nor are likely to be resolved by, a war solution is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive to our national identity and interests.

This is a primary reason Western COIN is so ineffective - we think of revolution as war, but then apply a confused mix of peace and war approaches. Pure war approaches are best for fast suppression of symptoms of revolution, non -war civil emergency responses best for durable resolution. Plus we refuse to recognize that COIN is a purely domestic operation.

I totally agree that our span of influence as we have defined it is under attack by rising powers. Part of that is that we seek to control too much. Part is actually important. We need to close the left door of the gray zone chart I posted, and refresh our deterrence and add clarity and certainty to red lines and responses to close the "right door" of my diagram.. That is just smart business, not war.

Call this war and we will just dive into the middle and flail away at the symptoms.

Quote:

---

War is a type of problem demanding a war solution. That is the only value really for any classification of this type. To expand that classification to a broad range of problematic forms of competition that di not demand, nor are likely to be resolved by, a war solution is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive to our national identity and interests.

---

Bob, I disagree with this view. This reminds me of the flawed effects based operations (EBO) the joint force adapted for awhile. If X, then Y. Despite our many flaws, I think we're more sophisticated than this as a nation. We are capable of recognizing there are different levels of war and many types of warfare, and very few require us (or more importantly our adversary) to capture a capital city or attrite their military forces (traditional Clausewitzian approach to warfare).

Quote:

---

This is a primary reason Western COIN is so ineffective - we think of revolution as war, but then apply a confused mix of peace and war approaches. Pure war approaches are best for fast suppression of symptoms of revolution, non -war civil emergency responses best for durable resolution. Plus we refuse to recognize that COIN is a purely domestic operation.

---

In the Philippines it is mostly traditional insurgency; however, Iraq and Afghanistan would never be resolved by addressing problems that were within their borders. It was a war, and insurgency was only a part of it. In both cases more aggressive military action was required, but we defaulted to nation building with predictable results. The military actions and the nation building efforts were half hearted efforts based on simplistic views of winning the population and decapitating the insurgent leadership.

Quote:

---

I totally agree that our span of influence as we have defined it is under attack by rising powers. Part of that is that we seek to control too much. Part is actually important. We need to close the left door of the gray zone chart I posted, and refresh our deterrence and add clarity and certainty to red lines and responses to close the "right door" of my diagram.. That is just smart business, not war.

---

Deterrence is failing, and in my opinion for deterrence to work we will have to act to demonstrate our will to act. It still won't work in all cases, especially against adversary networks that we can't effectively threaten. Is the gray zone the same as what some people are calling the space in the middle between peace and war? The problem with defining it as something in the middle is we think it is something we can ignore. States and non-state actors conduct operations in the so-called middle to achieve the same objectives they could pursue via war. The point is the if they achieve those objectives in the gray space (or middle space) without resorting the traditional war the strategic impact is the same. This is why we must treat this as important as war. It is not peace.

Quote:

---

Call this war and we will just dive into the middle and flail away at the symptoms.

---

Only if we're idiots, I have seen little sign that we treat nonconventional war the same way we treat traditional war.
__________________

I keep on reading the posts and so far have refrained from posting. The questions and answers appear so American. One day I might.

Meantime via Twitter this short article landed which IMHO fits, even if painful: Why the worlds biggest military keeps losing wars, by a combat photographer:http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why...ps_losing_wars

So what is his argument?

Quote:

---

Here are four factors worth considering, in descending order of importance. Too much logistics, not enough combat;
Learn the Language;
Fear of Casualties;
War as Symbol;

He asks: War, What is it good For? Absolutely Nothing

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I keep on reading the posts and so far have refrained from posting. The questions and answers appear so American. One day I might.

Meantime via Twitter this short article landed which IMHO fits, even if painful: Why the worlds biggest military keeps losing wars, by a combat photographer:http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why...ps_losing_wars

So what is his argument?

---

Um? Why does this conversation sound American? :D

Of course we won't hear Europeans discussing war, because they have failed to invest in their national defense and prefer to pretend that war now is little more than peace keeping. When Russia bared her horns Europe started to wake up, but instead of spending more on defense to prevent/deter further aggression it chooses to depend upon the country they always criticize to provide their security. It has been the same old story for years.

The combat photographer didn't identify why we lose wars, he identified why our operations are excessively expensive and ineffective.

Quote:

---

Too much logistics, not enough combat;

---

True, GEN McCrystal tried to fix this in Afghanistan, by closing down the Burger Kings and pushing more troops into the fight, but unfortunately he was relieved before it could be implemented. People got the same combat pay whether they hung out on base their entire tour, our lived in a combat outpost getting shot at daily. We incentivized people to become rear area pogs that often didn't continue squat to the overall war fighting effort. Despite the gross waste of money, we didn't lose any wars because of this.

Quote:

---

Learn the Language;

---

Sounds good, but this isn't practical for an entire Army that has global responsibilities. His claim that 95% of the Iraqis locked up were innocent is a gross exaggeration, but there were certainly problems in this regard. Assuming we lost the war (I would argue we didn't, we removed Saddam and installed another government, that government failed), it wasn't due to a lack of linguists.

Quote:

---

Fear of Casualties;

---

It depends upon the operation how much risk the politicians will be willing to accept. I have seen no evidence this caused to lose any war.

Quote:

---

War as Symbol;

---

A symbol of what? How did cause it to lose? I love the politically left interpretation of Vietnam. We left Vietnam after North Vietnam signed an agreement (after our military pressured them to do so), two years after we left North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam with superior conventional forces (not an insurgency) and seized control. We were too weakened politically to respond due to a combination of things happening at the time.

Assuming the U.S. lost any wars, who beat us? Then tie how the four items above resulted in our loss. We will lose future wars by not realizing we're at war, and the character of the wars we're in.

Historically, waging war against peace does not yield durable strategic results. If our goal is temporary tactical successes that bleed our strategic strength to the point where we are ultimately defeated in a death of a thousand cuts, then ok. But I will continue to advocate for approaches that are more likely to sustain us as a powerful nation.

The wisest use of power is often restraint. We have acted without wisdom far too much in the post WWII era. A wealthy powerful nation against those brought to their knees by global war could afford that luxury. But now the scale is re-balancing. We must once again set ideology and tactics aside, and become more realist and strategic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Historically, waging war against peace does not yield durable strategic results. If our goal is temporary tactical successes that bleed our strategic strength to the point where we are ultimately defeated in a death of a thousand cuts, then ok. But I will continue to advocate for approaches that are more likely to sustain us as a powerful nation.

The wisest use of power is often restraint. We have acted without wisdom far too much in the post WWII era. A wealthy powerful nation against those brought to their knees by global war could afford that luxury. But now the scale is re-balancing. We must once again set ideology and tactics aside, and become more realist and strategic.

---

You confuse war with a series of tactical actions, that is what we're doing now in lieu of having a serious war strategy. A strategy does not require the military to be in the lead. In short, I agree with your assertion on our current approach. Where we differ is what we name it. I think we approach what we're doing now as peace with no comprehensive strategy in sight, and you seem to think we're approaching it as war.

I know we largely agree, and while I do not feel particularly confused about what war is, I do think that what we are actually bemoaning here is the want of an effective national grand strategy that describes an approach to the world that allows the US to once again be able to "play to win." Our post Cold War strategy has been a "play not to lose" approach to a world full of actors who are all playing to win.

So, my question is, do we want to define ourselves as a nation in negative terms that declare war on the world, or do we want to define ourselves as a nation in positive terms of peace, but that fully recognize that we will often be dealing with all manner of illegal and violent conflicts in the execution of said strategy?

I do not need to call all things war. It is neither accurate nor helpful; and it is not who we are. Americans do not play not to lose well. It grates at our competitive nature. We do not need forever war, but we do need a strategy we can play to win.

Google this paper as one example.
Chapter One, Toward a New Strategy of Peace
Christopher Holshek and Melanie Greenberg
Alliance for Peacebuilding

You have a habit of taking everything to the extreme, perhaps a side effect from reading CvC too much?:D

Quote:

---

So, my question is, do we want to define ourselves as a nation in negative terms that declare war on the world,

---

No where did I or anyone say declare war on the world. In fact, much of the world is with us, and are disappointed in lack of strategy in those we must counter.

Quote:

---

I do think that what we are actually bemoaning here is the want of an effective national grand strategy that describes an approach to the world that allows the US to once again be able to "play to win." Our post Cold War strategy has been a "play not to lose" approach to a world full of actors who are all playing to win.

---

Well said, it would be interesting to see how many counter this and counter that strategies we actually have. We have counternarcotic networks, counter terrorism networks, counter human trafficking networks, counter this networks, counter that networks . . ., the point is we fragment into more and more stove pipes and lack a collective effort that would address all these issues more effectively.

Quote:

---

or do we want to define ourselves as a nation in positive terms of peace, but that fully recognize that we will often be dealing with all manner of illegal and violent conflicts in the execution of said strategy?

---

I can't distinguish between war, conflict, and confrontation. These are terms we tend to throw around carelessly without clear definitions, and they seem to be used to avoid the term war, while to most people they still look like war.

Quote:

---

I do not need to call all things war. It is neither accurate nor helpful; and it is not who we are. Americans do not play not to lose well. It grates at our competitive nature. We do not need forever war, but we do need a strategy we can play to win.

---

This is a fair comment, and it gets back to my original point about DOD as a profession (and the larger national security apparatus) that has failed to develop a relevant lexicon for the 21st Century. If we stick with your definition of war, then the terms war and peace are inadequate and misleading.

I don't always agree with Colin Gray, but he is one of the more prolific writers on strategy and war. The areas in bold are my injected highlights to facilitate further discussion. I think he is close to being on the mark, but not quite there if I'm interpreting his thoughts as he intended correctly. The comments below Gray's are mine, I'm branching off his thoughts. Mine loosely nest with his, but I don't want to give the perception I'm using his arguments to justify mine. I'm confident he would disagree with my branches.

https://www.infinityjournal.com/arti...ntext_and_War/

Terminology: Clarity, Context and War
By Infinity Journal 03/26/2013

Quote:

---

War is not simply the interaction of two state-sanctioned militaries interacting through military means. Rather, war is the use of violence as one tool of politics in order to compel an adversary to do your will.(1) The violence can take many forms and your desired effect of an adversary can be infinite, but what always remains is that it involves the use of force as an instrument to achieve an end. War is a political act to create a political change in an adversary that is beneficial to your own situation.

---

As he explains in the article and other writings, politics is not restricted to states. In fact, small to large non-state groups can and do declare war upon states. They often employ terrorism as supporting tactics, and increasingly they employ terrorism as a form of strategy. To confuse terrorism as simply tactics, and not also as a strategy to compel an adversary to make political changes through the use of force/coercion. The failure to grasp this leads to our confusion on whether or not we're at war with non-state actors. If they are using terrorism to compel political changes, then it is a form of war period. Most wars do not require mobilization of one's nation to wage major battles, rather they're indefinite and relatively small scale affairs, where battle is not decisive.

Colin argues the use of force is required to make it a war, he tends to exchange the terms force and violence as though they're the same thing. I guess it depends upon how you define violence. Is the use of offensive cyber to destroy or disrupt an adversary's cyber systems or infrastructure considered violence? If it is used to compel political change, is it a use of force? Is subversion to promote an uprising against a government considered a use of force? Finally, and not addressed in Gray's article, is Iran's and China's use of soft power tools to marginalize U.S. strategic influence a form of strategic maneuver related to winning an undeclared war, but yet short of war? In my view it is short of war, but it is related to war, and can determine the outcome of future conflicts, as much as moving and maneuvering military forces in preparation and execution of a battle. Putting troops on ships to move them to North Africa to fight the Germans is clearer prelude to war, the intent is clear. Other forms of maneuver in the political and economic domains are not always so clear. Competition? Definitely. Just friendly competition? Hardly.

Quote:

---

Strategy is a process of negotiation between those that develop the ends (policy makers) and those that execute, through ways and means, war.(2) This negotiation creates a narrative for employing the forces in such a way as to create the desired effect on an adversary. It is not a static product designed to allocate resources for a set contingency, nor simply a plan of action updated every five years. It is a living and breathing process undertaken by and between human beings that is dedicating to determining the best policy for a desired outcome against an adversary, which must have the capacity to use or threaten violence, and how to develop and employ resources to achieve it. Any definition of strategy must contain the element of violence. The reason is simple: if one has no means (combat), one cannot have a strategy.

---

I'll start at the bottom, I strongly disagree that strategy must contain an element of violence, and that violence is the only means a group or state has to pursue it ends. If he is referring to a conventional war strategy (one type of strategy), then he has a point. However, the world is more complex than this, and strategy is not something the military alone owns.

Moving back to the top of the paragraph, I strongly agree with these comments. As a friend told me recently, we too recently hear the broken record that we don't have a strategy, everything is going bad because we don't have a strategy, etc. IMO this is complete BS, the reality is we have an evolving strategy based on the negotiation process. I agree it appears to be evolving in the wrong direction. But to think we if had some document that locked in our ends, ways, and means all would be better in the world, we're fooling ourselves.