Objective Control Model
Successful victory and survivability is based on the ability to adapt to different warfare forms and strategies. However, another critical variable/principle is the needs of a strong Civil-Military Relationship. For the military to be able to quickly adjust to the ever changing political goals/objectives, and to have the ability to adapt and change to different forms and strategies, their needs to be a healthy political and military relationship. First and foremost, the government and the military needs to trust each other. Huntington and Janowitz both wrote a great deal on civil-military theories. Agreeing on the purity of the Objective Control model, we are starting on a strong foundation for a flourishing civil-military relationship. Clausewitz
…show more content…
also drew a similar model when he stated, “war is the continuation of policy by other means”. This Objective Control model dictates complete civilian authority, which a professional military will obeys, all while allowing for a complete separation between military professionals and political leaders. Military leaders can focus on developing expertise in profession of arms (i.e. tactical warfare), while expecting the government not "interference or meddling in military affairs undermines military professionalism and so undermines objective control." Under this model, "a highly professional officer corps stands ready to carry out the wishes of any civilian group which secures legitimate authority within the state.” A successful Objective Control demands the respect for the military professionalism from the political leaders. There needs to be trust between the government and military leaders that each will do their part in the relationship, for the country. There cannot be any micromanagement, or violation in military matters. However, there is a long history in the US of civil military tension. A modern example that required civil-military renegotiation that forced both military and political leaders to work together, a civil-military bargaining, occurred after the attacks of 9/11 when Donald Rumsfeld “transformed” the military from a Cold War force to fighting protracted irregular wars instead of the conventional wars. Therefore for successful victory and survivability, socially and in the battlefield, a Civil-Military Relationship is a critical principle.
There is an expectation from a civilized democratic state actor, to conduct ‘wars and military operations’ in a ‘just’ and professional manner.
A nation’s leadership must evaluate our means (goals and objectives) on a sliding scale; the more justice, the more acceptable to use military forces. A superior military must distinguish themselves above unlawful murders and massacres by operating established ‘Rules of War’ - executing restrictions on the battle. Going into the forth critical guiding principle for military leaders of modern warfare, a sovereign state actor must necessitate, and/or lead other civilized state actors in ‘Just War’ Doctrine. When our political leaders commits to utilizing military to achieve a political goal, they must have a ‘just’ reason. Caldwell states that it is a nations duty to preserve humanity and human rights by adapting and upholding ‘Just War Theory’; ‘jus ad bellum’ (“moral reasoning that justifies the resort to war”), ‘jus in bello’ (“legitimacy of the means used to wage war”), and ‘jus post bellum’ (“‘just peace’ - moral judges after the war ends”). Williams & Caldwell adds, “waging a just war involves facing ethical challenges before, during, and after the war itself.” Both strategy and morality must be equally assessed when political leaders justify utilizing their military. This includes the justice of the ends, as it is linked to the justice of the means. The Vietnam War exposed "flaws" in the social and military structure. Incidents Vietnamese civilians were killed by American Soldiers. This Massacre causes a culture outcry - infamous incident. This is a violation of ‘jus in bello’. Therefore, a prestige civilized democratic state actor will ensure the country leads with ‘Just War’
doctrine.
Both classical and contemporary theorists, Clausewitz and Dr. Fred Ikle, both spoke on the importance of ‘War Termination’ doctrine. This is the fifth and final guiding principle for our political and military leaders to implement. Clausewitz and Ikle both portrayed the importance for the political and military leaders to develop an after-action plan to be executed after physical conflict. The intent is to establish peace between two states. Dr. Fred Ikle wrote that politicians and military leaders need to "think about how such a war might end", if the country justifies going to war. Clausewitz stated, it is critical to have a clear political objective before engaging in ‘War’. It’s also equally important for the governments “continuation of policy” to incorporate political objective which will lead directly to peace. ‘War Termination’ doctrine identifies the enemy state of mind after losing a conflict. Clausewitz said that the enemy will desire and inherently seek revenge – unless the “continuation of policy” includes peaceful remedies. Ikle continued, "In a war where the enemy's forces invade the homeland, any government that tries to make peace with the enemy while facing military defeat will almost inevitably come apart at the seams," concluding the removal of the ‘old’ political leaders, and replacing with domestic supporting leaders. Ikle also added a critical strategy; "The more that negotiation with the enemy is present officially as something that is natural--indeed desirable--in the midst of a war.” While using physical force to achieve a political goal, it is of the upmost importance for both actors to communicate and negotiate to shorten the war campaign at the same time shape the “War Termination” (peaceful transition). Again, it is crucial for a prestige civilized democratic state actor to plan and execute a termination plan that will bring peace between the two states. This concludes the brief overview of the five guiding principles of modern war, as derived from both classic and contemporary thoughts. Civilized “state-actor”, incorporating both political and military leaders, must work together as a team in their respective lanes. Military leaders must understand the dynamics of the “Spirit of the Age”, and quickly prepare the standing volunteer force to adapt and adjust to different types of Forms and Strategies. War should be the last resort to accomplish a political goal; however, it should always be justified, from declaration through implementation. The political goals and objectives must be thoroughly calculated from execution to after-actions.
also drew a similar model when he stated, “war is the continuation of policy by other means”. This Objective Control model dictates complete civilian authority, which a professional military will obeys, all while allowing for a complete separation between military professionals and political leaders. Military leaders can focus on developing expertise in profession of arms (i.e. tactical warfare), while expecting the government not "interference or meddling in military affairs undermines military professionalism and so undermines objective control." Under this model, "a highly professional officer corps stands ready to carry out the wishes of any civilian group which secures legitimate authority within the state.” A successful Objective Control demands the respect for the military professionalism from the political leaders. There needs to be trust between the government and military leaders that each will do their part in the relationship, for the country. There cannot be any micromanagement, or violation in military matters. However, there is a long history in the US of civil military tension. A modern example that required civil-military renegotiation that forced both military and political leaders to work together, a civil-military bargaining, occurred after the attacks of 9/11 when Donald Rumsfeld “transformed” the military from a Cold War force to fighting protracted irregular wars instead of the conventional wars. Therefore for successful victory and survivability, socially and in the battlefield, a Civil-Military Relationship is a critical principle.
There is an expectation from a civilized democratic state actor, to conduct ‘wars and military operations’ in a ‘just’ and professional manner.
A nation’s leadership must evaluate our means (goals and objectives) on a sliding scale; the more justice, the more acceptable to use military forces. A superior military must distinguish themselves above unlawful murders and massacres by operating established ‘Rules of War’ - executing restrictions on the battle. Going into the forth critical guiding principle for military leaders of modern warfare, a sovereign state actor must necessitate, and/or lead other civilized state actors in ‘Just War’ Doctrine. When our political leaders commits to utilizing military to achieve a political goal, they must have a ‘just’ reason. Caldwell states that it is a nations duty to preserve humanity and human rights by adapting and upholding ‘Just War Theory’; ‘jus ad bellum’ (“moral reasoning that justifies the resort to war”), ‘jus in bello’ (“legitimacy of the means used to wage war”), and ‘jus post bellum’ (“‘just peace’ - moral judges after the war ends”). Williams & Caldwell adds, “waging a just war involves facing ethical challenges before, during, and after the war itself.” Both strategy and morality must be equally assessed when political leaders justify utilizing their military. This includes the justice of the ends, as it is linked to the justice of the means. The Vietnam War exposed "flaws" in the social and military structure. Incidents Vietnamese civilians were killed by American Soldiers. This Massacre causes a culture outcry - infamous incident. This is a violation of ‘jus in bello’. Therefore, a prestige civilized democratic state actor will ensure the country leads with ‘Just War’
doctrine.
Both classical and contemporary theorists, Clausewitz and Dr. Fred Ikle, both spoke on the importance of ‘War Termination’ doctrine. This is the fifth and final guiding principle for our political and military leaders to implement. Clausewitz and Ikle both portrayed the importance for the political and military leaders to develop an after-action plan to be executed after physical conflict. The intent is to establish peace between two states. Dr. Fred Ikle wrote that politicians and military leaders need to "think about how such a war might end", if the country justifies going to war. Clausewitz stated, it is critical to have a clear political objective before engaging in ‘War’. It’s also equally important for the governments “continuation of policy” to incorporate political objective which will lead directly to peace. ‘War Termination’ doctrine identifies the enemy state of mind after losing a conflict. Clausewitz said that the enemy will desire and inherently seek revenge – unless the “continuation of policy” includes peaceful remedies. Ikle continued, "In a war where the enemy's forces invade the homeland, any government that tries to make peace with the enemy while facing military defeat will almost inevitably come apart at the seams," concluding the removal of the ‘old’ political leaders, and replacing with domestic supporting leaders. Ikle also added a critical strategy; "The more that negotiation with the enemy is present officially as something that is natural--indeed desirable--in the midst of a war.” While using physical force to achieve a political goal, it is of the upmost importance for both actors to communicate and negotiate to shorten the war campaign at the same time shape the “War Termination” (peaceful transition). Again, it is crucial for a prestige civilized democratic state actor to plan and execute a termination plan that will bring peace between the two states. This concludes the brief overview of the five guiding principles of modern war, as derived from both classic and contemporary thoughts. Civilized “state-actor”, incorporating both political and military leaders, must work together as a team in their respective lanes. Military leaders must understand the dynamics of the “Spirit of the Age”, and quickly prepare the standing volunteer force to adapt and adjust to different types of Forms and Strategies. War should be the last resort to accomplish a political goal; however, it should always be justified, from declaration through implementation. The political goals and objectives must be thoroughly calculated from execution to after-actions.