Monte Erfourth
Introduction
In his reflections on the nature of war, Professor John Arquilla of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School posits that all conflicts boil down to two essential questions: "Who wins the battle on the ground?" and "Who wins the battle of the story?" These two questions delve into the dual realities of military strategy—tactical victory and the narrative that defines how that victory is perceived, both domestically and internationally. In many conflicts, the ability to control the battlefield is only part of the equation. Equally important, and sometimes even more so, is the ability to control the narrative that surrounds the conflict, shaping public opinion, morale, and international support. This essay will explore these concepts through the lens of three conflicts: the American Civil War, the Israel-Hamas war, and the U.S. War on Terror, providing insight into the critical importance of shaping the story in warfare.
The Battle on the Ground: Tactical Success and Failure
The first of Arquilla's two questions addresses the material reality of conflict—who physically controls the battlefield and wins tactical engagements. Throughout history, wars have been determined by armies and strategies that dominate in key engagements. In the American Civil War, Union forces eventually triumphed on the battlefield, defeating Confederate armies and forcing their surrender in 1865. However, the road to this victory was long and costly, and both sides experienced moments where tactical victories seemed fleeting. In battles such as Antietam or Gettysburg, tactical successes or failures influenced the immediate course of the war, yet neither battle alone decided the ultimate outcome. The battle on the ground involves winning key engagements, utilizing superior logistics, and maintaining the will to fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment