Brett's War Theory

1500 Words 6 Pages
Machiavelli, Kautilya, Clausewitz, and Jomini were all strategic thinkers who presented models for describing the nature and character of war. Each of them could certainly be credited with providing insights in statecraft and military power. Each also had insights limited by the context of the conflicts of their times. Subsequent theorists had the advantages of not only reading the works of their predecessors, but also the perspectives of understanding such areas as geopolitics, economic and cultural globalization, global powers, and nationalism. Two such theorists, B.H. Liddell Hart and Sir Julian Corbett are particularly relevant in explaining the nature and character of war in the 21st Century. Hart, in imparting a modern definition …show more content…
The many factors of this framework can all lead peoples and states to attempt indirect approaches to warfare as they test the new balances of power and the limits of national and trans-national influences, or begin to influence resources and activities on the global commons. The following case studies are a small sampling to illustrate the applicability of Hart’s and Corbett’s …show more content…
B.H. Liddell Hart’s approach was evident in both the adversaries. This was an attack by a non-state actor (arguably with state support) against a powerful sovereign state using an undeclared and limited war tactic. The attacks’ objectives (again, arguably) were to instill fear, likely to warn the West that new influences were being tested and expanded in south Asia and the Middle East to change the global balance of power and geopolitical realities. Osama Bin Laden’s network could not hope to conquer the United States in a total war but could potentially reach some of its objectives in the indirect approach surprise attacks that it used. The United States’ response could be described as total war against Afghanistan and later Iraq, but I would argue that the US still used a limited war response in that only limited Reserves were mobilized, US industries were not nationalized, and both strategic and tactical targeting was limited initially to national and military targets and then later only to insurgents. More importantly the United States was not trying to conquer to occupy territory, but to reestablish a better peace. Subsequent terrorist attacks against the United Kingdom, France, and elsewhere, were all similar in employing indirect approaches to attacking our civilian open society weaknesses essentially trying to send a message to the West to get out of

Related Documents