Has the “Revolution in Military Affairs” Misunderstood War Itself?
6/11/2009“The essence of war is violence, and moderation in war is imbecility”, wrote Lord Macaulay in 1831.
Does the nature of war change? Or does only its character do?
In light of the recent deterioration of the Afghan situation, it’s worth reading this piece written by Stanley Kober in the Guardian. It’s called “Misunderstanding modern war”.
America’s biggest mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq was to think its modern military would make winning easy
[…] in its overconfidence, the US overlooked several things.
Like Napoleon, it underestimated the resentment many people feel at foreign occupation.
Napoleon had also achieved a revolution in military affairs, and consequently he was exceptionally effective in defeating armies in battle. His invasion of Russia, culminating in the occupation of Moscow, seemed initially like a stunning triumph.
But the people did not submit, and he had to abandon Moscow. With his army in retreat, his allies deserted him. He lost the war and was sent into exile.
Napoleon thought the message of French democracy would be welcomed. When France began to send its armies abroad following the revolution, its leaders thought they would be greeted as liberators. “It will be a crusade for liberty,” confidently proclaimed one of its leaders, Jacques-Pierre Brissot.
Not everyone was convinced. “No one loves armed missionaries,” responded Robespierre. But his caution, which proved prescient, was overruled.
