Military strategy is a discipline that we have chosen to develop lastly in our coursework; the discipline has drawn our attention in our major because we want to understand the importance of designing a strategy on the part of the military before going to war. It is amazing because we will see that from the very beginning of the world, nations or people had always wanted to ensure their dominion or hegemony, as it was the case with the Roman Empire, Napoléon, the Babylonian and the Acadian people. We will grasp the significance of strategy, and as well we shall see that military strategy is an art.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. A Brief Overview of Military Strategy
II. The Elements of National Power
Natural determinants of power
Social Determinants of Power
III. The Five Basic Military Strategies
The Strategy of Extermination
The Strategy of Exhaustion
The Strategy of Annihilation
The Strategy of Intimidation
The Strategy of Decapitation
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this work is to explore the foundations of military strategy and its practical application, particularly how states utilize national power and specific strategic frameworks to achieve political ends. The research examines the evolution of military theory, identifies the key determinants of national power, and analyzes five core military strategies, with a critical focus on the effectiveness of intimidation and regime change in contemporary security contexts.
- Theoretical definitions and historical development of military strategy.
- The natural and social determinants of national power.
- Analysis of military strategies: Extermination, Exhaustion, Annihilation, Intimidation, and Decapitation.
- The role of nuclear weapons and terrorism in modern coercive strategy.
- Case study insights into the political consequences of regime change.
Excerpt from the Book
The Strategy of Intimidation
Bowdish (2013) defines the strategy of intimidation as the deterrence or compellence from some action by violence or threat. But we are going to examine the relationship between psychological intimidation and physical force, maybe best defined by Schelling (1966). In effect, the author points out that it is the threat of destruction or more damage to come that can make somebody concede something. It is when violence is dormant that somebody’s choice can be influenced, that is violence that the enemy thinks can be inflicted. Then Schelling (1966) goes on to clarify that the threat of damage can have an impact on somebody’s motivations. The aim of intimidation is not that the damage and the pain itself but it is the impact on someone’s attitude that is important.
Bowdish (2013) asserts that the efficiency of intimidation is when it is achieved without violence, in other words when intact objectives are achieved without fighting. Indeed, the enemy is intimidated when giving up the political ends without a battle or bullied against the taking of an objective through a combat. To intimidate an enemy, an adversary might perform the skillful utilization of trickery, by making one’s military forces appear more frightening that they are in reality (Bowdish, 2013). It is obvious that the strategy of intimidation requires physical demonstration of power in order to obtain believability in the head of the enemy. This demonstration of power can be reached through battlefield success, military parades or the testing of nuclear weapons (Bowdish, 2013).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides a foundational definition of military strategy as the synthesis of objectives, concepts, and resources, while establishing the work's primary research scope.
I. A Brief Overview of Military Strategy: Reviews the historical evolution of warfare, including traditional maneuvers, modern military developments, and the transition toward nuclear strategy.
II. The Elements of National Power: Analyzes the foundational natural factors like geography and population, alongside social determinants such as economic strength, politics, and military capability.
III. The Five Basic Military Strategies: Explores specific strategic models, ranging from historical methods like extermination to modern applications of annihilation, intimidation, and decapitation.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the core arguments, reaffirming the thesis that intimidation is a critical, modern tool for coercive diplomacy and political maneuvering.
Keywords
Military Strategy, National Power, Geopolitics, Intimidation, Annihilation, Exhaustion, Extermination, Decapitation, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, Regime Change, Warfare, Defense, Coercion, Security Studies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the overarching focus of this research paper?
This paper examines the discipline of military strategy within the context of international security, defining the essential components of strategy and analyzing how these are employed by states to secure political objectives.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The work covers the history of military maneuvers, the determinants of a nation's power (both natural and social), and an in-depth taxonomy of five distinct military strategies.
What is the fundamental goal or research question of this study?
The study aims to provide a clear theoretical understanding of military strategy and to argue that among diverse strategies, intimidation—facilitated by nuclear capabilities and coercive tactics—has become increasingly significant.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a qualitative, descriptive research method, analyzing existing military literature, historical case studies, and strategic definitions provided by established military historians and theorists.
What topics are discussed in the main section?
The main section details the transition from traditional battlefield tactics to modern warfare, evaluates how geography and politics influence power, and categorizes five specific military strategies.
Which keywords best characterize this academic work?
Key terms include Military Strategy, National Power, Intimidation, Coercion, Annihilation, and Geopolitics.
How does the author evaluate the strategy of decapitation?
The author acknowledges decapitation (regime change) as a modern strategy but provides a nuanced critique, arguing that while it aims to resolve disputes by removing leaders, it can often lead to regional instability and political chaos.
What role does the "Ends, Ways, and Means" equation play?
This equation serves as the structural framework for the author's definition of military strategy, illustrating that success depends on aligning specific objectives (ends) with appropriate courses of action (ways) and necessary resources (means).
- Quote paper
- Jean Cédric Obame Emane (Author), 2017, Military Strategy and Military Studies. An Overview, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/416292
