Lawrence D. Freedman: How to Understand the New Age of War | Foreign Affairs Interview

1. The Return of Major War

Timestamp: 00:00:24 to 00:04:24 - watch this moment on skim

The post-Cold War era's optimism about the decline of major interstate warfare has been shattered. By many measures, the world is experiencing more war than at any point since World War II, with conflicts in places previously thought stable and a renewed contemplation of great power conflict. This resurgence challenges the notion that military power is a definitive tool, as violence rarely sorts things out as cleanly as it appears. The initial optimism of the 1990s, despite its own conflicts, was overshadowed by the belief that the West was ascendant and that military force would be used at its discretion, a belief fundamentally altered by events like 9/11.

Significance (High): This fundamental shift from a perceived era of peace to a resurgence of major conflict necessitates a re-evaluation of global security paradigms and the efficacy of military solutions.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

2. The 'Stupid War' in Iran

Timestamp: 00:05:35 to 00:10:35 - watch this moment on skim

The Trump administration's decision to engage in conflict with Iran is characterized as a 'stupid war' because its negative consequences were predictable. Key outcomes, such as the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz and the resurgence of Hezbollah, were anticipated by those familiar with the region. This error mirrors a persistent American tendency to overestimate the utility of military force, assuming that overwhelming power guarantees swift success. The lack of thorough deliberation, reliance on flawed intelligence (like Netanyahu's plan), and a hollowed-out administration contributed to this ill-conceived military action, which failed to achieve clear political objectives and instead emboldened the Iranian regime.

Significance (High): This strategic blunder in Iran highlights a dangerous pattern of underestimating adversaries and prioritizing military objectives over coherent political goals, with potentially long-lasting regional instability.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

3. The Short War Fallacy

Timestamp: 00:08:49 to 00:12:49 - watch this moment on skim

Military planners are inherently inclined towards 'short war' plans because the alternative—preparing for protracted conflict—is economically and socially taxing. This mindset, focused on rapid victory and assuming similar intentions from adversaries, often leads to underestimation of enemy resilience and the complexities of achieving political objectives. The failure of short war plans, as seen in Ukraine and Iran, forces a difficult recalibration between military means and political ends. This fallacy is exacerbated by a focus on military objectives over broader political goals and a lack of robust societal mobilization for sustained conflict.

Significance (High): The pervasive 'short war fallacy' perpetuates a cycle of strategic miscalculation, leading to prolonged conflicts and a failure to adapt to the realities of modern warfare where decisive, swift victories are increasingly rare.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

4. The Dilemma of Alliances: Abandonment vs. Entrapment

Timestamp: 00:17:30 to 00:19:30 - watch this moment on skim

Allies of major powers, particularly the US, face a perpetual dilemma: either the US ignores their security needs, forcing them to manage threats alone, or it becomes excessively involved, drawing them into conflicts that increase danger. This dynamic was evident in the post-9/11 era, where figures like Tony Blair sought to persuade the US to adopt a more engaged, interventionist foreign policy, fearing American withdrawal. The challenge for junior partners in alliances is navigating this fine line, balancing the need for security guarantees with the risk of being entangled in conflicts that do not serve their core interests.

Significance (Medium): The inherent tension between allied fears of abandonment and entrapment complicates international security cooperation and can lead to strategic misalignments and unintended escalations.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

5. Ukraine: A War of Attrition

Timestamp: 00:19:19 to 00:23:19 - watch this moment on skim

The war in Ukraine has devolved into a 'hurting stalemate,' where both sides aim to inflict maximum cost on the other, hoping to influence decision-making. Putin's inability to achieve his initial objectives and the lack of a clear path to victory for either side prolongs the conflict. In an authoritarian system like Russia's, leaders may not receive accurate battlefield information, leading to stubbornness and a failure to cut losses. The Ukrainian side demonstrates remarkable solidarity, but sustaining the fight through a tough winter remains a challenge. The ultimate question is what will persuade Putin to negotiate, given the degradation of Russia's economy and military capabilities.

Significance (High): The protracted nature of the Ukraine conflict, characterized by attrition and a lack of clear strategic breakthroughs, poses significant risks to regional stability and global economic order.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

6. The Unpredictability of Personalistic Leaders

Timestamp: 00:26:07 to 00:27:56 - watch this moment on skim

The rise of personalistic leaders like Putin, Trump, and Erdogan has made international relations and warfare increasingly unpredictable. Unlike traditional IR theories that rely on predictable state behavior, these leaders' individual psychologies and approaches introduce a significant element of uncertainty, making it difficult to anticipate their actions. This challenges established models of strategic analysis.

Significance (High): This unpredictability creates a volatile global security environment, where traditional deterrence models may falter. It necessitates a more adaptive and less theory-bound approach to understanding and responding to international crises.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

7. Nuclear Deterrence: A Double-Edged Sword

Timestamp: 00:27:59 to 00:30:27 - watch this moment on skim

Russia's nuclear arsenal is a critical component of its great power status and has served as a deterrent, preventing direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. While Putin emphasizes NATO's non-involvement, other figures like Medvedev have used nuclear threats more broadly. Freedman argues that these threats have lost credibility due to overuse without follow-through, but the underlying deterrent effect remains significant, even if Putin would be reluctant to use them due to potential global backlash.

Significance (High): The perceived threat of nuclear escalation significantly shapes international responses to conflicts, potentially limiting direct military involvement by major powers. However, the erosion of credibility in these threats could lead to miscalculation.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

8. Hybrid Warfare and European Response

Timestamp: 00:31:46 to 00:33:13 - watch this moment on skim

Russia employs hybrid warfare tactics, such as cyberattacks and agent provocations, to destabilize Europe and undermine support for Ukraine. While these actions are concerning and require careful consideration, Freedman suggests the most effective response is to maintain strong support for Ukraine. He notes that the longer the conflict persists, the more challenging it becomes for European nations, especially with potential political shifts.

Significance (Medium): Europe faces a complex challenge in countering hybrid threats without escalating conflict. Sustained support for Ukraine is presented as the most direct countermeasure, though political dynamics within Europe add layers of complexity.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

9. The Evolving Role of Nuclear Weapons

Timestamp: 00:33:19 to 00:36:55 - watch this moment on skim

The role of nuclear weapons in global security is complex. While deterrence has largely worked, preventing direct great power conflict, the proliferation of nuclear capabilities and the perceived unreliability of extended deterrence (e.g., US guarantees) may encourage more countries to seek their own arsenals. This is particularly relevant in regions like the Indo-Pacific, where alliances are more tenuous.

Significance (High): The potential for increased nuclear proliferation and the weakening of extended deterrence could lead to a more unstable global security landscape, with regional powers reassessing their reliance on alliances.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

10. Limitations of Military Power

Timestamp: 00:42:35 to 00:46:22 - watch this moment on skim

Despite advancements in military technology, the fundamental effectiveness of military power in achieving political objectives remains questionable. Freedman argues that while technology like drones changes the character of warfare, it doesn't alter the core difficulties of using force to occupy or subjugate populations. He stresses that military interventions are often disappointing because they lack authenticity and can even worsen situations, advocating for greater skepticism and a focus on political objectives over military solutions.

Significance (High): This perspective challenges the conventional reliance on military solutions, suggesting that a more critical and skeptical approach to armed force is necessary to avoid unintended negative consequences and achieve genuine political stability.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

11. AI in Warfare: Hype vs. Reality

Timestamp: 00:48:53 to 00:51:50 - watch this moment on skim

While AI is making inroads in military applications like targeting and drone management, its transformative potential is often exaggerated. Freedman cautions against assuming AI will make great decisions or eliminate the 'fog of war.' The diffusion of AI technologies means no single side will likely gain a decisive advantage, and the fundamental challenges of warfare, such as the difficulty of occupation and the importance of mass, will persist. The focus on high-tech 'kit' may overshadow the enduring significance of numbers.

Significance (Medium): The overemphasis on AI in warfare risks overlooking critical, enduring aspects of conflict, such as the importance of human judgment, the 'fog of war,' and the strategic value of sheer numbers, potentially leading to flawed strategic planning.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

12. Freedman: Civilian Control of War

Timestamp: 00:53:18 to 00:54:32 - watch this moment on skim

Lawrence D. Freedman initially reviewed Elliot Cohen's 'Supreme Command' in 2002, supporting the principle that civilians should shape how wars are fought. However, he acknowledges that in light of Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq War, it's clear civilians don't always have the right ideas, though the principle of civilian oversight remains important. This tension between civilian authority and military competence is a persistent theme in American strategic thought. The final sentence concludes that the principle of civilian oversight, despite its potential pitfalls, remains a critical aspect of democratic governance in wartime.

Significance (High): This point highlights the enduring debate on civilian versus military control in warfare, a fundamental aspect of democratic accountability and strategic effectiveness. It underscores the complexities of leadership during conflict.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

13. Pyle's Humanizing War Reporting

Timestamp: 00:54:35 to 00:56:16 - watch this moment on skim

Lawrence D. Freedman found Ernie Pyle's reporting on World War II, particularly the Sicilian and Italian campaigns, deeply moving. Pyle humanized war by focusing on the everyday experiences of soldiers, even sharing their addresses, which is unheard of today. Freedman contrasts this with grand strategy and operational moves, emphasizing that Pyle's work was about 'what it was like to be in the fight.' Pyle was killed towards the end of the Pacific War, but his direct, readable writing demonstrated the power of a good correspondent. The final sentence emphasizes that Pyle's approach revealed the profound human element often lost in strategic discussions.

Significance (Medium): Pyle's approach offers a vital counterpoint to abstract strategic analysis, reminding us of the individual human cost and experience of war, which is crucial for a complete understanding of conflict.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

14. Ellsberg's Early Alarms on Nuclear Strategy

Timestamp: 00:56:18 to 00:58:10 - watch this moment on skim

Daniel Ellsberg's memoir about his time as an analyst at Rand and a consultant to the Kennedy administration revealed his alarm at the Strategic Air Command's (SAC) preparations for war, specifically the lack of controls over nuclear systems. Freedman found this impactful because it highlighted a significant disconnect between theoretical nuclear strategy and the actual practices of those in charge of these systems. The people responsible for SAC dismissed strategic analysis from civilians, demonstrating a chasm between theory and practice. The final sentence underscores that Ellsberg's account exposed a critical failure in oversight and communication regarding nuclear weapons.

Significance (High): Ellsberg's early revelations about SAC's readiness and control issues serve as a stark warning about the potential for catastrophic accidents or miscalculations in nuclear command and control, even before his later activism.

Sources in support: Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies)

Neutral sources: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Host, Foreign Affairs Interview)

Academic and Policy Alignment (Low severity)

Type: Professional

Lawrence D. Freedman's extensive career as an academic and reviewer for publications like Foreign Affairs suggests a professional alignment with established strategic and policy circles.

Significance: This professional alignment could subtly influence his selection of influential texts and his framing of contemporary issues, potentially favoring perspectives that resonate within these established circles.

Personal Distance from Combat (Low severity)

Type: Personal

Freedman explicitly states he is not a war correspondent and stays well clear of combat himself, preferring to write about war from a distance.

Significance: While enabling a broader analytical perspective, this personal distance might limit his ability to fully convey the visceral, lived experience of warfare for those directly involved, as he himself acknowledges.