Navigating Conflicts: Identifying Causes and Strategies for Resolving Political-Military Discord
In the realm of civil-military relations, American leaders are encouraged to engage partners in multilateral formats to share risks and costs, imbuing military interventions with more legitimacy. However, technology can make it easier for military leaders to prosecute war without a clear or important political goal, a trend that has been evident in post-9/11 conflicts.
Scholarship on civil-military relations often lays blame for civil-military dysfunctions at the feet of the military. Yet, it is crucial to remember that political biases are upstream of any military myopia and affect far more than existing scholarship has excavated.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to limit presidential war-making powers, but broad interpretations and post-9/11 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) have allowed presidents to conduct extensive military operations, often characterized by targeted strikes, drone warfare, and special operations, without extensive congressional consultation.
Examples of this trend can be seen in U.S. military deployments in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria, where high-tech, precision-guided strikes and unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) have been the preferred approach, reflecting civilian leaders’ preferences to limit risk and exposure of large conventional forces.
The case of Ukraine during the 2022 conflict with Russia also illustrates a civilian leadership decision to prioritize high-tech, unconventional warfare approaches. The Ukrainian government rapidly transformed its defense industrial base to focus on unmanned systems (drones) and decentralized innovation, consciously limiting reliance on older conventional Soviet-era platforms.
While these high-tech approaches offer advantages such as reduced exposure of troops to direct combat and casualties, leveraging technological superiority for precision strikes and intelligence, and facilitating rapid, decentralized decision-making and adaptability, they also come with strategic risks. Potential overreliance on technology can limit strategic flexibility if adversaries adapt, may lead to underestimating the need for conventional forces or broader political-military strategies, and can constrain military commanders’ ability to tailor responses to evolving operational realities.
Moreover, shortened decision-making windows due to advanced weapons with high speeds (e.g., hypersonic weapons) can cause pressure, miscalculations, and escalation risks. In some cases, the United States should refrain from military action to limit imperialistic impulses, and high-tech approaches to war can be operationally inappropriate and may fail to achieve or even retrogress political objectives.
The ideal in civil-military relations is mutual trust and rigorous, balanced exchange. Trust cast upward depends on civilian leaders authentically evaluating prudent options submitted by military authorities regardless of partisan and electoral politics. An open letter on best practices of civil-military relations published by former defense secretaries and Joint Chiefs of Staff reinforces the necessity of civilian intervention in military operations.
In conclusion, the use of high-tech military interventions in unconventional conflicts is a complex issue with both advantages and disadvantages. While these approaches offer benefits such as reduced troop risk and enhanced precision, they also pose strategic risks from constrained options and pressures induced by rapid technological changes. It is essential for civilian leaders to strike a balance, ensuring that military interventions align with strategic and political goals, and that the use of force is justified, legitimate, and effective.
- National security leadership should be mindful of the implications of relying overly on high-tech military interventions, as the lack of strategic flexibility and potential underestimation of the need for conventional forces could pose significant risks.
- The excessive use of political biases in shaping military myopia is a matter that requires attention in discussions of civil-military relations, given its far-reaching impacts on policy-and-legislation and politics.
- Balanced and rigorous collaboration between civilian leaders and the military is essential for maintaining effective civil-military relations, with civilian leaders playing a crucial role in military operations by providing guidance and ensuring policy alignment.
- In the realm of war-and-conflicts, the responsibility of policymakers extends beyond technological advancements; they must consider the broader political, military, and strategic implications of their decisions to achieve legitimate and effective outcomes.
- The decision to prioritize high-tech, unconventional warfare approaches, as demonstrated in the case of Ukraine during the 2022 conflict with Russia, should not ignore the importance of maintaining strategic and political objectives, and the need for military capabilities and broader political-military strategies.
- In the pursuit of preserving national security, the use of military research and technological superiority must be applied with caution, taking into account the potential drawbacks such as encroaching on liberal democratic norms and exacerbating political tensions in the context of military-security matters.
