Lawrence D. Freedman: How to Understand the New Age of War | Foreign Affairs Interview
The 'Stupid War' in Iran
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.
The Dilemma of Alliances: Abandonment vs. Entrapment
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.
The Unpredictability of Personalistic Leaders
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.
Nuclear Deterrence: A Double-Edged Sword
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.
Hybrid Warfare and European Response
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.
The Evolving Role of Nuclear Weapons
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.
Limitations of Military Power
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.
AI in Warfare: Hype vs. Reality
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.
Freedman: Civilian Control of War
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.
Pyle's Humanizing War Reporting
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.
