Posted on 03/02/2010 5:22:03 PM PST by neverdem
Enormous, massively destructive engagements may again be on the horizon.
Have we not seen, then, in our lifetime the end of the Western way of war? Two decades ago, I concluded The Western Way of War with that question. Since Western warfare had become so lethal and included the specter of nuclear escalation, I thought it doubtful that two Western states could any longer wage large head-to-head conventional battles. A decade earlier, John Keegan, in his classic The Face of Battle, had similarly suggested that it would be hard for modern European states to engage in infantry slugfests like the Battle of the Somme. The suspicion grows, Keegan argued of a new cohort of affluent and leisured European youthrebellious in spirit and reluctant to give over the good life to mass conscriptionthat battle has already abolished itself.
Events of the last half-century seem to have confirmed the notion that decisive battles between two large, highly trained, sophisticated Westernized armies, whether on land or on sea, have become increasingly rare. Pentagon war planners now talk more about counterinsurgency training, winning the hearts and minds of civilian populations, and smart interrogation techniquesand less about old-fashioned, blow-em-up hardware (like, say, the F-22 Raptor) that proves so advantageous in fighting conventional set battles. But does this mean that the big battle is indeed on its way to extinction?
Big battles sometimes changed entire conflicts in a matter of hours, altering politics and the fate of millions. It is with historys big battles, not the more common dirty war or insurgency, that we associate radical changes of fortune as well as war poetry, commemoration, and, for good or ill, the martial notions of glory and honor. Had the Greeks lost their fleet at Holy Salamis in 480 bc, instead of beating back the Persian invaders, the history of the polis might well have come to an end, and with it a vulnerable Western civilization in its infancy. Had the Confederates broken the Union lines at Gettysburg and swept behind Washington, Abraham Lincoln would have faced enormous pressure to settle the Civil War according to the status quo ante bellum. If the band of brothers had been repulsed at Normandy Beach on the morning of June 6, 1944, it is difficult to imagine that they would have reattempted an enormous amphibious invasion soon afterbut easy instead to envision a victorious Red Army eventually camped on the Atlantic Coast and occupying Western Europe.
Yet set engagements, its important to note, have never been the norm in warfare. The 27-year-long Peloponnesian War saw only two major ground engagements, at Delium (424 bc) and Mantinea (418 bc), and a few smaller infantry clashes, at Solygeia and outside Syracuse. In the asymmetrical struggle between Athenian naval power and premier Spartan infantry, the most common kinds of fighting were hit-and-run attacks, terrorism, sieges, constant ravaging of agriculture, and sea and amphibious assaults. True, during the murderous Roman Civil War (4931 bc), frequent and savage battles at Actium and elsewhere claimed more than a quarter-million Roman lives. Yet after the creation of the Principate by the new emperor, Augustus, much of the Mediterranean world was relatively united and free of frequent major battles for nearly half a millennium. And after the fall of the Roman Empire, for most of the Middle Ages, sieges and low-intensity conflict were more common than major engagements such as Poitiers (732), Hattin (1187), and Crécy (1346).
In fact, the course of military history has been strikingly cyclical. The eminent military historian Russell Weigley once described an Age of Battlesa uniquely destructive two centuries of pitched warfare between Gustavus Adolphuss victory at Breitenfeld (1631) and Napoleons defeat at Waterloo (1815)in which European armies of multifarious rivals, often in vain, sought to decide entire wars in a few hours of head-to-head fighting. That age ended with the agreements following the Congress of Vienna, which (along with military deterrence) kept a general peace in Europe for nearly a century. Set battles were common only in colonial theaters (Tel el Kebir, Omdurman), in Asia (Tsushima), and in the Americas (the decisive battles of the Mexican, Spanish-American, and American civil wars).
Then, during the first half of the twentieth century, came another Age of Battles, with the First and Second World Wars witnessing the most destructive fighting in the history of arms. The details of Iwo Jima, Kursk, Marne, Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Passchendaele, the Somme, Stalingrad, and Verdun still chill the reader. Asia saw horrors of its own: most Westerners know little about the Huaihai campaign (late 194849), in which the Nationalist Chinese lost an entire army of 600,000 to the Communists in mostly conventional fighting.
Today, the world is clearly enjoying another respite from huge set battles. Except for the daring American landing at Inchon (September 1950) and the subsequent first liberation of Seoul, few battles of the last seven decades resembled the Battle of the Bulge. Far more common in the past half-century have been the asymmetrical wars between large Westernized militaries and poorer, less organized terrorists, insurgents, and pirates. The list of theaters where conventional forces have battled guerrillas is long: Afghanistan, Grozny, Iraq, Kashmir, Mogadishu, the Somali coast. Seldom does an indigenous force dare to come out in the open, marshal its resources, and test head-on the firepower and discipline of a Westernized force. Historys record on that scorefrom Tenochtitlán to Omdurmanis not encouraging for those who try.
Those who have successfully attacked the United Statesin Lebanon (1983), at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), at Americas East African embassies (1999), on the USS Cole (2000), and in New York and Washington in 2001did so as terrorists. If nation-states sponsored such radical Islamist groups, they nearly always denied culpability, avoiding an all-out conventional war with the United States that they would inevitably loseas the brief rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan demonstrated in 2001.
Amid the murderous fighting between well-organized armies during the Vietnam War, North Vietnam as a matter of practice did not attempt to engage Western forces in formal set engagements. (The sieges at Khe Sanh and, earlier, against the French at Dien Bien Phu proved the exceptions rather than the rule and were themselves not traditional collisions of infantry.) In its failed attempt in the 1980s to take over Afghanistan, the Soviet army may have killed more than 1 million Afghans without once engaging in a set collision with tens of thousands of jihadists. We still do not know all the gory details of the Iran-Iraq war (198089), in which more than 1 million combatants and civilians perished. But despite the carnage that characterized that war, set engagements, out in the open, between two massed armies were not a major part of the conflict, so far as we know.
Even the Mother of All Battles in the 1991 Gulf War was largely a rout. The tank battle at Medina Ridge involved hundreds of armored vehicles but lasted little more than an hourthe Americans suffering neither casualties from enemy fire nor a single Abrams tank destroyed, while obliterating 186 Iraqi tanks. Today, few Americans even know what Medina Ridge was. In other engagements, most of Saddams army disintegrated rather than fight advancing American armoras was commonly the case again during the three-week war of 2003.
Some decisive fighting took place between British and Argentinean units during the Falklands War of 1982, but on a minuscule scale compared with the twentieth centurys bloody engagements. Tank battles raged in the Golan Heights during both the Six-Day War (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). For a few days, also in 1973, the Israelis and the Egyptian Third Army fought each other openly in the desert expanses of the Sinai Peninsula. But the far more usual pattern of the inconclusive Israeli-Arab conflict has been terrorism, intifadas, bombings, and missile strikes.
Why does decisive battle wax and wane in frequency, and why has it become rarer again? The political landscape certainly explains much. Empire of any sort can lessen the incidence of warfare. Unified, central political control transforms the usual ethnic, tribal, racial, and religious strife into more internal and less violent rivalries for state representation and influence. Once Philip unified Greece under a Macedonian hegemony after Chaeronea (338 bc), set battles between city-states, so common earlier in the fourth century bc, became a rarity. For now, anyway, the European Union lacks the interstate rivalry that plunged Europe into murderous battles for much of the first half of the twentieth century.
When the world is divided into larger blocs that have sizable, competent conventional forcessuch as the Soviet and American spheres during the Cold Warconfrontation can potentially turn catastrophic, given the vast resources available to each side. Yet its also possible that in such a bipolar world, battling along nationalist lines, among a variety of state players, will be less frequent. No nation of the Warsaw Pact fought the Soviet Republic; American allies like Iran did not threaten American allies like Israel; Tito and Yugoslavian Communism for a time kept Bosnians, Croats, Kosovars, Macedonians, and Serbs from killing one another.
In the present age, many of the most powerful economies in the world are united under the loose rubric the West, which includes some former nations of the British Empire (Australia, Canada, New Zealand), the transatlantic NATO alliance (most of the European Union and the United States), and democratic nations of the Pacific (Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan), along with miscellaneous allies, capitalist and democratic, such as India and Israel. At present, there is virtually no likelihood that we will see decisive battles between any of these similarly minded democratic states, even though a mere 70 years ago, when consensual government was less widespread among them, most of them squared off in various temporary alliances against one another in terrible engagements.
Technology also helps explain the current decline in conventional battles. The battlefield can now be seen and mapped to the smallest pebble through aerial photography, often by unmanned drones that update pictures second by second. Surprise is rare. Potential combatants know the odds in advance. They can use the Internet to download the most minute information about their adversaries. Generals can see streaming video of prebattle preparations and calculate, to some degree, the subsequent cost.
Uncertainty and the unknown were often essential to the outbreak of decisive battles, since each opposing force usually felt it had some chance of operational success. Had the British enjoyed satellite reconnaissance of the German lines in the days before and during the Somme, they might have curtailed their suicidal assaults. Had the Americans possessed live streaming video of Japanese forces fortifying bunkers on Okinawa, they might not have chosen to assault the Shuri Line frontally. Picketts Charge up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg was predicated on an erroneous assumption that there was an especially weak spot in the Unions linea conjecture that General Robert E. Lee would have easily corrected if hed had a Predator drone at his disposal.
Weaponry is not static. It resides within a constant challenge-and-response cycle between offense and defense, armor and arms, surveillance and secrecy. Body armor may soon advance to the point of offering, if only for a brief period, protection against the bullet, which centuries ago rendered chain and plate mail useless. The satellite killer may render the satellite nonoperational. Sophisticated electronic jamming may force down the aerial drone. Yet for now, the arts of information-gathering about an enemy trump his ability to maintain secrecy, thus lessening the chance that thousands of soldiers will be willing to march off to massive battle.
The cost of todays military technology, too, renders big battles more unlikely. To wage a single decisive battle between tens of thousands of combatants along the lines of a Gaugamela or a Verdun would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a figure far beyond the resources of most belligerents. A single B-1 bomber on patrol overhead represents a $1 billion investment. Abrams tanks go for over $4 million. A single cruise missile can cost over $1 million. One GPS-guided artillery shell may cost $150,000; one artillery platform could expend over $10 million in ordnance in a few hours. Even a solders M-4 assault rifle runs well over $1,000. The result is that very few states can afford to outfit an army of, say, 100,000 infantry, supported by high-tech air, naval, and artillery firemuch less keep it well supplied for the duration of battle. Even in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when weapons were cheap compared with todays models, both Egypt and Israel needed massive amounts of new weaponry from the Soviet Union and the United States shortly after the commencement of fighting.
Globalizationaccelerated by technologyis another reason that decisive battles are uncommon today. Instant cell-phoning and text-messaging, the Internet, access to DVDs, and satellite television have created a world culture that depends on uninterrupted communications. It frowns on massive disruptions in airline flights, banking, and the easy importation of consumer goods. Electronic togetherness hinges on our shared appetitesand a growing communal comfort factor. When Russia invaded Georgia, its oil buyers became upset. So did its own aristocratic grandees, who saw international capital flee Moscow. European states worry about oil shortages, should the U.S. bomb Iran; China frets about its vital American export market, should it invade Taiwan.
Finally, changing mores have changed military tactics. The current ascendant belief in the West that war is unnatural, preventable, and the result of rational grievancesthat it can, with proper training and education, be eliminatedhas probably made battle less tenable among the general public. The bombing of fleeing Iraqi bandit brigades from Kuwait on the so-called Highway of Death in the first Gulf War was halted by popular outrage because of the televised carnage. The abhorrent images of death on millions of television screens easily trumped the argument that the enemy, who had just committed rapine in Kuwait, should be punishedor preempted, since he was likely to regroup in Iraq to slaughter Kurdish and Shiite innocents again. Russias shelling and destruction of Grozny escaped world condemnation only because a news blackout ensured that Westerners saw little of mass death.
We shouldnt assume, though, that these various forces will always prevent set battles. Similar predictions have proved wrong before. In 1909, Norman Angells The Great Illusion argued that Europe had achieved too great an interdependence of financial credit, economic integration, and prosperity to throw it all away on nihilistic warmaking. The Somme, Passchendaele, and Verdun shortly followed.
Human beings remain emotional, irrational, and guided by intangible calculations, such as honor and fear, that collectively can induce them into self-destructive behavior. Armed struggles that at times result in horrific collisions are as old as civilization itself and are a collective reflection of deep-seated elements within the human psychetribalism, affinity for like kind, reckless exuberancethat are constant and unchanging. We are not at the end of history.
Can big battles, then, haunt us once more? If the European Union were to dissolve and return to a twentieth-century landscape of proud rivals, or if the former Soviet republics were to form a collective resistance to an aggrandizing Russia (as they did for much of the nineteenth century), or if the North Koreans, Pakistanis, or Chinese were to gamble on an agenda of sudden aggression (as they have on previous occasions when they were confident of achieving political objectives), then we might well see a return of decisive battles. The U.S. military still prepares for all sorts of conventional challenges. We keep thousands of tanks and artillery pieces in constant readiness, along with close-ground support missiles and planes, in fear that the Peoples Army of Korea might try to swarm across the Demilitarized Zone into Seoul, or that the Chinese Red Army might storm the beaches of Taiwan.
Waterloos or Verduns may revisit us, especially in the half-century ahead, in which constant military innovation may reduce the cost of war, or relegate battle to the domain of massed waves of robots and drones, or see a sudden technological shift back to the defensive that would nullify the tyranny of todays incredibly destructive munitions. New technology may make all sorts of deadly arms as cheap as iPods, and more lethal than M-16s, while creating shirts and coats impervious to small-arms fireand therefore making battle cheap again, uncertain, and once more to be tried. Should a few reckless states feel that nuclear war in an age of antiballistic missiles might be winnable, or that the consequences of mass death might be offset by perpetuity spent in a glorious collective paradise, then even the seemingly unimaginablenuclear showdownbecomes imaginable.
In short, if the conducive political, economic, and cultural requisites for set battles realign, as they have periodically over the centuries, we will see our own modern version of a Cannae or Shiloh. And these collisions will be frightening as never before.
Victor Davis Hanson is a contributing editor of City Journal; a classicist and military historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; and the editor of the forthcoming Makers of Modern Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome.
The next big set-piece battles will probably occur in the United States between the less urbanized areas and the more heavily urbanized areas ~ and will be exceptionally lethal when the nukes are cut loose.
Makes one think a bit differently about recent USSC Second Amendment casts... something to be said for the demise of the second in denser “blue” areas like DC and Cleveland if it could correspond to its strengthening in red areas everywhere else.
The past is prologue.
Lots of wars have been fought for less.
Good Hanson read.
Those old books, gathering dust these forty years, may need to be relocated and dusted off. Who could have prophesied in reality the seizure of the White House by the Alien Usurper?
Yep. Look up the War of Jenkin's Ear for a good example.
This is a most interesting article. However, I think what is overlooked is that much of the world is envious of wealth and power. Whenever “they” think they can defeat us militarily they will strike. Beside that what else could motivate them. Internal problems - start a war to take their population’s mind off their immediate problems. If the ChiComs have a great deal of internal unrest, the ICBMS will fly and their armies will march. It is interesting to speculate who their allies may be in such an event.
Another factor which will cause wars is access to and control of natural resources. As the world’s population increases, if they are not educated, there will be an enormous population pool to exploit for an unfortunate war.
Unfortunately, our present leadership is severely limited by ideology and perhaps intelligence. May God have mercy on our children and their children.
Good article. I think that Hansen and Keegan, whom he cites near the beginning of his article, may be our two best writers on the nature of war in the West.
I think the article is not about whether wars will be fought, but how. It’s been sortof commonly accepted that the grand and decisive winner-take-all sort of battle is obsolete. Replaced by the skirmish warfare we’ve been seeing lately... insurgency... terrorism.
But these things run cyclicly, and he is wondering I think if we aren’t going to turn a corner into a new age of big set-piece battles. Among other changes as technologies become cheaper and more homogenous.
I say we attack AIG, ACORN and Goldman Sachs NOW!
Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise ('Don't panic, carry on' isn't working)
Supreme Court Misfires on McDonald Argument
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Was there a thesis to this other tan things change, stay the same, follow cycles and revolutionary change?
EMP wouldn’t destroy the military they have known about, and taken steps to eliminate, the EMP damage. On the other for example take Germany or France and give them an EMP from a sneak Iranian launch. Good luck mobilizing armored units when the civilians are clogging the roadways in search of food and/or shelter.
Thanks for the ping!
Armageddon Now.
Should a few reckless states feel that nuclear war in an age of antiballistic missiles might be winnable, or that the consequences of mass death might be offset by perpetuity spent in a glorious collective paradise, then even the seemingly unimaginablenuclear showdownbecomes imaginable.
He’s talking about Iran here.
Unless we use the few nukes left after they "downsize" that force too. But either way, if Hansen is right, we are screwed.
Not most military technology, which is designed to resist EMP. Has been every since we discovered the effect. Wouldn't do the civilian infrastructure any good though, and then we might win the first battle, and still lose the war. The civilian infrastructure ultimately supports the military too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.