{"product_id":"armed-conflict-isbn-9780891418030","title":"Armed Conflict","description":"What challenges will America face in armed conflicts of the future and how will we prepare for them? National security depends upon the ability of the military to “predict” the future nature of war. Despite the difficulty in making such predictions, one must remember: nation states and other countries will continue to use armed conflict as a means to further their aims, and these aims will, at times, run contrary to American interests. As a result, the United States will continue to be confronted with armed conflict in the days and years ahead.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA military theorist and experienced armor officer, Brian Steed provides insights into the future of armed conflict by focusing on what has occurred in the past–not because the past repeats itself, but because it reveals timeless principles of warfare. Five battles, one each in Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands, the Persian Gulf, and Somalia are analyzed historically, geographically, and strategically. Steed’s analysis of these engagements clearly demonstrates that the key to victory on the battlefields of the future is the small unit. In refreshing layman’s prose, the author focuses on why the events occurred as they did, and explores the significance of each battle in terms of its political and military ramifications. He concludes with lessons learned that will greatly benefit future American ground combat commanders.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003ci\u003eArmed Conflict\u003c\/i\u003e informs the reader about the historical trends of combat operations and the realities of war–today and into the future. It will also serve to guide a new generation of military and civilian leaders as they prepare to face the inevitable conflicts in the new century.U.S. Army officer \u003cb\u003eBrian Steed\u003c\/b\u003e holds a master’s degree in international relations from Vermont College of Norwich University. \u003ci\u003eArmed Conflict\u003c\/i\u003e is his first book. Captain Steed’s previous assignments include duty with the OPFOR at the National Training Center. He is currently stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky.This chapter provides the framework that demonstrates the\u003cbr\u003ealteration in the very nature of ground conflict. This is to say\u003cbr\u003ethat the context in which any ground conflict may be conducted\u003cbr\u003eis significantly different from such conflicts fought in the\u003cbr\u003epre-World War II era--the era of industrial-age warfare.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFirst, to explain the evolution in warfare: During the period\u003cbr\u003e1795-1945, the world witnessed a series of struggles\u003cbr\u003eamong the great powers. Most of these wars were fought with\u003cbr\u003ealliances and coalitions and covered several regions of the\u003cbr\u003eglobe. This period culminated in two major world wars. The\u003cbr\u003elast two wars clearly demonstrated the concept of total war,\u003cbr\u003ein which a nation invests all of its resources to achieve its\u003cbr\u003ewar aims. In the early part of this period, during the\u003cbr\u003eNapoleonic era, the world saw the growth of the army from\u003cbr\u003ea relatively limited structure of wealthy nobles and their retainers\u003cbr\u003eto one of large, conscripted land forces numbering in\u003cbr\u003ethe millions. The combination of total war and massive armies\u003cbr\u003erequired long, drawn-out struggles that sought to exhaust the\u003cbr\u003eabilities and assets of the opposing nation. These three concepts--\u003cbr\u003etotal war between nation-states, massive armies, and\u003cbr\u003eprotracted conflict--have become, for the current time and\u003cbr\u003einto the foreseeable future, less likely than anytime in the\u003cbr\u003epost-World War II era.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn many respects this is not a new phenomenon. Immediately\u003cbr\u003efollowing World War II, the combination of total war,\u003cbr\u003emassive armies, and protracted conflict between two rela-\u003cbr\u003etive peer nations was just as unlikely as it is today; however,\u003cbr\u003ethe Cold War struggle clouded our ability to see the change in\u003cbr\u003estrategic affairs with clarity.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe end of the Cold War further magnified the changes already\u003cbr\u003etaking place. The use of military force extends from\u003cbr\u003esupport of domestic disaster relief to strategic nuclear war.\u003cbr\u003eAfter the end of the Cold War, the preponderance of military\u003cbr\u003edeployments shifted from a war or near-war focus to what\u003cbr\u003eare often referred to as operations other than war (OOTW).\u003cbr\u003eThe reasons for the departure from the traditional view of\u003cbr\u003econflict are the focus of this chapter.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn the 1990s, two terms seemed to dominate articles written\u003cbr\u003eabout the future of the military or about national security\u003cbr\u003eaffairs. These terms are Revolution in Military Affairs\u003cbr\u003e(RMA) and Military Technological Revolution (MTR). These\u003cbr\u003eterms are nearly synonymous and focus on the technological\u003cbr\u003echanges that the U.S. military infrastructure has promoted.\u003cbr\u003eThe focus on newer, bigger, faster, and apparently better\u003cbr\u003eweapons has driven a technology-focused improvement rather\u003cbr\u003ethan an idea-, threat-, or people-driven one.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe most dominant term in the national security arena was\u003cbr\u003eRMA. One could hardly read an article about the future of national\u003cbr\u003esecurity or the military without running across this\u003cbr\u003eterm. It is defined as \"a major change in the nature of warfare\u003cbr\u003ebrought about by the innovative application of technologies\u003cbr\u003ewhich, combined with dramatic changes in military doctrine,\u003cbr\u003eand operational concepts, fundamentally alters the\u003cbr\u003echaracter and conduct of operations.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAre technological innovations changing the nature of warfare?\u003cbr\u003eThis question is at the heart of the views between this\u003cbr\u003ebook and many writers in the national security arena. The details\u003cbr\u003eof the debate between definitions are beyond the scope\u003cbr\u003eof this book, but clearly RMA is too narrow a definition for\u003cbr\u003ethe change in the overall context of military operations just\u003cbr\u003edescribed.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe definition of MTR is even more technically based. It is\u003cbr\u003e\"a technical development that when properly exploited\u003cbr\u003ethrough equipment, training, organization and doctrine provides\u003cbr\u003ea decisive (although temporary) advantage.\"\u003cbr\u003eThis de -finition focuses even more on technology and its impact on\u003cbr\u003econflict and is even more narrow than that of RMA. Referencing\u003cbr\u003ethe five levels of strategy outlined in the Introduction,\u003cbr\u003eRMA and MTR focus more on the tactical and technical levels\u003cbr\u003eof strategy. RMA has been shown to improve capabilities at\u003cbr\u003ethe operational and theater strategy levels, but not to the degree\u003cbr\u003eof changing the nature in which these strategies are conducted.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe Geostrategic Revolution is the phenomenon that most\u003cbr\u003enational security and foreign policy writers discuss when\u003cbr\u003etalking about the context of these rapid changes in policy and\u003cbr\u003ethe global framework. In some respects this term is actually\u003cbr\u003etoo large. It tends to focus on the diplomatic and economic elements\u003cbr\u003eof national power.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks combined with\u003cbr\u003ethe geostrategic changes of the last fifty years should lead\u003cbr\u003ethose who are concerned with national security and military\u003cbr\u003eissues to see the world in a completely different context (economic,\u003cbr\u003ediplomatic, and military) in which future conflict\u003cbr\u003ewill be conducted.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe world and military conflict must be considered in\u003cbr\u003elight of the changes occurring in national security and with\u003cbr\u003ean understanding that they are not limited simply to the technological\u003cbr\u003echanges of placing computers in armored vehicles\u003cbr\u003eor the use of satellites to assist in the improvement of situational\u003cbr\u003eawareness; nor are they just about the changing global\u003cbr\u003eframework. These are all useful developments and have the\u003cbr\u003epotential to create evolutionary change in the future of conflict,\u003cbr\u003ebut clearly they are not the main reason that conflict\u003cbr\u003eis now revolutionarily different.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA major part of the current national security environment\u003cbr\u003eis the fundamental shift in geopolitical alignment. Alignment\u003cbr\u003ehas changed from multipolar (pre-World War II) to bipolar\u003cbr\u003e(Cold War). Now the geopolitical alignment is becoming multipolar\u003cbr\u003eagain. As is the case in any multipolar organization,\u003cbr\u003eno two elements of power are dominated by the same nations.\u003cbr\u003eIn the evolving world situation, there are different dominant\u003cbr\u003epowers in each element. Here is a simple example of the various\u003cbr\u003edominant nations:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eForm of Power Dominant Nations\u003cbr\u003eeconomic power United States, Japan, China\u003cbr\u003eand the European Union\u003cbr\u003ediplomatic power United States, the European\u003cbr\u003epow-ers  (Britain, France, and Ger\u003cbr\u003e-many),\u003cbr\u003eForm of Power Dominant Nations\u003cbr\u003ethe People's Republic of China,\u003cbr\u003eand Russia\u003cbr\u003emilitary power United States (defined as\u003cbr\u003eglobal \u003cbr\u003epower projection ability)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe United States remains a superpower in that it is the\u003cbr\u003eonly nation that is a leader in all areas of power and therefore\u003cbr\u003ewields the most influence. The diversity of power \"is a\u003cbr\u003eunique phenomenon of [this] era [in] that economic and military\u003cbr\u003emight tend to be in separate hands.\" This statement is especially true when considering the current Russian economic\u003cbr\u003eposition.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe economic revolution has taken the primary position\u003cbr\u003eamong the elements of power: \"Economic strength will become\u003cbr\u003ean increasingly important aspect of national power, and\u003cbr\u003ein many cases the decisive aspect, in what promises to be a\u003cbr\u003emore competitive global commercial and financial environment.\"","brand":"Presidio Press","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46304052904165,"sku":"NP9780891418030","price":19.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9780891418030.jpg?v=1767721777","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/es\/products\/armed-conflict-isbn-9780891418030","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}