1. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Military Power Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute Stephen Biddle November 10, 2004 From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004

2. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Agenda 1. What is “military power”? 2. Standard explanations 3. A new explanation 4. Recent experience: Afghanistan and Iraq 5. Implications

3. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 What is “Military Power”? Ability to take and hold territory Ability to inflict (and avoid) casualties Time required Initial focus: mid-high intensity conventional warfare

4. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Standard Explanations 1. Material Preponderance (Quantity) 2. Technology (Quality) 3. Force Employment (Strategy, tactics, skill, motivation)

5. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 A New Explanation Force employment-technology interaction as key Radical lethality as dominant technological fact of post-1900 battlefield Survival requires exposure reduction Since 1918, “modern system” force employment has been key to exposure reduction – and thus, successful operations Problems with the modern system: – Very hard to do – Politically unpopular side effects Result is wide variation in degree of implementation Where fully implemented, limits impact of weapons’ growing lethality, range Where little-implemented, troops exposed to full weight of modern firepower – Increasingly grave consequences as firepower has grown more lethal – Growing gap in real military power of those who can, and cannot, implement Effects of technology depend on force employment: – Technological change can have opposite effects depending on force employment – Modern system force employment can compensate for wide range of technical, numerical, shortcomings

6. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Lethality Trends Ongoing, progressive increase in lethality for last 100 years Central problem of modern tactics: How to survive long enough to perform meaningful missions?

7. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 The Modern System Cover, concealment Dispersion Small unit independent maneuver Suppression Combined arms

8. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Problems with the Modern System Very hard to do –Individual, custom decision making by thousands of jr. leaders –Tight coordination between dispersed, moving units, multiple commanders –Leaders must master employment, support requirements of multiple, radically dissimilar weapon types Unpopular Political, Organizational Side Effects –Requires devolution of authority; autonomy, initiative at jr. levels –Harder for superiors to control subordinates’ behavior –Yields territory early –Requires high military proficiency

9. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 New Theory Summarized

10. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Recent Experience: Afghanistan and Iraq Does 21 st century technology undermine modern system, overturn new theory? –Many see ongoing military revolution requiring transformed military; Afghanistan and Iraq as examples –New theory sees no revolution: incremental extension of trends dating to First World War Do Afghanistan or Iraq suggest radical departure? No. Recent warfare as further examples of force employment’s role in surviving modern firepower

11. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Afghanistan, 2001-2 Many see Afghanistan as campaign of standoff precision warfare At first it was: indigenous Afghan Taliban unskilled, unable to reduce exposure, easily defeated by standoff precision As target base shifts to better-skilled al Qaeda, close combat increasingly necessary Al Qaeda adopts important elements of modern system; reduces exposure Operation Anaconda (3/02): –Under 50% of al Qaeda's actual fighting positions identified prior to ground contact, in spite of intensive intelligence effort –Most fire received by US units came from initially unseen, unanticipated al Qaeda fighting positions

12. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Iraq, 2003 Why were Coalition casualties so low? Many credit technology: warfare transformed by speed, precision strike But Iraqi force employment very permissive: non-modern system In 2003, 21 st c. firepower punishes non- modern-system exposure very severely 2003 does not suggest that new technology can overwhelm modern system exposure reduction Caution warranted in extrapolating technology’s effects vs. other militaries

13. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Central Findings Force employment and technology interact in powerful, nonlinear way –Predictions of combat outcomes based on materiel alone subject to gross error Future warfare debate exaggerates change, underestimates continuity –Technology’s role in war commonly overestimated –Force employment’s role understudied, underemphasized Current developments are extensions of longstanding trends; no revolutionary discontinuity in prospect

14. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Implications: Policy Force Structure –Many advocate radical restructuring to shift away from orthodox close combat, toward standoff precision and/or SASO, COIN –Risky:  Works well vs. non-modern-system opponent  Ineffective otherwise  Cannot guarantee that we will never again face a modern-system opponent Joint Doctrine –Many advocate radical change:  Emphasize speed, nonlinear operations; avoid close combat  Neither take nor hold terrain per se  Replace concentration-breakthrough-exploitation with simultaneous operations throughout depth of enemy positions – Neither necessary nor desirable  Warfare not being revolutionized: radical change not necessary to keep up  Radical doctrines require unskilled enemy to work; cannot guarantee this Change is needed, but orthodox incremental adaptation is sufficient

15. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004

16. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Backup Slides

17. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 How to Explain Military Power? Formal modeling Small-n case method testing –Operation Michael, March 1918 –Operation Goodwood, July 1944 –Operation Desert Storm, January-February 1991 Large-n statistical testing –COW –CDB90 (“HERO”) –Miltech Ex ante simulation experimentation

18. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Implications: IR Theory Standard material indicators are poor proxies for actual capability –Empirical literature likely to underestimate effects of capability relative to resolve, audience costs, signaling –Potential effects across wide range of empirical studies in IR Offense-Defense Theory misspecifies technology’s role To do better, must account for force employment Central role of states’ internal characteristics –Force employment variance driven by states’ varying internal politics, social organization Avenues for research: –Other conflict types –Explanation of variance in force employment; ex ante prediction –Data development for force employment variables

19. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Historical Test: Operation Michael, March 1918

20. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Historical Test: Operation Michael, March 1918 Typical of Western Front stalemate Rough parity between attacker, defender Numerical Balance: 1.17:1 theaterwide troops 1.5:1 initially engaged troops Typical of Western Front stalemate Technology:

21. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Historical Test: Operation Michael, March 1918 Typical of Western Front stalemate Rough parity between attacker, defender Numerical Balance: 1.17:1 theaterwide troops 1.5:1 initially engaged troops Typical of Western Front stalemate Technology: Modern-System German attack Non-Modern-System British defense –Exposed –Forward Force Employment: –Shallow

22. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Historical Test: Operation Michael, March 1918 Typical of Western Front stalemate Rough parity between attacker, defender Numerical Balance: 1.17:1 theaterwide troops 1.5:1 initially engaged troops Typical of Western Front stalemate Technology: Modern-System German attack Non-Modern-System British defense –Exposed –Shallow –Forward Force Employment: Outcome: Breakthrough –47 battalions of British infantry annihilated –530 British guns overrun Exploitation fails –40 mile advance –Exhaustion, Allied reserve arrivals halt offensive –250K casualties ea –War continues Orthodox theories predict shattered offensive New theory predicts offensive breakthrough, but limited consequences

23. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Experimental Test: Refighting the Battle of 73 Easting Many see Desert Storm result as technologically predetermined New theory implies not: if Iraqis had used modern system, no rout Test via Janus recreation of 1991 Battle of 73 Easting Counterfactuals: –What if Iraqis had used modern system in 1991? –What if US technology had been less advanced? Findings: Outcome not technologically predetermined Technology’s effects influenced powerfully by force employment Modern system defensive tactics negate Iraqi technological inferiority

24. U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute From Military Power, published by Princeton University Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 2004 Anaconda Battlefield