CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIC STUDIES

Dated: April 5, 2018

for academic purpose only

Presenter Engr. Asim Riaz

Master Energy Management,
M.Phil Strategic Studies
National Defence University
for academic purpose only

 In contemporary era, the primacy of sovereign state is not only under

attack by superstates and non-state actors but also challenged by
issues like
— Natural Resources
— Environment
— Migration
— Cyber-security
— Corporations
— Changing nature of warfare – (i.e. 4 GW, Cyber-warfare, Terrorism)

 State need to address all these issues to assert it's dominance and
authority within its border and in the International arena
 Providing Security, peace and order is the main function of the state
and Terrorism poses serious threat to all these functions
for academic purpose only

 There is undeniable strategic logic behind terrorism. Terrorism is among

the most strategic weapon in modern world.
 Terrorism is a form of communication, the bigger and more powerful the
state is, bigger is the global audience
 Terrorism scores way too high on Psychological impacts and cost-benefit
analysis compared to other strategies
 Terrorism is intrinsically linked to religions, at some point, terrorists
movements have arisen in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism but terrorism
threat to modern world is predominantly from Islam
 Terrorism is different than conventional warfare and insurgency but can be
used in combination with these other means of war
 Terrorism like war is politics by other means
for academic purpose only

 There are tens of different definition of terrorism given by academics,

governments, International organizations, law enforcements, military,
public and terrorists organization themselves.
 In order to narrow our discussion down to pure terrorist groups, let us
define three essential elements of terrorism
— Frist Element (political movements/objectives)
 Terrorism is a tool used by political movements

 These movements are primarily non-state actors

 Acts of violence or terror usually target civilians (Strategic Instrument)

 Alternative strategies available and should be compared with acts/goals

for academic purpose only

 Three essential elements of Terrorism

— Second Element (weakness in power and authority)
 Terrorism is primarily weapon of the weak

These political movements are weak i.e. lack numbers or conventional military
force and political authority to achieve their political objectives
 Seek changes in system that are disproportionate to their political legitimacy

 May defend the rights and privileges they perceived are threatened

 Their dissatisfaction with the system is extreme and their demands usually is
to change the status co. and over throw the existing political elites
 This is not Mao‘s approach of gradually building military power and political
legitimacy to confront the government
for academic purpose only

 Three essential elements of Terrorism

— Third Element (Connection and Communication)
 Terrorism is form of Political Theater or Communication

These movements must make explicit connections between acts of terrorism

and the desired effects to achieve their political objectives
Extrajudicial killings were carried out and missing persons were denied
judicial process so court room cannot be used for advertising the cause, as it
can inspire a new generation of fighters or result in an attack by sympathizer
21st century has revolutionized military affairs and changed conduct of war.
Information Technology, cyberspace and social media played an important
role. What happens in one part of world has immediate affect on other parts
for academic purpose only

 The model is premised on the idea that terrorism is a form of political

theater and activities are performed as an operational drama with
world as an audience. There are five (5) target audiences that
terrorists are trying to influence in order to achieve their goals
— Incumbent Government

— Constituent population

— Non-Constituent Population

— Members of Terrorist organizations, potential recruits and sympathizers

— International Public opinion

for academic purpose only

 Terrorist strategy is to plan and execute attack to get desired

response from each audience. Acts affect each audience differently.
This need a smart strategist as its an opportunity but also a challenge
 Idea that terrorist organization such as Islamic State, Al-Qaeda,
Taliban and others are not smart is totally wrong
 Successful terrorists need fair degree of operating environment
 Terrorists need physical and political room to maneuver in local
environment. And may wish for (limited) moral support.
 Terrorists attack can have psychological, political and practical affects
for academic purpose only

 Psychologically you can „Paralyze the Government‟ with fear which

happened just recently during Islamabad sit-in by Tehreek-e-Labbaik.
This will make Government look weak in the eyes of other audiences.
 Force the incumbent government to give you political concession by
inflicting unacceptable pain or by threatening it
 Conversely, terrorist want the government to come after them with
everything it got so as to induce an „Over-reaction‟ and use the
strength of incumbent government against its-self. For instance,
launch an indiscriminate counter-terrorism or military campaign
 Terrorists may offer Constituent population an Identity choice
for academic purpose only

 Terrorist sometimes want to horrify Non-constituent population so

as to pressurize and criticize the government to concede to their
demand or alternatively they can induce them to over-react and take
the law in their own hands. In war of sects Shia in Sunni Majority
country vice versa, Chinese in CPEC are Non-constituent population
 Motivate own Members and potential recruits with Utopia, successful
missions or carry out punishment to intimidate infiltration/spying
 From International arena solicit moral support and they might send
you guns and money. As a strategist Terrorist want little bit of both.
 Terrorist may also want other States/groups to condemn actions of
incumbent Gov. and call for negotiations. International Recognition of
the cause can be great advantage to treat Terrorist group as player
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
 Michael Collins – Sin Fein – Irish Republic Army (IRA)
 January 1919 to December 1921 a small lightly armed group of 5,000
people compelled the most powerful empire of the world to grant
independence 26 counties of Southern Ireland using terrorism
 Hand gun, Bombs, dynamites and propaganda achieved things for IRA
that cannot be achieved by ballot box and conventional war
 After Easter rising in 1916, Frangoch interment camp prove to be first
IRA war college. Michael graduated from this camp.
 Collins knew his enemy well as he worked in England for a decade
 Collins‘s became chief Strategist, Financier and Intelligence officer
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
 Collins and other who won British election (1918) refuse to be seated
in British parliament and instead formed an Irish parliament
 He became lead negotiator for IRA with Winston Churchill. He gave
up 6 counties to British which resulted in Ireland Civil war between
maximalists and pragmatists during 1922-23. well Collins died...
 Let us discuss Bill fuller 5 audience model and how Collins managed
it. Terrorism is violent negotiation – Collins knew the Ireland was too
important for British Government to give up without a fight. London
had control over Ireland by Civilian Government and Military.
 He knew if British militarize the conflict it will give legitimacy to Shin
Fein‘s Irish Parliament. Collins forced the British to do just that
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
 Most important counter intelligence that British had was civilian law
enforcement Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) and Dublin Metropolitan
Police (DMP), both were highly professional, well staffed, well
resourced and local knowledge and sources.
 In terms of manpower assets and intelligence DMP and RIC has upper
hand in the battle. Collins wants to shift that balance
 He declared war on police. In 1919, he sets up ‗The Squad‘ whose job
is murder the best police officers and local informants while
intimidate others. He thus, blinded the British government
 He recruited inside persons inside police who were Irish National
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
 Collins attack on police provided IRA gave ‗operating room‘ in Ireland
as Intelligence Services were incapacitated.
 This victory lead British to give up Intensive intelligence operations
and use indiscriminate coercive techniques and militarize the conflict
 Collins famously argued worse the reprisal of British on Irish people
better it is for the cause of independence Irish state
 He induced police to hire auxiliaries who were hostile to Irish
 Collins forced British in cycle of violence and to militarize the conflict
 He achieved non-constituent population (i.e. British population) to
remain neutral in conflict. They were exhausted of World War I
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
 Collins didn‘t allow constituent population to sympathize with British
through propaganda and humiliating punishment
 British had a protracted war (WWI) and had huge empire.
 Ireland was valuable but how valuable?
 Shin Fein had wide appeal to Irish people.
 Sympathies of US and other powers were with the Irish people.
 Ireland gained independence in 1921
for academic purpose only

CASE STUDY
 Lesson learned from case study
 Terrorism seems to defy conventional strategic analysis

 Gen. Navil Macready said ―Whatever we do we are sure to go wrong‖

 ‗War on Terror‘ is war on Tactic. Very name is wrong. Declaring war what
Al-Qaeda wanted after 9/11
 Options vary from ‗Capitulation‘ at one end to ‗Massive Retaliation and
Militarization‘ at the other end
 Capitulation leading to ceding to Terrorist and embolden them
 Retaliation leads to over-reaction and helps in recruitment of terrorist
for academic purpose only

 Terrorism in religious framework is fourth generation warfare.

 Successful Terrorist need to be smart strategist and also needs fair
degree of operation environment. Ideally, Battlefield is widely dispersed
may include whole society or the whole globe in case of IS and Alqaeda
 If you have right ideas (i.e. battle of hearts and minds), the strength
numbers and technology of adversary does not matter.
 Cost of such war relatively extremely low compared to other forms
 Ability to maneuver forces from place to place is highly valued
 Target population against the war while yours are for the war
 Attack adversary centers of gravity through psychological operation
 Use Freedom and openness of society against it. And when Gov. take this
freedom strike them from other side.
for academic purpose only

 Battle is asymmetric, terrorist army may appear to have no order no rank

 Battle should be widely dispersed and undefined

 Line between peace and war is very blurred on purpose and non linear

 Distinction between who is in military or organization and who is not clear

 Deprive the enemy information and knowledge

 In 21st century wars are not like 20th century, what happens in one part of
the world has immediate affect on other parts. Changing nature of warfare
have made most modern weapons of 3 GW superfluous and redundant.
 For instance USA today has state of the art Army, Navy and Air force in the
world but how do you defeat an enemy that has none of these, how to
defeat an idea. Kill oneself to victory like US in Iraq and Afghanistan?
for academic purpose only

 Lets over simplify as it may be complex. There are two main reasons
 1) They want to 2) They can join

 Feel angry, alienated or disenfranchised

 Believe that current political involvement doesn't change status co.
 Identify with their Ideology and with victims of the injustice
 Feel the need to take action rather than just debate about the problem
 Believe that engaging in violence against the state is not immoral
 Have friends or family sympathetic to the cause
 Joining a movement offers religious rewards (sins forgiven in afterlife,
martyrdom), social and psychological benefits and sense of identity
for academic purpose only

Terrorism seems to defy conventional analysis

Militarization
‘War on Terror’ is war on Tactics!
Para-Military
Anti-Terror
Political
Concessions Special Courts
Capitulation Law Enforcement Military Courts

Counter Terrorism Tactics, Techniques & Technologies

Spectrum of Response
for academic purpose only

 Successfully applying 5 audience model can provide enabling or

disabling environment for terrorism or counter terrorism, thus actions
need to be carefully crafted for range of audiences
 In case of Islamic Terrorism, Religious counter-narrative should be
given by Civil, Military and religious leadership not by others
 Induce terrorists to commit a strategic blunder or they can make a
mistake like Peshawar School incident themselves and loose support
 Non-constituent population is often the incumbent government natural
constituency. In CPEC case, future attack on Chinese citizen by
terrorist groups, or attacks on French nationals in Algeria
for academic purpose only

 One can use wide range of actions to win the hearts or maintain the
morale of constituent and non-constituent population from economics,
education, counter narratives, nationalism and religion
 Shock, dismay, terrorize and demoralize the weak among terrorist
organization and make them double cross by co-operating with Gov.,
as intelligence assets or in propaganda
 Make terrorist leadership look bad and evil in the eyes of people
 You may break the terrorist ranks to go rogue but in case of Islamic
terrorist/jihadi organization a deserter from Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban,
and Boko Haram may join other group but will not give up Jihad lest
his pay-offs are changed, which is near to impossible.
for academic purpose only

 Terrorism is like a flame key thing we can do is to reduce that flame

 Have competent leadership. Number of the Muslims population are
disgruntled with their leaders and terrorists offer them an alternative.
 Islamic Terrorism is also related to genuine issues and serious
grievances of Muslims from Palestine to Kashmir which the
international community is not willing to solve. Many of these are so
complicated that solution without a war seems impossible.
 Western world think resolving these issues is giving terrorist what
they want which is not true these issues must be solved in any case. In
case of Ireland, IRA was not fully given what they wanted which
resulted in Irish Civil war but problem of terrorism was resolved.
for academic purpose only

 Avoid an over-reaction and over-militarization of the conflict. In

interviews with Irish people majority of people said they joined IRA
because of brutality of British. You can make it look like that you are
oppressive and tyrant. Use of bombers and drones are same?
 Recognize the acquisition and interpretation of high level agencies is
crucial for achieving desired results. RCMA is very important
 Understanding of Actual Nature of Terrorism
 We have to respect the Rule and Law. What happened in Abu Gharib
and Guantanamo is not forgotten, terrorist attacks are hard to recall
 These Bombers and Prisons were gift to Terrorists - (It rebounds)
for academic purpose only

 Different States do not share Intel. data and within a state there can be
rivalry between civil and military leadership or within its agencies
 Ideally, Media should be controlled by the State
 National Security University should be build as terrorism requires
efforts from civil-military leadership. Security needs collective effort
 It‘s a realistic world and National Interest is supreme, Countries like
US, Russia, UK, Iran, Saudia, India and Pakistan have used religious
terrorist organization for proxy wars. It should be stopped, how? What
to do when mastermind is sitting outside borders of your country?
for academic purpose only

 Terrorism is here to stay for a very long time, we have to learn to live
with it. Terrorism is too attractive and effective form of communication
 Islamic Radicalization is usually irreversible in nature i.e. Once a
Jihadi, always a Jihadi, extremely difficult to de-radicalize Mujahedeen
 Humans are rational. People always respond to incentives but each
person is free to decide their pay-offs. People will rationally pursue
goals in life which other things absurd. Concept of God carries
unlimited pay-off, if one choose to believe in God as per Pascal's
wager which is consistent with Abrahamic religions. Person who
blows himself in suicide mission is rational in view of an economist, so
is the person who commit suicide. But Pay-off/intention is different.
for academic purpose only

 US-China are in power transition, smooth power transition is not likely.

 China is 1) dissatisfied with Hegemon (Russia is rank discrepant i.e.
Gultang's rank-disequilibrium) 2) China has rapid economic growth
compared to Hegemon 3) it has political capacity to extract resources
from it's people. These conditions hold true in case of China
 If US is unable to confront China Militarily or through a proxy China will
overtake US in 15-20 years and become global hegemon.
 Organski Power Transition Theory (PTT), Long cycle Theory (PTT), Doran
Relative Cycle theory, Glipins PTT, K-wave PTT and number of other
theories predict that war between US and China being inevitable.
for academic purpose only

 US threats are not existential, Russia, North Korea, Islamic State,

Taliban, Al-Qaeda but China is a threat to US as global Hegemon.
 US Treasury is broke, It doesn't have money to pay so as to
become global Hegemony
 Conventional Military is a black-hole of resources if its not
Efficient and Effective. US has learnt from past that proxies esp.
Islamic proxy army are effective and efficient, cheap and
economical than conventional forces and produce results.
 Russia and China allied with Taliban in Afghanistan, US will ally
with ISIS in Afghanistan or may already did so.
for academic purpose only

 People seek out governance from whoever can deliver it, and if the State

cannot, they‘ll find somebody else to do the job. There are „Three
Principles of Social Order‟ in order to hold a society together
1. Society will hold its self together when the member of the society
believe that it is in their interest to be its members

2. Society will hold itself together as long as the members of society agree
that they have a higher cause to which they are committed.

3. Third principle of social order is principle of force that a society could be

maintained intact by the use of force. Internal and External (i.e. Army)

 Examples are Mullah Omar and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi

for academic purpose only
for academic purpose only

ِِ ‫الش ِج ِين‬
‫اى ه‬ِ ‫ش ْي َط‬ ‫أَع ُْْرُ ِب ه‬
‫اَّللِ ِه َي ال ه‬
ُ ‫ث ۡٱۡل َ ۡس‬
(2:251) ‫ض‬ ِ ‫س َذ‬ ٍ۬ ‫ض ُِن ِببَ ۡع‬
َ َ‫ط لهف‬ ‫َّلَ ْۡ ََل د َۡف ُع ه‬
َ ‫ٱَّللِ ٱلٌه‬
َ ‫اس بَ ۡع‬
... Had Allah not driven back the people, some by means of others, the
earth had surely been corrupted…
‫ُّه ۡؤ ِهٌِ ۡي َ‏‬
(9:14) ‫ي‏‬ ‫صذ ُّۡ َس قَ ْۡم‬ ِ ‫علَ ۡي ِِ ۡن َّيَ ۡش‬
ُ ‫ف‬ ُ ٌۡ َ‫ّٰللاُ ِبا َ ۡي ِذ ۡيك ُۡن َّيُ ۡخ ِز ُِ ۡن َّي‬
َ ‫ص ۡشك ُۡن‬ ‫قَاتِلُ ْۡ ُُ ۡن يُعَ ِزّ ۡب ُِ ُن ه‬
Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with
shame, help you over them and bring healing to breasts of Believers
War will occur when fears or aggressive intent combine with
asymmetries of power to create belief that military action offers
best means to gain relief. (Basic Premise)
for academic purpose only

ّۡ َ ‫ّٰللاُ ِبعَزَاٍ ِ ّه ۡي ِع ٌۡ ِذ ٍۤ ا‬
‫ُ ه‬ ‫ن‬ ُ
‫ك‬ َ ‫ب‬‫ي‬ۡ ‫ص‬ِ ُّ ‫ي‬ ‫ى‬ۡ َ ‫ا‬ ‫ُن‬ۡ ‫ك‬ ‫ب‬
ِ ‫ص‬ ُ ‫ه‬ ‫ب‬‫ش‬َ َ ‫ت‬َ ً ُ
‫ي‬ ۡ
‫ح‬ َ ًَّ ​ ؕ ‫ي‬
ِ ۡ
‫ي‬ َ ‫ي‬َ ٌ‫س‬ۡ ‫ح‬
ُ ۡ
‫ال‬ َٓ‫ص ْۡ َى ِبٌَ ۤا ا ه َِۤل ا ِۡحذ‬
ُ ‫قُ ۡل َُ ۡل ت َ َشبه‬
(9:14) ‫ى‬ َ ْۡ ‫ص‬ ُ ّ‫ص ْۡۤا اًِها َهعَك ُۡن ُّهت َ َش ِب‬ ُ ‫ِبا َ ۡي ِذ ۡيٌَا ِ فَت َ َشبه‬
Say: "Can you expect for us other than one of two glorious things- (Martyrdom
or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his
punishment from Himself, or by our hands. So wait! we too will wait with you.
(48:20) ‫ّٰللاُ َهغَاًِ َن َكثِ ۡي َشةً ت َ ۡا ُخزُ ًَّۡ َِا‬
‫ع َذ ُك ُن ه‬
َ َّ
Allah has promised you much booty that you will take [in the future]…
Bueno de Mesquita's Expected Utility Theory states decision
maker calculate their expected utility from a war. However, it is
interesting to know many terrorists/jihadi fight to get their sins
forgiven in afterlife and to get the status of Martyrdom.
for academic purpose only

(3:160) ‫ب لَـك ُۡن‬ َ ‫ّٰللاُ فَ ََل‬

َ ‫غا ِل‬ ُ ٌۡ ‫ا ِۡى يه‬
‫ص ۡش ُك ُن ه‬
If Allah helps you, no one can defeat you

(3:139) ‫‏ َّ ََل ت َ ٌُِِ ْۡا َّ ََل ت َ ۡح َزًُ ْۡا َّا َ ًۡت ُ ُن ۡاَلَ ۡعلَ ْۡ َى ا ِۡى ك ٌُۡت ُ ۡن ُّه ۡؤ ِهٌِ ۡي َي‬
So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you believe!
(9:33 & 48:28) َ ٍٗ ‫ق ِليُ ۡظ ِِ َش‬
َّ‫علَٔ ال ِ ّذ ۡي ِي ُك ِل‬ ِّ ‫س ْۡلَ َٗ ِب ۡال ُِ ٰذٓ َّ ِد ۡي ِي ۡال َحـ‬ َ ‫ُُ َْ اله ِز ۡۤٓ ا َ ۡس‬
ُ ‫س َل َس‬
It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and Deen of Truth, to prevail it
over all Deen (in world). { Note: Deen in Arabic is system of governance/way of life }

Blainey's Dyadic Power Theory emphasize perceptions of relationship

of rival groups rather than objective balance of power. Theory argues
that war is a dispute about measurement of power and usually begin
when two nations/groups disagree on their relative strengths.
for academic purpose only

(47:35) ‫س ۡل ِن َّأًَت ُ ُن ۡٱۡل َ ۡعلَ ْۡ َى َّ ه‬

‫ٱَّللُ َهعَك ُۡن َّلَي يَتِ َشك ُۡن أ َ ۡع َو ٰـلَك ُۡن‬ ‫فَ ََل ت َ ٌُِِْاْ َّت َ ۡذع ُْٓاْ إِلَٔ ٱل ه‬
So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior, or Allah is with
you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) efforts
(9:29) َ ‫طْاْ ۡٱل ِج ۡزيَتَ عَي يَ ٍ۬ذ َّ ُُ ۡن‬
َ ‫ص ٰـ ِغ ُش‬
‫ّى‏‬ ُ ‫َحت ه ٰٔ يُ ۡع‬
…(Fight) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.
Rank-Disequilibrium Theory: Jihadi/Terrorist/Mujahideen feel
the Muslim Ummah as a whole is rank discrepant, differential
treatment (i.e. killing, invading, looting etc.) of Muslims produces
a destabilizing pressure for upward mobility. Upward mobility
lead to violence if no peaceful channels are available.
for academic purpose only

 Successful military planning begins by defining the end state and working

backward to achieve it. In neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was this fundamental
principle applied. Regime change is not in and of itself adequate end state.

 US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan seeking revenge and protection. But

technologies have shrink global time and distance. Once the killing starts,
it‘s hard to stop, and its even more true when its Islamic Country

 Both Iraq and Afghanistan war were strategic blunders made by US. It is

possible to fix it US may ally with an Islamic Terrorist organization such as

IS. US alliance with Islamic State in Afghanistan against China and Russia
for academic purpose only

 After 9/11, US leaders reached out to build international support for a

U.S. response. But this was going to be a different kind of war. US faced
not a specific state, but rather groups, networks, and persons
motivated by a certain ideology to engage in terrorist acts. President
George W. Bush had no practical experience in foreign or security
policy… but his team was experienced
 U.S. Central Command prepared a special forces–led operation to
destabilize the Taliban government of the Mullah Omar in Afghanistan,
where al-Qaeda were based. Mullah Omar‘s strict interpretation of
Islam had won support from a native population sickened by war,
Taliban also had (limited) support of Pakistani population and ISI.
for academic purpose only

 Across Afghanistan—from Mazar-e-Sharif to Herat, Kabul, and Kunduz—the

Americans contacted Pashtun, Uzbek, and Tajik tribal leaders. Those who
affirmed support were armed and put on the move. If they supported the
Taliban, they might be targeted. With the help of a well-connected Pashtun
intellectual named Hamid Karzai, anti-Taliban forces took the fight all the
way south to Kandahar.

 Hamid Karzai—the new Afghan president—was no friend of Pakistan. His

sympathies lay with India, Pakistan‘s longstanding enemy further east. What
began as a liberation turned into what many Afghanis felt was an
occupation. There is no easy way out for US in Afghanistan till date.
for academic purpose only

 Please watch PBS Frontline Documentaries on Iraq War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMD8HP0raw (Loosing Iraq)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzuQmeJrqZE (Rise of ISIS)

 After 2003 Iraq war, country no police, massive infrastructure failure,

and fierce tensions between various groups, sects, and tribes. The
Kurds in the north aimed for independence. Many Shia in the south
were more attuned to their neighbors in Iran than to the now vacated
Sunni power structure in the center. And the United States had no
solid plan for what to do after regime change.
for academic purpose only

 Terror is a tactic of War, you cannot declare War on ‗Tactics‘

 Whenever US entered a war with wrong reasons, it failed every time
 US treasury is broke, it does not have money and resources to fight
global war on terror on its own.
 US has set objectives which were impossible to achieve. Imposition of
one state‘s ideology on another state is dangerous (Carr‘s work)
 Most over arching issue with US is lack of extensive knowledge and
understanding of the enemy at all levels in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 Iraq War 2003 in search of never-found weapons of mass destruction was
what “Strategic blunder of highest Order.”
for academic purpose only

 Twentieth (20th) century was largely bipolar, however in 21st century

there is no world order and what happen in one part of the world has
an immediate affect on the other parts
 Concept of deterrence has changed today. US had best arsenal,
nuclear weapons, delivery systems, Army, Navy and Air force when it
entered ‗War on Terror‘ but it failed miserably in Global war on terror.
How do you fight an enemy which does not has Army Navy of Air-
force and is not deterred by weapons of mass destruction. How do you
fight an Idea the author questions?
 One need to have understanding of culture and terrain where war is
being waged and the information must be open to all departments
for academic purpose only

 US had misplaced assumptions and aims in wars

 Kill yourself to victory approach on ‗War on Terror‘
 No organization is perfect and this is true for US Army it needs
education and training
 Chain of Command must be clear, who has Authority? Who was in-
charge of global war on terror
 US killed more people because of its incompetence, lack of resource
management and clear chain of command than terrorism
 If Army is not efficient & effective then its black hole of resources
for academic purpose only

 There is no school or academy for key decision makers i.e. for

Presidents, Politicians, Senators etc. If the president ask a General
what are my options General should ask the President his objectives.
 ISIS has not lost the caliphate, it exist in hearts and minds and
cyberspace, the writer argued that idea of caliphate is not defeated.
Terrorist are smart people.
 If President cannot select most able or able persons to run state
departments then he is bound to get in crisis even without a problem
for academic purpose only

 Security in modern world deals with Interior Ministry Foreign

Ministry IT Ministry Education Ministry PEMRA Social Media
Migration Ministry of Energy, Agriculture, Finance Ministry and
Armed forces. Security in modern world is interconnected and is
not the subject of Military alone.
 We should have National Security University as a Strategic think
tank for traditional, non-traditional (Food, Water, Economics and
Energy) and nuclear threats
 Chancellor/President of NSU must be a civilian person
 National Defense University should be under NSU
for academic purpose only

 International system is Anarchic and this condition is permanent

 No Central Government, No Higher Authority and No Political Authority
 The ‗State‘ is primary actor in the International Arena
—Survival is the primary objective. It is achieved through ‗Power and Security‘.

—Primary means of security is power - International politics is power struggle

—Security enables to acquire power and consolidate it.

—Self-help system i.e. in order to survive state has to become really powerful

—Trust is difficult i.e. state operates in field on incomplete information

 States are rational actors and pursue only their own ‗National Interest‘
 War is undesirable, but natural product. It is inevitable to prevent wars.
for academic purpose only

Realism is the most dominant and well-established theory of International

Relations (IR), if not the ‗Only Theory of IR‘. It is the oldest theory since the
time of Thucydides and continues to be one of most accurate tools for
understanding International events. 431 – 404 BC
Classical Realism –‘History of Peloponnesian War’ by Thucydides
 ‗Natural order of Things‘ between ‗Strong‘ and ‗Weak‘ States
 War should not be waged unless victory is guaranteed
Classical Realism – Machiavelli’s work ‘The Prince’ – 1532 AD
 Leaders need to cunning and ruthless but also fair
 No place for morality abroad (International arena)
 Provide justice and strength at home (Domestic arena)
for academic purpose only

Classical Realism – Hobbes’ work ‘Leviathan’ – 1651 AD

 ‗State of Nature‘ is the ‗State of War‘. At any given time war can
break out, the State, therefore, must always be prepared for it.
 State is there to provide ‗Peace and Order‘ by whatever means i.e.
with or without Democracy; with or without Justice…
Neo-Classical Realism – Morgenthau’s work – 2oth Century
 If you don‘t take care of yourself no-one is going to do it for you
 Power and morality has nothing in common
 Foreign policy maybe evil but it may be necessary evil
for academic purpose only

Neo-Classical Realism – Carr’s work – 2oth Century

 Imposition of one state‘s ideology on another state is dangerous
Neo-Classical Realism – Waltz’s work – 2oth Century
 Three (3) levels of Analysis: – Systemic – State – Individual
 Systemic realm compels states to act in certain way. Former action
by State compels leader to act in certain way. Leader should make
rational decisions keeping in view the above and state survival.
 Three modes of Power Polarity: – Bi-polar – Multipolar – Unipolar
 International system is anarchic but not chaotic. It has a ‗Structure‘
which influences the decisions and opinions that a State makes.