February 28th 2015

  Buy Issue 2942

Articles from this issue:

ENERGY SA Labor prepares to consider nuclear power

CANBERRA OBSERVED Time for Mr Abbott to level with the Australian people

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Coalition family package must include homemakers

SOCIETY Homosexual 'marriage'? First, listen to the children

WESTERN CIVILISATION The secular challenge to freedom of belief

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Human Rights Commission's partisanship exposed

EDITORIAL A way forward for Tony Abbott...

ECONOMIC AGENDA How Tony Abbott can become the 'infrastructure PM'

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS Taiwan leads the way with the knowledge economy

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Greece and EU edge towards debt crunch

MILITARY AFFAIRS Stand-off war, hands-on war and cyber war

OPINION Call me a wowser, but too much sex ain't good for us

INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS The folly of Australia's public intellectuals

CINEMA The horror and pity of war: American Sniper


Ten harmful myths laid to rest

Books promotion page

Stand-off war, hands-on war and cyber war

by Earl Tilford

News Weekly, February 28, 2015

“We have tried since the birth of our nation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly.”General George C. Marshall, 1945.

War remains, as a Prussian general defined it nearly two centuries ago, the use of force to compel the enemy to do your will. Strategy connects ways and means to achieve an objective. The basics of strategy apply to war, be it regular, irregular, guerrilla warfare, nuclear war or insurgency.

Terrorism is a tool. It can underlay strategy, but it also involves applying ways and means to achieve a goal. The same can be said for counter-terrorism. Victory depends on strategy. An inappropriate strategy cannot be redeemed by heroism, effusive bloodletting or abundant force.

Since the American Civil War, the United States has excelled at warfare by bringing overwhelming power to bear in clearly defined campaigns where strategy reflects and implements policy.

More complicated conflicts such as Vietnam and the current “war on terror” are troublesome because our enormous technological and material advantages seemingly obviate the need for in-depth strategic analysis. Additionally, the separation of policy-makers from military leaders discourages the dialogue needed to obtain what President Ronald Reagan brought to fruition by clearly identifying the “Evil Empire” and corralling Congress to fund a military build-up the Soviets could not match.

In the 21st century the United States must prepare for three kinds of warfare: 1) stand-off war, 2) hands-on war and 3) cyber war.

Each presents unique challenges, but the strategic approach of tying policy to desired outcome generally applies. Get that wrong and we lose.

Stand-off war involves major powers. Armies, air forces and navies will clash. Controlling space matters. The threat of nuclear holocaust is real. Losers will pay a heavy price. Deterrence is key, but that requires strategic acumen as well as heavy economic investment. The challenge for the United States is to upgrade its nuclear arsenal, invest in missile defence, and maintain air, sea and land forces second to none.

Hands-on war involves irregular warfare, insurgency and terrorism. The goal is to control people. Intelligence is key. If the people feel they can be defended and protected, then intelligence is easier because the populace will abandon insurgents and terrorists, forcing them underground or into complex terrain away from population centres where military force can be applied effectively. Public support isolates terrorists and insurgents.

Culture and ideology coincide in hands-on war. Failure to grasp the true nature of the conflict makes it difficult to devise an appropriate strategy. These wars are won and lost in the minds of people. Failure to recognise the true nature of this war makes devising an appropriate strategy nearly impossible.

Speed can be more important than strength and since Americans are not fond of long wars, time favours insurgents and terrorists. Fighters driven by fanaticism are literally dying to win both ideologically and physically. Looking back at Vietnam, a hands-on war, public disenchantment with the war erupted in 1968, seven years after JFK drew a line in the sand in South Vietnam.

Cyber war presents unique challenges. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Michael Dempsey, in a Fox News interview with reporter Chris Wallace, stated the United States is unprepared for cyber warfare because it levels the playing field. Major powers, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and terrorist groups can get involved.

Interesting food for thought: What would be the appropriate strategic response to a “Cyber Pearl Harbor” that might not kill anyone immediately but impoverish millions of Americans by destroying our banking systems?

Even more daunting is the threat posed by an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack. A limited number of nuclear detonations in the upper atmosphere could devastate the United States. China and Russia are capable of carrying out such an attack. North Korea and a nuclear-capable Iran could do so relatively soon.

Our technologically advanced society is extremely vulnerable. Electrical power grids would crash, conceivably for extended periods. Personal computers would be useless. Automobiles rife with microchip technology might not start. Even if they did, when gas tanks empty there would be no way to refill because gas pumps wouldn’t work; credit and debit cards would be useless. Public services like water, sewerage and garbage collection would end. Typhoid, typhus and cholera epidemics would overwhelm our health care system as medical supplies ran out with no replenishment. Imagine hurricane Katrina hitting every major U.S. metropolitan centre simultaneously.

The complexity of 21st century warfare requires preparation and, above all, what war has always demanded: sound strategic thought. As always, warfare, at whatever level, remains two thirds mental and one third physical.

Dr Earl Tilford is a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer, who earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as director of research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left government service for a professorship at The Center for Vision & Values, a conservative think-tank at Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania, where he has taught courses in military history and national security. This article is reproduced with the Center’s permission.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am