Modern War and Successful Warfare Essay

Introduction

The modern approach to war is radically different from the strategies used in the past. Direct confrontation and a single battle are nowadays replaced by the strategic maneuver and creation of the effective logistics chain. WWII became a critical stage in the history of humanity and governments and resulted in the reconsideration of the approach to military campaigns and measures needed to attain success. As one of the winners of WWII, the USA learned an essential lesson of how to lead military conflicts and attain desired outcomes. Since 1940, U.S. success in warfare has centered around large-scale nation-state conflict focused on a whole-of-government approach, effective logistical processes, and the development of technology. It resulted in the emergence of new tactics and strategies and, at the same time, helped to make the U.S. positions at the international level stronger.

Government Approach

As stated in the thesis, the government and its support play a critical role in military campaigns led by the USA. The whole-of-government approach has been a marker of successful warfare at the strategic level since 1940. Synchronizing the defense, diplomacy, and development efforts of all federal agencies maximizes the use of resources and allows for a unified effort leading to greater chances of achieving strategic goals. Employing this paradigm, the USA managed to create a pool of resources that can be used for strategic purposes to focus on diplomacy or activity of governmental agencies and support their effective functioning.

The state’s position and strategy during the Cold War can be used as one of the examples explaining the critical role of the government in successful warfare. Thus, the National Security Council (NSC) 68 entitled “United States Objectives and Programs for National Security” was a top-secret report by the Defense Department, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other interested agencies¹. NSC-68 was vital in America’s overall shift in foreign policy to a comprehensive containment strategy of a strategic great power competitor (Soviet Union) and towards all communist governments². Providing substantial governmental support to the work of this agency, the USA managed to generate a competitive advantage over its closest rival and avoid direct confrontation by using diplomacy and other non-military resources. As a result, the long-term goals were achieved, and the USA became the winner in the Cold War.

The work of Joint Task Force-Bravo can also prove the critical importance of governmental involvement. Its role in countering communism and narcotics from 1980 to 2010 cannot be denied, as this joint task force helped to eliminate numerous threats to the global order and protect the existing regimes³. As a result, specific goals were achieved, and the USA preserved its influence in various regions. It became a result of the combination of military and non-military resources and collaboration between various agencies.

The global war on terrorism initiated by the U.S. government is another example of how the state attains success in warfare. The political decision to start military campaigns against various groups helped to gather support and use available resources to plan and carry out numerous operations⁴. For this reason, the USA’s central role in resisting the terrorist threat is explained by its current approach to making war. Various forms of governmental involvement help to resolve existing issues and promote better outcomes.

Finally, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) and USNORTHCOM are also critical parts of the existing strategy. It implies that the U.S. Army can be used to help civil authorities⁵. For example, hurricane Katrina’s aftermath was managed using military forces, which helped to support order and avoid critical outcomes. In such a way, cooperation between the government and the Army results in numerous successes and the achievement of current goals vital for the state and its survival.

Logistics

As stated previously, current military operations are characterized by increased sophistication and demands for supply. Thus, similar to how the synchronization of all elements of national power has marked successful warfare at the strategic level in the modern era, the efficient logistics platforms for supply, transport, and maintenance have marked success at the operational level. It means that creating effective supply chains and transportation junctions is vital for attaining final success. Otherwise, the lack of planning and control will result in the collapse due to the insufficient supply of resources.

During World War II, the Battle of St. Vith illustrates the importance of controllin the flow of transportation to track supplies. The town was a critical road junction with increased strategic importance, meaning its control would help a party to acquire a competitive advantage⁶. For this reason, today, the U.S. army focuses on gaining control over the infrastructure and junctions to align adequate supply and protect it from numerous risks⁷. It helps to attain success and perform existing tasks. At the same time, it reduces the risks of being surrounded and defeated because of the lack of strategic maneuvers.

Furthermore, efficient traffic control and ammunition supply points increased the lethality of U.S. forces and ensured an armistice with North Korea. The military conflict was characterized by sophisticated strategic plans and decisions, as well as armies’ maneuvers and moves⁸. For this reason, the U.S. control over roads and supply points reduced the effectiveness of the North Korean army and created the basis for negotiations and following peace⁹. The example also proves the critical significance of logistics and the necessity to use all available resources to align the infrastructure vital for supporting the army.

The war in Vietnam also revealed the fundamental role of supply points and junctions. Effective logistical supply and transportation processes, along with the use of the helicopter during the battle of the la Drang Valley, ensured the sustainability of U.S. forces for long-term combat operations¹⁰. At the same time, the U.S. failure to secure its major roads and infrastructure from constant attacks resulted in the failure of the whole campaign and the inability to attain success in the region.

Technology

Finally, technology also becomes one of the critical elements of successful warfare. Since 1940, successful warfare at the tactical level capitalized on technological advancements, specifically with new weapons systems and equipment. Increasing the speed of kill-chain lethality, sometimes through technological advancements, enables faster responses and allows for greater exploitation of successes before a subsequent reaction or counteraction. For this reason, The USA devotes much attention to developing military technologies as the guarantee of its security.

The atomic bomb during World War II served to deter future conflicts and hostilities and to end World War II. This event shows the significance of technological superiority and its use as a possible tool to win a war or attain success. Using a new and devastating weapon, the USA stopped the further escalation and avoided new victims among different populations. For this reason, today, technology has become a critical aspect of modern warfare and helps to minimize risks of unexpected strikes or attacks¹¹.

Lessons learned from previous operations also help to promote technological development. The Huey helicopter served as a combat multiplier for air assault and medical evacuation operations and resulted in better future weaponry, such as the Black Hawk. It resulted in the emergence of technological superiority and contributed to the creation of a new military vehicle. It could be used in different regions to struggle against enemies and defeat them¹². In such a way, the given examples show the critical importance of technologies for successful warfare and how the USA employs this aspect to create the basis for future dominance.

Conclusion

Altogether, the 20th century was characterized by critical alterations in the approaches to military strategy and tactics. Two world wars demonstrated the increased effectiveness of combined efforts and new methods to achieve current goals and attain success. Since 1940, success in warfare has centered around large-scale nation-state conflict focused on a whole-of-government approach, effective logistical processes, and the development of technology. Nesting these three tenets under the strategic, operational, and tactical umbrella creates a coherent lens for commanders to understand, visualize, and describe their operations successfully. The USA successfully integrated these elements into its new strategy and reconsidered its approaches to warfare. Ensuring governmental support, controlling logistics and supply points, and fostering technological development, the army became one of the dominant forces in the world.

Bibliography

Army Futures Command. “Vision.” AmryFuturesCommand. Web.

Blannin, Patrick. “The Good Operation: Notes on a Whole-of-Government Approach to National security.”Modern War Institute (Online). 2018.

Defense Support of Civil Authorities. “USNORTHCOM CONPLAN.” Northcom. Web.

The U.S. Army Center of Military History. American Military History. New York, NY: St. John Press, 2016.

Walt, Sean. “US Grand Strategy After the Cold War: Can Realism Explain it? Should Realism Guide it?” International Relations 32, no. 1, (2018): 3-22.

Footnotes

1. Sean Walt, “US Grand Strategy After the Cold War: Can Realism Explain it? Should Realism Guide it?” International Relations 32, no. 1, (2018): 18.
2. Ibid., 19.
3. Patrick Blannin, “The Good Operation: Notes on a Whole-of-Government Approach to National security,” Modern War Institute (Online). 2018. Web.
4. The U.S. Army Center of Military History. American Military History (New York, NY: St. John Press, 2016), 77.
5. Defense Support of Civil Authorities, “USNORTHCOM CONPLAN,” Northcom. Web.
6. Ibid., 91.
7. Ibid., 92.
8. Ibid., 101.
9. Ibid., 107.
10. Ibid., 121.
11. Army Futures Command, “Vision,” AmryFuturesCommand. Web.
12. Ibid.