5170708slideswk03

International Security: 

International Security Week 3: Theories of Strategic Studies

Lecture aims: 

Lecture aims A short review of some of the major theorists on the subject. More recent thoughts on how ‘strategic studies’ is currently perceived and may be changing.

Major theorists: 

Major theorists Niccolo Machiavelli (16th century) Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) Basil Liddell-Hart (1895-1970)

Machiavelli ‘elements of war’ -1: 

Machiavelli ‘elements of war’ -1 War is an important part of political life Struggles and uncertainty shape the character and methods of war The war aim must be the total defeat of the enemy Wars must be ‘short and sharp’ As everything depends on the battle everything must be done to ensure the battle is won.

Machiavelli ‘elements of war’ -2: 

Machiavelli ‘elements of war’ -2 A decisive battle should be the aim of a military campaign and the campaign must be properly organised and co-ordinated. Command must be in the hands of one person. Military success depends on order and discipline. There should be a close and harmonious relationship between political and military authorities.

Napoleon Bonaparte: 

Napoleon Bonaparte Huge strategic innovations Manpower Conscription - citizen soldiers Training Organisation Corps’ d’armee Mobility Logistics Decisive battle

Carl von Clausewitz: 

Carl von Clausewitz ‘Offensive war’ ‘Remarkable Trinity’ People, State, Army ‘War is nothing but the continuation of policy by other means’

Carl von Clausewitz: 

Carl von Clausewitz Idea of ‘Friction’ Basics of military organisation pretty much up to WW1

Basil Liddel-Hart: 

Basil Liddel-Hart Contemporary strategist Heavily influenced by WW1 Advocate of ‘defensive war’ Concept of ‘indirect’ warfare

Basil Liddel Hart: 

Basil Liddel Hart ‘physical or psychological dislocation’ Upset the enemies disposition Separate the enemies forces (either geographically or functionally) Endanger the enemies supply or communication lines. Threaten an enemies line of retreat

The resonance of Hart: 

The resonance of Hart ‘But suppose we were an influence (as we might be), an idea, a thing invulnerable, intangible, without front or back, drifting about like a gas? Armies were like plants, immobile as a whole, firm rooted, nourished through long stems to the head. We might be a vapour, blowing where we listed. Our kingdoms lay in each man’s mind, and as we wanted nothing material to live on, so perhaps we offered nothing material to the killing. It seemed a regular soldier might be helpless without a target. He would own the ground he sat on, and what he could poke a rifle at..... The Turk was stupid and would believe that rebellion was absolute, like war, and deal with it on the analogy of absolute war.......and to make war upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife.’

20-21st Century: 

20-21st Century Cold War accelerated growth in ‘Strategic studies’ No strong academic-theoretical base Policy application more important - therefore practitioners often prominent - not always popular with academics. US civilian strategists - scientific/ mathematical backgrounds

Field of ‘Strategic Studies’: 

Field of ‘Strategic Studies’ Defence studies Military studies Security studies War studies Strategy Arms control Peace studies

Dearth of Modern Strategy -1: 

Dearth of Modern Strategy -1 No great practitioners of war - like Napoleon - no great interpretative theorists have emerged. Warfare so complicated in 20th century, individual theorists are unable to master the subject. Clausewitz did easy bit. Considered war to be a ‘natural’ thing. More important is discovering causes of war and avoiding war. 20th century not provided talented theorists.

Modern Strategy -2: 

Modern Strategy -2 That ‘classics’ like Clausewitz have simply not emerged yet - are there but not recognised as such. Basically Clausewitz have done it all already. Field of theorists so small there is not really a critical mass of thought. Strategic thought in 20th century has only been about immediate concerns - WW2, Cold War, nuclear deterrence, anti-terrorism not about ideas as a whole.

Conclusions: 

Conclusions Major theorists Machievelli/Clausewitz - political element Jomini/Liddel-Hart - strategic/tactical link Development of ‘strategic studies’ as area of academic study Cold War effects on subject Post Cold War reactivation of interests