American way of war

Introduction
Military historians and strategists alike have written volumes of content on the American way of war. Given the developments such as the American troops' involvement in Afghanistan and their leaving Iraq, it is, perhaps, time to relook the American way of war for conflicts in the future. Russel Weigley[footnoteRef:1]was the first to attempt to define the American approach to the war in 1973. Many writers have grappled with the concept as they try pointing out the various strategies of America to war and trying to distinguish between a way of battle and a way of war. They illustrate the pros and cons of these traits in both major wars and smaller conflicts.[footnoteRef:2] Historians have also attempted to describe the nature of the American strategic approach to war, which entails the advancement of America's national interests in a wide range of ways. It shows how our culture shapes the American strategy towards war. [1: Was the Distinguished University Professor of History at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and a noted military historian.] [2: From “Lost in Translation: The American Way of War” by R. L. Keravuori, 2011, Small Wars Journal, 17]
The Methodology of the American War
The whole set of historians and their debate regarding the American way of war revolve around the thesis by Professor Weigley[footnoteRef:3]. Weigley was preoccupied with US military activities, starting from the Independence War to the War in Vietnam.[footnoteRef:4] According to the professor, there was a decisive shift from the attrition strategy to annihilation in the course of the civil war. The American military generals attempted to shatter the enemy troops on the battlefront, irrespective of the political objectives[footnoteRef:5]. Although the thesis remained unchallenged for decades, it has faced criticism from military operations critics, that it failed to clarify the attrition versus annihilation approaches, that it can only be effectively applied in some wars and not others, and that it does not give room for improvement of strategy and change in the course of a conflict. [3: One of Weigley's most widely received contributions to research is his hypothesis of a specifically American Way of War, i.e. an approach to strategy and military operations, that, while not predetermined, is distinct to the United States because of cultural and historical constraints.] [4: From “The American way of war: a history of United States military strategy and policy” by R. F. Weigley, 1977, Indiana University Press.] [5: From “The American Way of War Debate: An Overview” by B. M. Linn, Historically Speaking, 2010, 11(5), 22-23.]
It can be noted that the historiography of the American way of war lacks an authoritative list of characteristics that define it. When you extrapolate commonalities, the apparent outcomes of these analyses are battle tactics and war strategy. The US military uses aggressive force so as to overcome and destroy the enemy and gain a fast victory with a low number of casualties. The latter is a tactical and adaptive strategy. The indomitable team of professionals applies speed tactics, maneuver, surprise and flexibility.[footnoteRef:6] The latter war method largely depends on firepower and technology. It also comes with a high demand for logistical astuteness. [6: From “Toward an American way of war” by A. J. Echevarria, 2004, US Army Command and General Staff School.]
The American Tactical Way of Battle
Strategically, the American way of war aims at a quick military victory. It is not hinged on the success of the strategic policy. Often time, the military and political outcomes are misaligned.[footnoteRef:7] An analysis of such a style reveals that American war strategists have failed to learn some history lessons. It is observed that cultural differences commonly create discordance between the state of peace and the military action that came before it. Alternative strategies at the national level also play into the strategic way of war. Some of the national strategies include war with limited aims and deterrence. Therefore, it appears that the American way of war is a façade. The American way of war can be viewed in two ways: a tactical way of battle and a strategic way of war. The earlier involves clear attributes of the American people defining the application of force. The latter is aligned to the wishes of a political system with a four year lifetime. The latter is not an ideal process for changing tactical success into the success of the strategy. [7: From “M521RA: Excerpt from War in the Persian Gulf…” by R. W. Stewart (2010), US Army Command and General Staff School.]
According to John Lynn, there are three related tendencies, i.e., 1). Hatred towards casualties of the US, 2). Believing in military technology to reduce US losses, and 3). preoccupation with exit plans[footnoteRef:8]. Such a claim accurately defines several trends in the American way of battle or the American way of war. Using "a way of war" implies economic, political, and military methods to how the US views war instead of a mere battle. [8: From “The American Way of War Debate: An Overview” by B. M. Linn, Historically Speaking, 2010, 11(5), 22-23]
A Strategic Way of the American Aar
Suppose the tactical way of battle is an aspect of the American way of war. In that case, the other part is the strategic way of war that is aligned to the wishes of a four-year political regime, and thus, it cannot transform tactical wins into strategic victory[footnoteRef:9]. It is clear that the American polity's national security strategy only lasts as long as the four-year presidential term, or 8 years if the president is reelected. The 2010 national security strategy by President Obama comes with four national interests that are also enduring: security of the US, including the security of the citizens of the US, the allies of the US and its partners, an innovative and progressive economy, a prosperous and strong nation anchored on an international economic environment that encourages opportunity, prosperity, respect for values at both local and international level and order at the international level. Such an order is crafted by the US leadership, which promotes peace, security, and opportunity via wider cooperation to surmount challenges at the global level[footnoteRef:10]. The American way of war strategy involves promoting such national interests via an array of ways: military intervention, limited war, and political negotiation. The central idea is to turn the military intervention into a fast tactical success by the military, which will translate into policy's success in the short presidential period. [9: . From “Adapt, innovate and adapt some more” by F.G. Hoffman, 2014, Proceedings, US Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, 410, 268–6110 ] [10: From “The American Way of War Debate: An Overview” by B. M. Linn, Historically Speaking, 2010, 11(5), 22-23.]
Conclusion
The American way of war manifests in two ways, i.e., the way of battle and the way of war strategy. The earlier involves an aggressive approach to overcome the enemy and attain quick victory by firepower and superior technological logistic. At the same time, in the second one, the military and political outcomes desired are misaligned. At first, Weigley tried to describe the American approach to war via attrition and annihilation characteristics. Later, historians have listed over 13 traits of the American way of battle or refuted its existence. The traits of a way of battle describe an institution that prefers combat against a regular symmetrical enemy instead of an asymmetrical enemy, even when we already have a history of minor wars, national building, and counterinsurgencies. The American way of war incorporates an array of tools that go beyond military combat when the question of achieving our national interest arises. It seeks to incorporate discourse, an aspect that shapes the American way of life. There will always be a demand to depend on the military's tactical victories to attain the national interests highlighted and for policy success to be declared by the president.
References
Echevarria, A. J. (2004). Toward an American way of war. US Army Command and General Staff School.
Hoffman, F.G. (2014). Adapt, innovate, and adapt some more. Proceedings, US Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, 410, 268–6110.
Keravuori, R. L. (2011). Lost in Translation: The American Way of War. Small Wars Journal, 17.
Linn, B. M. (2010). The American Way of War Debate: An Overview. Historically Speaking, 11(5), 22-23.
Stewart, R. W. (2010). M521RA: Excerpt from War in the Persian Gulf: Operation DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, August 1990-March 1991 (Vol. 70). US Army Command and General Staff School.
Weigley, R. F. (1977). The American way of war: a history of United States military strategy and policy. Indiana University Press.