A Complicated Distinction: The Philosophical Evolution of Thinking about War and Peace
In: Thinking About War and Peace: Past, Present, and FutureSearch for other papers by Sean N. Kalic in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
As the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ enters its tenth year, it has become increasingly important to understand and explain the way in which western militaries study and theorize about war. At the heart of this study is a comparison of how western military theorists have explained and written about war from the middle of the nineteenth century to today. Focusing on the writings of theorists, still heavily read and studied at western military academies, staff colleges, and war colleges, theorists such as Antoine De Jomini, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Giulio Douhet, Roger Trinquier, Frank Kitson and Mark Moyar, ones gets a sense of how military thought has evolved away from the abstract and utopian ideals of understanding and explaining war, toward a greater emphasis on causes, motivation, and physical realities of combat. Basically, the conclusion offered in my study is that modern counter-insurgency theorists ( Trinquier, Kitson, and Moyar) offer a much more conscious of the inter-play between the abstract kinetic based concept of war and the reality of conducting military operations. In arriving at my conclusion, I observe that modern counter-insurgency theorists have become aware of the unintended consequences and limits of using force. Hence, the ‘new reality of warfare,’ as identified by counter-insurgency theorists, often demands social, economic, or political options in lieu of or in coordination with military operations. The net result of writing and thinking about the dynamic and complex demands of counter-insurgency is that modern militaries are becoming increasingly aware of the unclear distinction between war and peace.