Greatest Challenges Translating Tactical Outcomes into Victories

Greatest Challenges in Translating Tactical Outcomes into Operational and Strategic Victories

Name

Course Name

Instructor Name

Date

Translation of tactical outcomes into operational and strategies victories becomes a challenge when a person fails to depict the end state of any conflict before its commence and an over-dependence on the power that a military instrument used without considering the overall approach of the government towards warfare. When such a situation occurs, Western interventions start happening without fully understanding the minute details and factors of such warfare. Total awareness of those regions' populations, culture, and politics are mandatory before entering into their conflicts. Other factors that give rise to complications are maladjustment with the improper local associates in conflict and failing to observe tactical strategies with judicious proposals. Clausewitz [footnoteRef:1]made some statements in his book that the primary act of judgment that a regional leader or a politician has to make is about the establishment that gives rise to war towards which they are progressing. He said that the most important of all strategic questions is comprehending the situation by neither mistaking it nor trying to turn into something incomprehensible. [1: Carl von Clausewitz. On war (Princeton University Press 1989)]

There should be a clear idea about the war, its starting time, and the duration it will be continued, which is necessary to be in knowledge of political and military leaders. Several concerns need to be addressed before starting the war, such as what instrument of national power to be used and the nature of a particular conflict that needs a desired state solution. It should be noted by the political leaders what costs are involved and whether they would be able to meet the ends. The state should handle the war situation to suffer as less as possible in either a limited or large-scale operational combat.

Destruction was seen after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that occurred on December 7, 1941. The entire Pacific fleet required a military back up. The President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, spoke to Congress and the American people to ask for a formal deceleration of war on Japan. Congress took a vote, and almost everyone agreed on the war resolution. Nazi Germany and Italy reacted in the form of a war declaration on the United States. Here, the question of utmost importance for the US was whether to initiate a war with Japan in the first place, since it would have to bear the burden of loss of lives from either the Pacific or the European side. There was an alliance between Great Britain and Russia, who successfully manipulated President Roosevelt to open the European front first to deter German advances. This was because Russians had relief who had a hard time stopping the Germans themselves advancing towards the East. It was evident for the US that if the Germans would not be stopped initially, they might become a bigger threat as they had vast access to the Atlantic Ocean and highly advanced weapons.

With the Second World War's commencement, when the war was declared, the political leadership instigated the whole country into war efforts. Germany, Italy, and Japan were the main enemies in this war, and the major aim was the surrender of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Numerous strategic and tactical decisions were involved that encompassed strategic weapons like atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. This was done to achieve a quick strategic victory[footnoteRef:2]. Despite a huge number of casualties, the US became a leading force against Japan and Europe. This was possible with the Marshall plan's utilization, which is named after General George C. Marshall. This strategic success was also because military leaders like General Douglas MacArthur used their quick wits by offering the leaders and citizens of the occupied countries to rebuild their societies in democratic capitalist economies. [2: Hamby, Alonzo. The decision to use the atomic bomb. August 5, 2010. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trumans-decision-to-use-the-bomb-712569.]

The global stability was deemed to be the "new world order," which was put forward by George W. Bush since it was considered the world's remaining superpower. This dawned after America's reaction to Iraq's Kuwait attack in August 1990 and the Soviet Union's downfall. Re-establishment of Kuwaiti sovereignty was witnessed soon after the outing of Iraqis with the US's help after a 42-day air campaign and 100 hours ground war. The Iraqi military's offensive competences were brutally damaged by this course of action[footnoteRef:3] , after which; the military received transparent and exact direction from the commander in chief for explaining the state in which the military converted the situation into executable plans. This campaign was meant to be limited since the US had undergone a rebuilt of the military in the 1980s to ensure there was no shortage of military materials for any further war. [3: Stewart Richard. WAR IN THE PERSIAN GULF: OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD AND DESERT STORM, AUGUST 1990-MARCH 1991 (US Military Publication, CMH Pub 70-117-1, 2010)]

Iraq had not shown any confirmation signs about withdrawing from Kuwait even after rejecting 11 previous United Nations Security Council resolutions. The council was then forced to pass a twelfth resolution 678 in November 1990. It authorized the United States to direct a coalition of nations for the eviction of Iraq and the reconstruction of Kuwait's national boundaries. 1991 Gulf War had restricted the nature of "war" since it had specified ends, methods, and means charted in the resolution. The defeat of Iraqi forces was the true sign of a strong comeback of Kuwait sovereignty in re-establishment reinstated by the United States. This was an epitome of improved relations between the US and Kuwait and sent a message for the region's countries to beware before taking any similar actions like Iraq. The implication of strategic success was translated from tactical endeavors for Kuwait's authority, and the battles fought by US, allies, and coalition partners.

There are other examples where the US has not achieved this success, especially in overseas US engagements; even the conditions worsened with time. For instance, when an alleged attack was seen on two US naval destroyers off the coast of Vietnam, a resolution naming the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed on August 7, 1964, by the US congress. Based on this ruling, President Lyndon was sanctioned to take all the compulsory steps to dissuade any armed attack on the US forces and prevent any further aggression initiated by the communist government of North Vietnam. This resolution served a legal authority and inclusion of the US into the Vietnam War[footnoteRef:4] [4: History.com Editors. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. August 21, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/gulf-of-tonkin-resolution-1 ]

US political and military officials set in motion the preparations for war. However, there was a lack of specifications related to "means" in the form of what end state would be observed and "ends" for determining resources to achieve success. Several mishandlings, such as changes in administration, gaining public disapproval, and cuttings in the domestic budget, had a significant impact on war outcomes. Congress did not question the US's way of addressing these issues, such as the costs involved, how strategic victory would be gained, and whether the measures taken were justified.

Several reasons played their roles in making it hard for the US leaders in Vietnam to translate tactical victories essential for successful strategic outcomes. The negative press and television coverage of the Tet offensive attack in January 1968, a coordinated surprise assault by Birth and South Vietnamese communist guerilla, became the cause of the US's failure. The US and its local allies fell victim to a few fatalities (650) compared to the enemy losses, which accounted for more than 5000[footnoteRef:5]. The tactical victory was obvious with the fewer combat losses for the US. Still, strategic failure was quite apparent in the form of ever-increasing violence in media and public after the leaders had promised a favorable end. The list of mistakes does not end here: the My Lai massacre, negative the US and Vietnamese opinions of the public about war, US commanders over-dependability on the enemy's army strength as a measure of success, and mollification of South Vietnam countryside are the portrayals of failed tactical victories and their translation into strategic outcomes. The military's slow pace in detecting surrounding ground conditions and adapting to them promptly resulted in the non-capitalization of tactical and operational success. The local support turned against the US mission in tactical terms and was a strategic publicity victory for North Vietnamese. When observed through a political lens, President Johnson scaled back the war efforts and did not acknowledge the army's struggles. This further prolonged the war and complicated the situation at hand, eventually leading to the withdrawal and downfall of South Vietnam in 1975. A certain strategic defeat is undeniably testified when an artificial constraint is put on the military's ability to wage. [5: Eric, Hammel. Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet 1968 (Pacifica, CA Pacifica Military, 1968)]

In global competition, war is always inevitable since there is a rivalry of becoming better than others to survive. A force would be used to enforce the state's will on each other. This directs the political and military leaders to impose their actions on an alienated population. The insurgencies and local affairs of corrupt local leaders do not want to be involved in the country's long-term visions. The same has happened in the case of Vietnam and Iraq. In today's modern and technologically advanced world, it is imperative to have multi-domain battlefields, which would require commanders of all levels to be vigorous in the war zones and comprehend the various tactical outcomes of those battles into strategic victories.

One Page Outline of the Essay

· Introduction to tactical outcomes and strategic victories with the involvement of political and military parties.

· Emphases on political and military leaders fully understand means and ends before entering into a war.

· Example of Nazi Germany and Italy war about tactical outcomes and strategic victory.

· Case of World War II, when the US became an occupying force over Japan and rebuilt Japan and Europe.

· The American response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait became a success, and the US started spending on its military rebuilding to be prepared in case of any further war prospects.

· Iraq let down 11 previous United Nations Security Council's resolutions and faced a defeat that ked to Kuwait's sovereignty, strengthening relations between the US and Kuwait.

· However, there were other overseas examples of the US where tactical outcomes did not translate into strategic victories. Vietnam war, together with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, are examples.