My Personal Theory of War
Introduction
Theory provides the ground framework within which professional discussion takes place. It gives boundary or corridor to facilitate communication and direction. Theory allows debate or improvement when a situation no longer be explained. In this paper, I would like to present my theory of war. Inspired by Clausewitz, I will try to elaborate on some topics including: the definition of war, the reasons for war, characteristics of war, and how wars are won and my personal projection of the future war.
What is war
From Sun Tzu in the east to Clausewitz in the west, many thinkers in history tried to define what the war is. Clausewitz -life in 19th century- tried to see the appropriate relationship between politics and war. When a friend sent him the problem for comment, he replied that it was impossible to draft a military operation without knowing the political condition or the relationship of each other states; war is not independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics in different means[1]. This definition of war is totally different compared to Sun Tzu – life circa 300 B.C.- who believed that war is a grave concern of the state, so it must be studied thoroughly[2]. He recognized that armed strife is not transitory aberration but a recurrent conscious act and therefore susceptible to rational analysis. From these two examples, we realize that the understanding of war is different from time to time, from generation to generation. The technological improvement, the ethical judgment and the interaction of values between nations create different meanings of war.
In my personal interpretation, war is a conflict between two or more parties involving a clash of will, an act of violent force to compel another to do our will, and an extension of the policy of each party. Parties could be nation states, or a group toward states. Examples of war between states are easy to find. Examples of war between a group towards state are not easy to find, but one example is when the Jews had war with Arab countries before 1948. The Six Days War in 1967 was no longer between Jews toward Arab countries but Israel toward Arabs countries because Israel had become a sovereign state. Compelling another to do our will means, that when another does our will, we win the war. This is clear as General Clark commented after the US-led air strikes toward former Yugoslavia. He said that achieving decisive political aims may not require decisive military results[3]. The air strike itself was implementation of the Allied policy toward former Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia complied with our will.
The cause of war
For centuries, there have been debates to find out the cause of war. Karl Max had a very articulated opinion that economic interest[4] caused war, although one can argue that Marx’s main theoretical preoccupation was with that particular phase of history characterized by fully developed capitalism. According to Liddell Hart,[5] the object of war is a better state of peace, even if only from one point of view. That is why according to him, it is very important to wage war with a constant regard to the peace we desire. This applies for both aggressor who invades and the nations who fight to defend themselves. It is interesting to know that according to Clausewitz[6], wars are fought to disarm the enemy’s country. He further explained that the enemy’s country should be covered to destroy their force, occupy the country and break their will to fight. And the most simply statement was made by Machiavelli,[7] whose stated that the aim of war must be to face an enemy in the field and to defeat him there.
But in my personal opinion, wars are fought to fulfill the national interest. We can find complex relationships within the national interest. There are constant struggles of ideas or smaller aspects of the national power to consider. When the friction of ideology, politics, economics, culture, religious, and military aspects reaches a certain level, a nation will decides that war will be beneficial. But when one or more of these aspects is endangered, then a party will try to avoid war, except for a nation in total war.[8], A total war mobilizes all resources, economic and military, supported by a society to engage the enemy in any geographic zone, or with any available weaponry. Sometimes in total war, a nation fights a scorched-earth campaign, even in one’s own territory.
Characteristics of war
There are many thoughts on the characteristic of war. Most strategists have their own list. Clausewitz’s characteristics of war include having an objective, friction and chaos, as instrument of policy, uncertainty, violent, and as the last resort. The complex development of international relationship, the economic interdependency between states, the marvelous progress of information and communication technology and the gap between the first world and underdeveloped countries are all new characteristics to add those we already know. In this paper, I will try to elaborate more on he characteristics that I believe will describe war.
The first characteristic describes who is fighting. War can involve nation-state actors also non-state actors. When we look at the history of the 19th century, only states waged war. The belligerent never means a people or group to challenge a state. That situation slowly changed when revolutionary wars or the wars of independence began to spread around the world as a result of a vacuum power left by WW II. The most significant turbulence happened when the US government declared war toward small organizations such as Al Qaeda. All of a sudden, we became convinced that the actor is not only a nation-state, but also non-states.
The second characteristic is war must have clear military objective(s), an end state and exit strategy. A military commander plans based on the objective(s) he has to achieve. He will derive the military objective from the end state politicians give him. When there is no clear objective, he will try to create an objective(s). In the war situation, a military commander could get lost in chaos if he does not have any objective. It is the responsibility of the military commander to tell the politician to give the end state and exit strategy because the commander realizes that military is an instrument of policy.
War is characterized by the dynamic of fog, friction and chaos. The fog of peace comes for a while before friction and chaos suddenly replace it. Everything becomes uncertainty, as war spreads violence everywhere. The only difference in war between the good and the bad actor is the moral basis. That is why the mistake of one soldier could create disaster for the whole division, such as incident in Abu Gharib, Iraq. This is the new war, and we have to be familiar with the circumstances surrounding it. The media is everywhere, the public freely gives comment on what happens, and the politicians give uncertainty. We life in a volatile, uncertain, critical, ambiguous (VUCA) situation, and we have to love it. As Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander-in-Chief U.S. Central Command, in 1997 refused to act when the White House asked him to draw Iraqi fire without proper order[9].
War causes pain everywhere. Casualties always happen, the only difference is the number between the two parties. It is coercive action that, if possible is to be avoided. It is the last resort, but sometimes useful. For example, in early 1980s, the Israel Air Force use the planes to destroy Iraqi nuclear reactor Osirak I[10] and also attacked Yassir Arafat headquarters in Tunisia[11]. In the 1986, US took punitive action against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi by accurately hitting his tent[12].
All wars have both tangible and intangible costs. As long as the nation can bear the tangible cost and the public and the military are able to carry the intangible cost, there will be no problem to wage war. War uses paradoxical logic. The more difficult the objective to reach, the smaller the forces. The smaller the enemy, the more difficult to defeat them. As Clausewitz said, that war admittedly has its own grammar, but not its own logic.
To be successful, war must be supported by national will. National unity is deemed to be as essential requirement of victorious war. The unity and stability on home front and high morale in the army will assure remarkable acuity. When we already have this in hand, then we are ready to impose our will. When nations apply all the power they have, they may come to a point of uncertainty. That is why war involves deliberate planning and strategy because the fate of the nation is at stake. Most wars involve use of force or at least the threat of force. Lately, more and more politicians have depended on military threats to reach their political objectives. This is not wrong, but the more we use the military as a threat, the more diplomatic approaches become unused. Sometimes a political leader wants to change the status quo, in order to do that he uses military power to wage a war. He hopes that his action will produce a decision to become a winner or loser.
How wars are won
According to Sun Tzu[13], wars are won when we are able to frustrate enemy plans, break their alliances, create cleavages between their people or troops, infiltrate their intelligence and break their will to fight. Thus, the best master wins the war without battle. Only when the enemy can not be overcome by these means will the armed forces charge in to gain the victory in the shortest possible time, at the least possible cost in life and effort, and with infliction on the enemy of the fewest possible casualties. According to Clausewitz[14], to win a war, we have to use maximum force. It is a fallacy to believe an enemy can be defeated without much bloodshed, because war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. Another interesting opinion comes from Ralph Peters, a warmonger, who advocates wars of attrition. Specifically he mentions about the war in Iraq[15]; First, the war against religious terrorism is unquestionably a war of attrition- if one of the enemy is left alive or unimprisoned, he will continue trying to kill. Second, Operation Iraqi freedom, for all its dashing maneuvers, provides a new example of postmodern war of attrition.-one in which the casualties are overwhelming on one side.
I disagree that the use of force in modern warfare becomes the main tool to win the war. So, I support when General Wesley K. Clark stated that it is very important to use diplomacy backed by force[16], as he did with Serbia, even though not so many people support his statement. Actually, what he said was an adaptation from the old Sun Tzu or Clausewitz principles regarding how to wage the war. It is the will of the leader or the heart of the people who run the war. When the will to fight is diminished or disappears a war can easily be win.
Future war
My personal projection of the future of war is based on a prediction from the current trend wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Kosovo war. These wars basically were asymmetric wars. The Iraqi government had collapsed but the insurgence emerged. In Kosovo, the air strike destroyed all the radar and strategic military communication, but we never sent ground forces. In Afghanistan, the Taliban hid in the mountains or mixed with the tribes on the Pakistan border, so we could not defeat it. The Coalition Forces have difficulties destroying the Taliban even though we use better technology and equipment. When President Bush declared global war on terror, it became clear that the US had difficulties with their own power trying to destroy Al Qaeda. The US needed another coalition to crush the terrorist group.
When we look carefully to search for the cause of war, we will find there is no single cause of all these wars. The complexities of the causes make it impossible to distinguish each from the other. Is it because of the oil, military industrial complex, regional balance or anxieties that all the reserves in US dollar will be transferred to Euros and create financial chaos across the globe? Or is it because China is investing a lot of money trying to secure an energy deal they desperately need? Should we ask Huntington[17] if this is an example of a clash of the civilizations or ask Fukuyama[18] if only liberal democratic governments will be allowed on earth? No one knows the answer
What ever the reason, the super power has an obligation to maintain the world order and with or without the UN authority, move to compel the threat. With the political, economic, military, and technological dominance, it is clear there is not a single country in the world that will challenge the US. It is very important to synergize the national power to end war as soon as possible. While nations have always aimed in war to gain their objectives with the least cost, in future wars, achieving decisive political aims may not require decisive military results.
In my prediction, the future of war will more likely resemble Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. There will be environmental challenges such as valley, mountain, vegetation and villages and cities with peoples we do not want to harm. But we may limit the use of air strike due to environmental hazards, WMD, or NBC storage concerns. In addition, we have to obey any new law and be aware of journalist movement, or public outcry in carrying out our plans. Even with the best precision strike, we still need precision acquisition and identification on the ground. In this case, we still need people to observe and report back to us. Technology may help us with unmanned aerial vehicles, but it only reduces the size of this forward force, not omit it totally. As commander in the field, an officer must understand the process the transition from the political dynamic to a military dynamic.
Conclusion
Debates between theoreticians on the definition of war will continue, just as war will continue to visit our civilized world despite the different definitions of war. There is no single cause of war. However, the war we fight and the characteristics of war we face today slowly will evolve as we become more familiar with asymmetric war. The future of war may resemble the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. We can even expect war when the adversary is not major and the issues at stake do not threaten the survival of the nation. The features of this type of war will also capture public commentary -the reluctance to accept casualties, the horror of civilian casualties, and the impact of the media- are each driven by deeper factors. We have to avoid the use of force as the main tool to win the war. We have to maximize the use of diplomacy backed by force. The future of war may violate some principles of war- such as having a clear objective, unity of command, simple plan, economy of force, or surprise- but the basic principles are still the same. The future struggle on many fronts will depend on the success of the transition from the political dynamic to a military dynamic.
[1] Carl Von Clausewitz, On War, Indexed edition, edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, New Jersey,1984), 7
[2] Sun Tzu, The Art of War , translated by Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford University Press, London,1971), 36
[3] Wesley K Clark, Waging Modern War (Public Affair, New York, 2001), 418-419
[4] Bernard Brodie, War and Politics (Macmillan, New York, 1973),281
[5] B.H. Liddel Hart, Strategy, second revised edition, ( New York,1991), 338
[6] Carl Von Clausewitz, 91
[7] Machiavelli in Makers of Modern Strategy, edited by Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, New Jersey,1986),23
[8] Roy Gutnam and David Rieff, Editors, Crimes of War (W.W.Norton, New York, 1999), 355
[9] Dana Priest, ”The Mission: Waging War and Peace with America’s Military ( W.W. Norton, New York, 2003) 81
[10] BBC News, “On This Day, 1981: Israel Bomb Baghdad Nuclear Reactor,” available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm; accessed 18 September 2007.
[11]Wikipedia, the Free encyclopedia,” Operation Wooden Leg,” available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg; accessed 18 September 2007.
[12] BBC News, “On This Day, 1986: US Launches Air Strike on Libya,” available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3975000/3975455.stm; accessed 18 September 2007.
[13] Sun Tzu, 39
[14] Carl Von Clausewitz, 75
[15] Ralph Peters, In Praise of Attrition, Parameters, Vol. 34, No.2, Summer 2004, pp.24-32
[16]Wesley K Clark, 345-374
[17] Samuel P. Huntington, ”The Clash of Civilization?” in Conflict After the Cold War: Argument on Causes of War and Peace, ed. Richard K. Betts( Longman, New York, 1989) 207
[18] Francis Fukuyama, ”The End of History?” in Conflict After the Cold War: Argument on Causes of War and Peace, ed. Richard K. Betts( Longman, New York, 1989) 5
Introduction
Theory provides the ground framework within which professional discussion takes place. It gives boundary or corridor to facilitate communication and direction. Theory allows debate or improvement when a situation no longer be explained. In this paper, I would like to present my theory of war. Inspired by Clausewitz, I will try to elaborate on some topics including: the definition of war, the reasons for war, characteristics of war, and how wars are won and my personal projection of the future war.
What is war
From Sun Tzu in the east to Clausewitz in the west, many thinkers in history tried to define what the war is. Clausewitz -life in 19th century- tried to see the appropriate relationship between politics and war. When a friend sent him the problem for comment, he replied that it was impossible to draft a military operation without knowing the political condition or the relationship of each other states; war is not independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics in different means[1]. This definition of war is totally different compared to Sun Tzu – life circa 300 B.C.- who believed that war is a grave concern of the state, so it must be studied thoroughly[2]. He recognized that armed strife is not transitory aberration but a recurrent conscious act and therefore susceptible to rational analysis. From these two examples, we realize that the understanding of war is different from time to time, from generation to generation. The technological improvement, the ethical judgment and the interaction of values between nations create different meanings of war.
In my personal interpretation, war is a conflict between two or more parties involving a clash of will, an act of violent force to compel another to do our will, and an extension of the policy of each party. Parties could be nation states, or a group toward states. Examples of war between states are easy to find. Examples of war between a group towards state are not easy to find, but one example is when the Jews had war with Arab countries before 1948. The Six Days War in 1967 was no longer between Jews toward Arab countries but Israel toward Arabs countries because Israel had become a sovereign state. Compelling another to do our will means, that when another does our will, we win the war. This is clear as General Clark commented after the US-led air strikes toward former Yugoslavia. He said that achieving decisive political aims may not require decisive military results[3]. The air strike itself was implementation of the Allied policy toward former Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia complied with our will.
The cause of war
For centuries, there have been debates to find out the cause of war. Karl Max had a very articulated opinion that economic interest[4] caused war, although one can argue that Marx’s main theoretical preoccupation was with that particular phase of history characterized by fully developed capitalism. According to Liddell Hart,[5] the object of war is a better state of peace, even if only from one point of view. That is why according to him, it is very important to wage war with a constant regard to the peace we desire. This applies for both aggressor who invades and the nations who fight to defend themselves. It is interesting to know that according to Clausewitz[6], wars are fought to disarm the enemy’s country. He further explained that the enemy’s country should be covered to destroy their force, occupy the country and break their will to fight. And the most simply statement was made by Machiavelli,[7] whose stated that the aim of war must be to face an enemy in the field and to defeat him there.
But in my personal opinion, wars are fought to fulfill the national interest. We can find complex relationships within the national interest. There are constant struggles of ideas or smaller aspects of the national power to consider. When the friction of ideology, politics, economics, culture, religious, and military aspects reaches a certain level, a nation will decides that war will be beneficial. But when one or more of these aspects is endangered, then a party will try to avoid war, except for a nation in total war.[8], A total war mobilizes all resources, economic and military, supported by a society to engage the enemy in any geographic zone, or with any available weaponry. Sometimes in total war, a nation fights a scorched-earth campaign, even in one’s own territory.
Characteristics of war
There are many thoughts on the characteristic of war. Most strategists have their own list. Clausewitz’s characteristics of war include having an objective, friction and chaos, as instrument of policy, uncertainty, violent, and as the last resort. The complex development of international relationship, the economic interdependency between states, the marvelous progress of information and communication technology and the gap between the first world and underdeveloped countries are all new characteristics to add those we already know. In this paper, I will try to elaborate more on he characteristics that I believe will describe war.
The first characteristic describes who is fighting. War can involve nation-state actors also non-state actors. When we look at the history of the 19th century, only states waged war. The belligerent never means a people or group to challenge a state. That situation slowly changed when revolutionary wars or the wars of independence began to spread around the world as a result of a vacuum power left by WW II. The most significant turbulence happened when the US government declared war toward small organizations such as Al Qaeda. All of a sudden, we became convinced that the actor is not only a nation-state, but also non-states.
The second characteristic is war must have clear military objective(s), an end state and exit strategy. A military commander plans based on the objective(s) he has to achieve. He will derive the military objective from the end state politicians give him. When there is no clear objective, he will try to create an objective(s). In the war situation, a military commander could get lost in chaos if he does not have any objective. It is the responsibility of the military commander to tell the politician to give the end state and exit strategy because the commander realizes that military is an instrument of policy.
War is characterized by the dynamic of fog, friction and chaos. The fog of peace comes for a while before friction and chaos suddenly replace it. Everything becomes uncertainty, as war spreads violence everywhere. The only difference in war between the good and the bad actor is the moral basis. That is why the mistake of one soldier could create disaster for the whole division, such as incident in Abu Gharib, Iraq. This is the new war, and we have to be familiar with the circumstances surrounding it. The media is everywhere, the public freely gives comment on what happens, and the politicians give uncertainty. We life in a volatile, uncertain, critical, ambiguous (VUCA) situation, and we have to love it. As Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander-in-Chief U.S. Central Command, in 1997 refused to act when the White House asked him to draw Iraqi fire without proper order[9].
War causes pain everywhere. Casualties always happen, the only difference is the number between the two parties. It is coercive action that, if possible is to be avoided. It is the last resort, but sometimes useful. For example, in early 1980s, the Israel Air Force use the planes to destroy Iraqi nuclear reactor Osirak I[10] and also attacked Yassir Arafat headquarters in Tunisia[11]. In the 1986, US took punitive action against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi by accurately hitting his tent[12].
All wars have both tangible and intangible costs. As long as the nation can bear the tangible cost and the public and the military are able to carry the intangible cost, there will be no problem to wage war. War uses paradoxical logic. The more difficult the objective to reach, the smaller the forces. The smaller the enemy, the more difficult to defeat them. As Clausewitz said, that war admittedly has its own grammar, but not its own logic.
To be successful, war must be supported by national will. National unity is deemed to be as essential requirement of victorious war. The unity and stability on home front and high morale in the army will assure remarkable acuity. When we already have this in hand, then we are ready to impose our will. When nations apply all the power they have, they may come to a point of uncertainty. That is why war involves deliberate planning and strategy because the fate of the nation is at stake. Most wars involve use of force or at least the threat of force. Lately, more and more politicians have depended on military threats to reach their political objectives. This is not wrong, but the more we use the military as a threat, the more diplomatic approaches become unused. Sometimes a political leader wants to change the status quo, in order to do that he uses military power to wage a war. He hopes that his action will produce a decision to become a winner or loser.
How wars are won
According to Sun Tzu[13], wars are won when we are able to frustrate enemy plans, break their alliances, create cleavages between their people or troops, infiltrate their intelligence and break their will to fight. Thus, the best master wins the war without battle. Only when the enemy can not be overcome by these means will the armed forces charge in to gain the victory in the shortest possible time, at the least possible cost in life and effort, and with infliction on the enemy of the fewest possible casualties. According to Clausewitz[14], to win a war, we have to use maximum force. It is a fallacy to believe an enemy can be defeated without much bloodshed, because war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. Another interesting opinion comes from Ralph Peters, a warmonger, who advocates wars of attrition. Specifically he mentions about the war in Iraq[15]; First, the war against religious terrorism is unquestionably a war of attrition- if one of the enemy is left alive or unimprisoned, he will continue trying to kill. Second, Operation Iraqi freedom, for all its dashing maneuvers, provides a new example of postmodern war of attrition.-one in which the casualties are overwhelming on one side.
I disagree that the use of force in modern warfare becomes the main tool to win the war. So, I support when General Wesley K. Clark stated that it is very important to use diplomacy backed by force[16], as he did with Serbia, even though not so many people support his statement. Actually, what he said was an adaptation from the old Sun Tzu or Clausewitz principles regarding how to wage the war. It is the will of the leader or the heart of the people who run the war. When the will to fight is diminished or disappears a war can easily be win.
Future war
My personal projection of the future of war is based on a prediction from the current trend wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Kosovo war. These wars basically were asymmetric wars. The Iraqi government had collapsed but the insurgence emerged. In Kosovo, the air strike destroyed all the radar and strategic military communication, but we never sent ground forces. In Afghanistan, the Taliban hid in the mountains or mixed with the tribes on the Pakistan border, so we could not defeat it. The Coalition Forces have difficulties destroying the Taliban even though we use better technology and equipment. When President Bush declared global war on terror, it became clear that the US had difficulties with their own power trying to destroy Al Qaeda. The US needed another coalition to crush the terrorist group.
When we look carefully to search for the cause of war, we will find there is no single cause of all these wars. The complexities of the causes make it impossible to distinguish each from the other. Is it because of the oil, military industrial complex, regional balance or anxieties that all the reserves in US dollar will be transferred to Euros and create financial chaos across the globe? Or is it because China is investing a lot of money trying to secure an energy deal they desperately need? Should we ask Huntington[17] if this is an example of a clash of the civilizations or ask Fukuyama[18] if only liberal democratic governments will be allowed on earth? No one knows the answer
What ever the reason, the super power has an obligation to maintain the world order and with or without the UN authority, move to compel the threat. With the political, economic, military, and technological dominance, it is clear there is not a single country in the world that will challenge the US. It is very important to synergize the national power to end war as soon as possible. While nations have always aimed in war to gain their objectives with the least cost, in future wars, achieving decisive political aims may not require decisive military results.
In my prediction, the future of war will more likely resemble Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. There will be environmental challenges such as valley, mountain, vegetation and villages and cities with peoples we do not want to harm. But we may limit the use of air strike due to environmental hazards, WMD, or NBC storage concerns. In addition, we have to obey any new law and be aware of journalist movement, or public outcry in carrying out our plans. Even with the best precision strike, we still need precision acquisition and identification on the ground. In this case, we still need people to observe and report back to us. Technology may help us with unmanned aerial vehicles, but it only reduces the size of this forward force, not omit it totally. As commander in the field, an officer must understand the process the transition from the political dynamic to a military dynamic.
Conclusion
Debates between theoreticians on the definition of war will continue, just as war will continue to visit our civilized world despite the different definitions of war. There is no single cause of war. However, the war we fight and the characteristics of war we face today slowly will evolve as we become more familiar with asymmetric war. The future of war may resemble the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. We can even expect war when the adversary is not major and the issues at stake do not threaten the survival of the nation. The features of this type of war will also capture public commentary -the reluctance to accept casualties, the horror of civilian casualties, and the impact of the media- are each driven by deeper factors. We have to avoid the use of force as the main tool to win the war. We have to maximize the use of diplomacy backed by force. The future of war may violate some principles of war- such as having a clear objective, unity of command, simple plan, economy of force, or surprise- but the basic principles are still the same. The future struggle on many fronts will depend on the success of the transition from the political dynamic to a military dynamic.
[1] Carl Von Clausewitz, On War, Indexed edition, edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, New Jersey,1984), 7
[2] Sun Tzu, The Art of War , translated by Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford University Press, London,1971), 36
[3] Wesley K Clark, Waging Modern War (Public Affair, New York, 2001), 418-419
[4] Bernard Brodie, War and Politics (Macmillan, New York, 1973),281
[5] B.H. Liddel Hart, Strategy, second revised edition, ( New York,1991), 338
[6] Carl Von Clausewitz, 91
[7] Machiavelli in Makers of Modern Strategy, edited by Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, New Jersey,1986),23
[8] Roy Gutnam and David Rieff, Editors, Crimes of War (W.W.Norton, New York, 1999), 355
[9] Dana Priest, ”The Mission: Waging War and Peace with America’s Military ( W.W. Norton, New York, 2003) 81
[10] BBC News, “On This Day, 1981: Israel Bomb Baghdad Nuclear Reactor,” available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm; accessed 18 September 2007.
[11]Wikipedia, the Free encyclopedia,” Operation Wooden Leg,” available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg; accessed 18 September 2007.
[12] BBC News, “On This Day, 1986: US Launches Air Strike on Libya,” available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3975000/3975455.stm; accessed 18 September 2007.
[13] Sun Tzu, 39
[14] Carl Von Clausewitz, 75
[15] Ralph Peters, In Praise of Attrition, Parameters, Vol. 34, No.2, Summer 2004, pp.24-32
[16]Wesley K Clark, 345-374
[17] Samuel P. Huntington, ”The Clash of Civilization?” in Conflict After the Cold War: Argument on Causes of War and Peace, ed. Richard K. Betts( Longman, New York, 1989) 207
[18] Francis Fukuyama, ”The End of History?” in Conflict After the Cold War: Argument on Causes of War and Peace, ed. Richard K. Betts( Longman, New York, 1989) 5
No comments:
Post a Comment