MILITARY THOUGHT

Course description
The course, military thought, essentially deals with a
social phenomenon evolving in the history of society. It
also tries to show how war becomes the continuation of
political struggle indifferent forms.
The course examines the army, as an organization,
formed to fight wars and its institutional links with the
society at large.
The characteristics of the army are portrayed in relation
to the conduct and nature of wars.
The course gives attention to the study of military
science and art; and also provides the Students with the
concepts of military doctrine, strategy, operation; and
relationship between them.

Course objectives
Upon completion of this course, the students would
be able to:
1.Analyze the foundation of basic military thought, the
causes and characteristics of war, its development and
its links to economy and politics.
2.Explain the origin of military science and art.
3.Understand and analyze the concepts of military
doctrine and strategy as well as their relation.
4.Understand the relation between national interests
and instruments of national power.

Mode of Delivery
Lecture
Individual and group exercise
Group discussion
Mode of Assessment
Mid exam Test--------------------Group assignment---Final exam------------Total--------------------

30%
20%
50%
100%

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION TO MILITARY THOUGHT
2. WHAT IS WAR?
2.1 CAUSES OF WAR
2.2 TYPES OF WAR
2.3 LEVELS OF WAR
2.4 PRINCIPLES OF WAR
3. ARMY/MILITARY ORGANIZATION
4. CONTRIBUTORS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ARMY AND WAR
5. MILITARY DOCTRINE
6. MILITARY SCIENCE AND ART
7. MILITARY STRATEGY

Chapter I
Introduction
Military thought is a field of study helping
military students, historians and other
researchers to understand the concepts and
thoughts on war and on military issues in the
past present and future .

On War: Focuses on its meaning, nature, character and conduct

of war
On military issues /Affairs/ : Focuses on those issues related with preparation for War
Military organization, training,
mobilization, development of weapons
The study of strategy and tactics
Developing and organization of reserve forces etc

Contributes
to new
Military
strategy

Military Thought

Developed
Theory

Improves
theory

- Nature War

- Character of
war
- Conduct of
02/02/16 War

Military
Strategy
Sun tzu
Machiaveli
Jommini
Clausewitz
etc
Society

Economic
Social
Political
Technological

Tested in war

War

French
Revolution
WW I
WW II
etc

Lesson
learned
&
Strategy is
tested

Shape, Develop, &

improve
8

Important Issues to be considered while studying

military thought
1. It should be based on the scientific laws that govern war and military
issues
2. The political nature of war must be taken in to consideration
War is the instrument of achieving political objectives
Understanding the politics that governs and leads the war is the
key
3. Understanding the evolving character of war that each war has its own
peculiarities, no identical war exists
4. Understanding the political, economic, technological contexts in which
the war is conducted

CHAPTER 2
Theory of War

 War has been a persistent pattern of

interaction between and within states and
other political units for millennia.
In its many varieties, it is probably the most
destructive form of human behavior.
War kills people, destroys resources, slow
downs economic development, destroys
environments, spreads disease, expands
governments, militarizes societies, reshapes
cultures, disrupts families, and traumatizes
people.
Preparation for war, whether for occupation
or for protection, diverts valued resources
from more constructive social activities, and
it often undermines security rather than
enhances it.

What is War
War defines broadly as sustained, coordinated
violence between political organizations.
Such a definition includes great power wars like
World War I,II
Colonial wars like those fought by the European
great powers in Africa and Asia from the eighteenth
century to early twentieth century
Civil wars a war within the domestic socities
Organized insurgencies war with governments
Tribal wars among pre - modern societies, and a wide
variety of other forms of violence.
It involves the use of force to kill and injure people
and destroy military and economic resources.
War may Interstate (wars between different
countries) or intrastate (Domestic) wars

 In addition to fighting other states in interstate

wars, states fight domestic challengers in internal
or civil wars for the control of the state or for
secession from the state.
Those domestic challengers may fight each other.
States may also fight with non state actors.
Let is summarize the definition of war taking the
popular definition of Clausewitz. According to
him, War is an extension of politics by other
means. This means war is not an end by itself it
is a means to achieve the political objectives
using military forces.

War have its own nature, character and way

of conduct.

Nature, character and conduct of

war
Nature of War

Danger
Friction
Uncertainty
Fluidity
Chaos
Complex
Physical,
emotional,
psychological
influence
Human factor
is decisive

Character of war
/Who fights for
what purpose/

Objective
focus/countri
es coalition
States
governments

Conduct of war
/How fight/

Technology
Strategy
Out come
Types of war
(Conventional
/unconventio
nal (guerrilla)

14

A.

Nature of War

War as a unique social

phenomenon It is: -

Danger
Nature
of War
Friction
Uncertainty
Fluidity
Chaos
Complex
Physical, emotional, psychological
influence
Human factor is decisive
The nature of war does not change but
the character and conduct of war will
change

1. Danger
War is danger Violent Armed conflict its out come
/result is destruction/ catastrophic Death, sufferings
its immediate result is bloodshed, destruction, and
suffering. While the magnitude of violence may vary
with the object and means of war, the violent essence
of war will never change.

However, the danger can be reduced through unit

cohesion, training and increasing war efficiency e.t.c.

2. Friction /Friction of Ideas

It is a clash between opposed wills creates friction.
In this dynamic environment of interacting forces,
friction abounds.
Friction may be mental, as in indecision over a course
of action.
It may be physical, as in effective enemy fire or a
terrain obstacle that must be overcome.
Friction may be external, imposed by enemy action,
the terrain, weather, or mere chance.
Friction may be self-induced like lack of a clearly
defined goal, lack of coordination, unclear or
complicated plans, complex task organizations or
command relationships, or complicated technologies.

Uncertainty
Adversaries
enter in to war with inadequate
(incomplete) some times deceived information as war is
not natural science which tested using laboratory
mechanism.
However, Continuous knowledge of belligerent
/Enemy/, maintaining constant readiness and improving
leadership capacity can simplify the problem of
uncertainty,
we must realize that we cannot eliminate themor
even come close.
The very nature of war makes certainty impossible; all
actions in war will be based on incomplete, inaccurate,
or even contradictory information.

Fluidity
War is Fluidity it require mental flexibility. In war
there exists constant change of time in both enemy
and friendly situations.
This indicates that, it requires close fallow up and
appreciation of situations studying the nature and
character of enemy and preparing oneself

Chaos
In war all mentioned create chaos. In an
environment of friction, uncertainty, and
fluidity, war gravitates naturally toward chaos
or disorder.
Like the other attributes of war, chaos or
disorder is an inherent characteristic of war;
we can never eliminate it. In the heat of battle,
plans will go out of kilter, instructions and
information will be unclear and misinterpreted,
communications will fail, and mistakes and
unforeseen events will be commonplace.
It is precisely this natural disorder which
creates the conditions ripe for exploitation by
an opportunistic will.

War is complex
War is Complex with diverse weapon systems,
several units with their specific task and functions.
We have described war as essentially a clash
between opposed wills. In reality, each belligerent is
not a single, homogeneous will guided by a single
intelligence.
Instead, each belligerent is a complex system
consisting of numerous individual parts. A division
comprises regiments, a regiment comprises
battalions, and so on all the way down to fire teams
which are composed of individuals.
war is not governed by the actions or decisions of a
single individual in any one place but emerges from
the collective behavior of all the individual parts in

Moral and psychological Factors

War is characterized by the interaction of physical,
moral, and mental forces.
The physical characteristics of war are generally
easily seen, understood, and measured: equipment
capabilities, supplies, physical objectives seized,
force ratios, losses of materiel or life, terrain lost or
gained, prisoners or materiel captured.
The moral characteristics are less tangible. The
willingness to fight,

Human factor is decisive to shoulder all the burden

of war and achieve desired end state /victory / human
being is the decisive force.
In other wards it human that determine the outcome
of the war.
Because war is a clash between opposing human
wills, the human dimension is central in war.
It is the human dimension which infuses war with its
intangible moral factors.

The nature of war does not change but

the character and conduct of war will
change

Having just cause, developing efficient

military theory, and better technology play
major role in winning war.

Conclusion
War as instrument of achieving political
objectives
War as complex full of chaos where death,
suffering and excavation prevail
War as armed conflict of antagonistically
contradicting interests
These are facts prevailing and may not be
changed in future

2.2 Causes of war

Causes of war as proposed by various thinkers
(observers) in different times;

Scholars from a wide range of disciplines philosophy,

history, political science, theology, anthropology,
sociology, psychology, economics, mathematics, biology,
literature, and others have engaged the questions of
what causes war and how humankind might eliminate
war or at least bring it under greater control.
Their efforts have led to a proliferation of theories but
to no consensus as to the causes of war or of other
forms of social violence.
Scholars disagree not only on the specific causes of
war, but also on how to approach the study of war.

 It is not surprising that there are

divisions between scholars in different
countries (Wver, 1998) and in different
disciplines that
psychologists
generally
emphasize
psychological factors,
that economists emphasize economic
factors, that
anthropologists
emphasize
cultural
factors, and so on. Let us see how
different disciplines put the cause of
war

Theological reasoning
Curse from the Creator
Genetic explanation
Aggressive behaviour of human
beings
Psychologists explanation
Frustration
Misperception
Misunderstanding
Miscalculation
Eritrea war of aggression on Ethiopia

Sociologists explanation
Inability to solve contradicting interests in
peaceful means
Social division of classes as the only cause of
war
The emergence of social classes created
rivalry on resources
Abolishing classes difference is the only
solution to end with war.

Economic explanation
International security expert Michael T. Klare argues
that in the early decades of the new millennium,
wars will be fought not over ideology but over access
to
dwindling
supplies
of
precious
natural
commodities like oil, water, diamond, gold e.t.c.
Natural resources are never the only source of a
conflict. Any given conflict is brought about by a
complex set of events; often poverty, ethnic or
religious grievances, and unstable governments also
play major roles.
But even after these factors have been taken into
account, studies consistently find that natural
resources heighten the danger that a civil war will
break out, and once it breaks out, that conflict will be
more difficult to resolve (Prof. Michael Ross, 2002).

 Let us take water as example. Water conflicts

are disputes or wars triggered or fueled by
competing access to water resources by
countries, states, or groups.
Water bears many similarities to oil. It is
essential for a wide range of human activities,
and it exists in relatively finite amounts.
Once the available supply is exhausted,
moreover, additional quantities can be acquired
only through heroic and costly efforts.
Water has historically been a source of tension
and a factor in conflicts that start for other
reasons. Interstate conflicts occur between two
or more neighboring countries that share a
trans-boundary water source, such as a river,
sea, or ground water basin.

 As the Kenyan professor Patricia

states, in 1979, Egyptian President
Anwar Sadat said:
The only matter that could take
Egypt to war again is water.
In
1988
then-Egyptian
Foreign
Minister Boutros-Ghali, who later
became
the
United
Nations
Secretary-General, predicted that
the next war in the Middle East
would be fought over the waters of
the Nile, not politics.

Eritrea war of aggression on Ethiopia

DISCUSS THE CAUSE OF THE WAR

To understand modern theories of war and conflict

and to prosecute them successfully, the military
professional must thoroughly understand the levels of
war and how they are interrelated.
Each level is concerned with planning (making
strategy), which involves analyzing the situation,
estimating friendly and enemy capabilities and
limitations, and devising possible courses of action
War as a complex social phenomenon, it is
not the task of the military organization alone
but all human & material recourses of the
nation are involved.
War as a peculiar social phenomenon, it
requires to have leadership and division of
duties/ responsibilities at all its levels. There
are three levels strategic, operational and

Strategic Level
The strategic level focuses on defining and
supporting national policy and relates directly to
the outcome of a war or other conflict as a whole.
Usually, modern wars and conflicts are won or lost
at this level rather than at the operational or
tactical levels.
The strategic level applies to all forms of war and
conflict from military activities short of war through
insurgent, conventional, and and other forms of
warfare.
This level involves a strategic concept, plans for
preparing all national instruments of power for war
or conflict, practical guidance for preparing the
armed forces, and leadership of the armed forces to
achieve strategic objectives.
Is the level of war which determines the national
security objectives.

 Establish
objectives;
sequence
initiatives;
defines limits and assess risk for the use of
military and other instruments of national power
Encompasses the whole activates of mobilizing
and preparing the armed forces, planning and
conducting war in the interests of the nation
Operational Level
The
operational level is concerned with
employing military forces in a theater of war or
theater of operations to obtain an advantage
over the enemy and thereby attain strategic
goals.
Where and when to conduct a campaign is based
on objectives, the threat, and limitations
imposed by geographical, economic, and cultural
environments, as well as the numbers and types
of military resources available.

 Is the level of war where the linkage between strategic

level of war (strategic objectives) and the tactical
application of combat power.
Provides intermediate category of military activity of
WHEN, WHERE and HOW to fight
It is the level at which campaigns and major operations
are planned conducted and sustained to achieve
strategic objectives
Sequence events, initiate actions, apply resources and
sustain to achieve operational objectives
Uses tactical results to achieve strategic objectives
Tactical level

The tactical level translates potential combat power into

success in battles and engagements through decisions and
actions. that create advantages when in contact with or in
proximity to the enemy. Tactics deal in the details of
prosecuting engagements and are extremely sensitive to
the changing environment of the battlefield.

Tactics deal in the details of prosecuting engagements

and are extremely sensitive to the changing environment
of the battlefield
The level of war at which battles and
engagements are planned and executed to
accomplish military objectives assigned to
tactical units or taskforces
Activities at this level focus on the ordered
arrangement and manoeuvre of combat
elements in relation to each other and to the
enemy to achieve combat objectives
Commanders at this level are concerned
objectives set at operational level

National Policy
National Security Strategy
National Military Strategy

Campaign Plan
Plan Major Operations

Battles
Engagements

2.4 Types of War

2.4.1
Based on conduct of war, war can be
Conventional or Unconventional war
Conventional war is a form of warfare conducted
by using conventional weapons and battlefield
tactics between two or more states in open
confrontation.
The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight
using
weapons
that
primarily
target
the
opponent's military.
It is normally fought using conventional weapons,
and not with chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons.
The general purpose of conventional warfare is to
weaken or destroy the opponent's military, thereby
to weaken its ability to engage in conventional
warfare..

 Unconventional war defines as activities

conducted to enable a resistance movement
or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or
overthrow a government or occupying
power by operating through or with an
underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force
in a denied area.
In
unconventional
war
asymmetry
is
common. One side may have sophisticated
technology, highly train manpower, large
size and well design structure that the
other part do not have. Unconventional
warfare is the primary method by which low
intensity conflict is fought.

2.4.2 Based on Justification, war can be just or unjust

war
In order to understand whether the war is just or
unjust it is better looking Ethics of war.
Three views are considered when talking about the
morality or Ethics of war.
They are realism, pacifism, and the just war theory.
Each of them has its own beliefs regarding the ethics
of warfare.

Realism
The realist says that we cannot find morality in war
and that morality cannot be applied in war.
The realist believes that a state should always be
thinking about its own national interest.
A state should therefore do whatever it thinks to be
beneficial to its national interest, even if it is to wage
a war against other states.

 The state then must do whatever it takes to win the

war and get what it wants, so morality is never
applicable to war and international affairs.
Realists believe that morality is for individual
persons only and not for the state because the
states playground, the international ground, is
harsh and the state needs to protect its people and
its interest from other states.
The state cannot therefore afford to apply morality
when dealing with international affairs. Some of the
prominent realists are Machiavelli and Thomas
Hobbes.
Pacifism
The pacifist believes that we should never result into
violence or war for whatever reason.
Paul Christopher wrote that The pacifist, abhorring the
suffering caused by violence, concludes that war is
consummate evil and rejects it under all circumstance.

 The pacifist argues that wars can never be morally

justified and that we should not result into war no
matter what.
The roots of pacifism can be found and traced back
with the early Christians where the use of violence is
never permissible.

Just War Theory

The third of these views regarding the morality of war
is the just war theory which believes that sometimes
wars are just and sometimes they are not.
Even if war is evil, we can find morality in it.
At the present time, the just war theory is mainly
divided into three parts and are said to be
independent of each other, meaning the justification
for each are separate from one another. The three
main principles of the just war theory are jus ad
bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum.

Jus ad Bellum
The jus ad bellum is the principle which is
concerned with the justification of resorting to
war in the first place. It tries to find a justification
whether the war was waged justly or unjustly.
War is justified if and only if:
(1) Just cause why it resorted to war,
(2) Proper authority to declare a war
(3) Right intention for resorting into war
(4) Declared the war as a last resort
(5) High probability of success
(6) Proportionality of the good the war will produce
to its costs.

Principles of Just War

Just cause
Protection from external attack is the first and
foremostand in the eyes of some, the only-just cause of war; based on the right of selfdefence.
Some have maintained the humanitarian
intervention is also justified, where we go to
war to save the lives of innocent people who
are being attacked by an aggressor.

Right intention
The war must be pursued for a just
cause.
Unacceptable intentions:
Revenge
Political expansion
Land acquisition

Proper authority and public declaration

Traditionally,
only
nations
have
the
authority to declare
war.
Wars must be publicly
declared, not pursued
in secret.

Last resort

If there are other means of

achieving the same objectives,
such as negotiations or economic
blockades,
they
should
be
pursued exhaustively first.

Probability of success
The rationale here is clear and simple: war is a
great evil, and it is wrong to cause such killing,
suffering, and destruction in a futile effort.

Proportionality
Are the possible benefits (especially in
terms of a just peace) proportional to the
death, suffering, and destruction that the
pursuit of the war will bring about?
It means to say that the damage or the
costs war brings must be outweighed by
the good that will come out of it

Jus in bello:
The Just Conditions for Conducting a War
Jus in bello is the principle of the just war theory
that is concerned with the justification during the
conduct of war.
The condition that should be met for jus in bello are
the following:
1.Discriminated between combatants and noncombatants
2.Uses force proportional to the goal they want to
achieve
3.Performs right treatment of prisoners of war
4.Follows international rules on weapons prohibition
5.Does not use methods which are evil in themselves
6.Performs no revenge

Jus post bellum:

Creating a Just Peace
Brian Orend gives 5 conditions for a just
peace:
1. Just cause for termination.
2. Right intention.
3. Public declaration and legitimate
authority.
4. Discrimination.
5. Proportionality.

Just cause for termination

Orend: a reasonable vindication of
those rights whose violation
grounded the resort to war in the
first place.
Unjust gains from aggression have been
eliminated
Victims rights reinstated
Formal apology
Acceptance of reasonable punishment

Right intention
Exclude or keep out motives such as
revenge
Prosecution of war crimes needs to
be applied to all, not just the
vanquished.

Public declaration and

legitimate authority
This requirement is fairly
straightforward and
uncontroversial.

Discrimination
Differentiate between
Political and military leaders
Military and civilian populations

Punish the elite responsible for

prosecuting the war, not the
uninvolved civilians.

Proportionality
The vanquished do not lose their
rights
No witch hunts

Proportional to reasonable rights

vindication

In conclusion
War is not a matter of choice, but the
question of survival.
In most cases parties enter in to war
when lack peaceful solution.
How ever, not all wars start as the last
resort
It is based on the policy and objectives
of the party / government / of the day to
up-hold the countrys national interest

Principles of War

Principles of War
Principle of war are not created overnight. They
Developed and refined in the long history of war and
serve as a guide in today's and future conduct of
war.
For
centuries,
many
military
organizations
subscribed to the idea that there exists a set of
guiding principles or ideas that guide the conduct
and study of war.
There has never been universal agreement on one
common list of principles. Most nations have their
own list of principles, based on their military
culture, experience and heritage.
Principles of War are a guide to actions concerning
the application of combat power
Principles are not substitutes for professional
understanding, experience and education. They help
provide a better understanding of warfare but these
are only guidelines and not a prescription, formula,
recipe or checklist for success.

 They serve at all levels of war

interrelated manner. They do not apply
the same way to every situation.
They summarize the characteristics of
successful operation.
They add Greatest value in the education
the military professional

in
in
a
of

Uks Principles of war

Selection and Maintenance of Aim
Maintenance of Morale
Offensive Action
Surprise
Concentration of Force
Economy of Force
Security
Flexibility
Cooperation
Sustainability
According to UK doctrine publication of 2005

Soviet/Russian principles
Preparedness
Initiative
Capability
Cooperation
Concentration
Depth
Morale
Obedience
Steadfastness
Security
Logistics

Chinese Principles of War

Full Preparation
Know your enemy, know yourself
Initiative
Concentration of Force
Comprehensive Assault
Catch the enemy Unaware
Close coordination
Continuous fighting
All round Support
Bring the political Superiority in to Play

US Principles of war as Universal

Principles
Objective
offensive
mass
economy of force
manoeuvre
unity of command
simplicity
security
Surprise

OBJECTIVE:
No one starts a war --- or rather, no one in his
senses ought to do so ---- without first being clear
in his mind what he intends to achieve by that
war.
Direct every military operation toward a clearly
defined, decisive and attainable objective
Operational and tactical objectives contribute to
the goal of HHQ (STRATEGIC)
Commanders Should have clear understanding of
the expected outcome & its impact
At strategic level .having clear vision of the
End-State including the political dimension

OFFENSIVE:
Offensive operations are the way you seize the
initiative while maintaining freedom of action and
achieving decisive results.
This principle of offensive action is critical to all
levels of war you might experience.
Offensive operations are essential to
maintain freedom of action for success,
exploit vulnerabilities, react to changing
situations

MASS:
Achieving mass means organizing all the elements
of combat power at your disposal to have decisive
effect on your enemy very quickly.
Commanders mass the effects of combat power to
overwhelm enemies or gain control of the situation
Concentrate the effects of combat power at
the decisive place & time.
Massing the effect of combat power to
overwhelm enemies to gain control of the
situation
Massing in time applies elements of combat
power on multiple targets simultaneously
Massing in space concentrate the effects of
different elements of combat power on a
single target.

ECONOMY OF FORCE:
In battle, all parts of your force must act. You should
never leave part of the force without a purpose.
That doesnt mean everyone has to do the same
thing.
Allocate minimum essential combat power
to secondary efforts.
Involves the discriminating employment and
distribution of forces

MANEUVER:
Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the
flexible application of combat power.
Concentrate and disperse combat power to place and keep
enemy at a disadvantage
Makes enemy confront new problems and dangers faster
than they react, thus keeps enemy off balance
Manoeuvre allows to gain and preserve freedom of action,
reduce vulnerability and exploit success.
Maneuver is more than just fire and movement. It includes
the dynamic, flexible application of leadership, firepower,
information, and protection as well.
It requires flexibility in thought, plans, and operations and
the skillful application of mass, surprise, and economy of force.

UNITY OF COMMAND:
For every objective, ensure unity of effort
under one responsible commander.
Unity
of
Command
directs
and
coordinates the actions of all forces
towards a common objective.
In the absence of command authority
commanders cooperate, negotiate and
build consensus to achieve unity of effort.
Success on the battlefield demands that a
single commander hold the authority to
direct all forces toward the objective in a
unified, coordinated effort.

SECURITY:
War is a risky business. To be successful, you need to be willing
to take necessary, calculated risks to preserve your force and
defeat your enemy.
Protecting and securing your force, in turn, leaves you free to
take those risks.
Security results from measures taken by a command to protect
itself from surprise, interference, sabotage, annoyance, and
threat ISR.
Military deception greatly enhances security. The threat of
asymmetric action requires emphasis on security, even in lowthreat environments.
Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage

.
Security protects and preserves combat power
Security results from measures taken by a command to protect the
unit from surprise, interference, sabotage, ..etc annoyance.
Military deception enhances security

SURPRISE:
Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a
manner for which he is unprepared.
Results from action for which an enemy is
unprepared
Powerful, but temporary combat multiplier
Not essential making enemy unaware but
let him to late

SIMPLICITY
Prepare clear and uncomplicated plans and
clear, concise orders to ensure thorough
understanding
Simplicity reduces misunderstanding and
confusion
Simple plans lead to better understanding of a
commanders intent and assist leadership at all
levels to accomplish the mission.
Simplicity is especially critical when you and
your Soldiers are tired or stressed. So keep the
number of moving parts to a minimum.
All things being equal, the simplest plan is
usually the best.