Mare Somniorum

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World by General Sir Rupert Smith has been on my reading list for a while, and it’s finally read. It’s a well written book that comes in several parts, of which the main part deals with a concise history and the development of military doctrine. It is a study of history that serves as a backdrop for understanding where we are today and why we’re having trouble changing our ways. There is a lot of information in the book, reading it in small doses might be advisable for those who haven’t studied military history previously. This is not to say that the work is anything but accessible, it is merely a statement to the quantity of material.

There are also repetitions of ideas and concepts, but often their context change and the purpose would seem to be to show us patterns repeating across contextual changes. The theater might change, the basis of the play remains. There are also quotes which in their simplicity seek to underscore the authors point of view. And mostly, Smith succeeds very well, like when he speaks about the way war amongst the people is fought.

This [aim] is an inversion of industrial war, where the objective was to win the trial of strength and thereby break the enemy’s will. In war amongst the people the strategic objective is to capture the will of the people and their leaders, and thereby win the trail of strength.

“The Utility of Force”, Knopf hardback, p. 279.

The amazingly enlightening chapter regarding Smiths time in Bosnia is a case study both with regards to why we failed, but also to how the author came to understand the change of paradigm in war. The traditional view separating the political and the military theater is stunningly brought to bear as Smith informs Richard Halbrooke about the impending application of force to break the siege of Sarajevo. Halbrooke responded that he saw “the intended action as a separate and disconnected activity and apparently of no consequence to him.” However, once the siege was lifted, Halbrooke suddenly found his negotiations to be a lot smoother, and became a participant in the tactical operations.

Military force is still thought of as only being able to supply either decisive victory, or be inconsequential for the political agenda. This leads to Smiths evaluation of current thoughts on how the talk of transformation with regards to the utility of force, often isn’t.

[T]here is an acceptance in many circles that that we now conduct operations rather than wars, but we still expect them to deliver a definitive military victory in its own right that will resolve a political problem, rather than one that contributes and supports the resolution by other means.

“The Utility of Force”, Knopf hardback, p. 375.

Smiths quote “war no longer exists” has become somewhat famous. Taken out of context you might wonder what he’s on about, but when you read the entire passage, you can’t help but see his point.

For it must never be forgotten: war no longer exists. Confrontation, conflict and combat undoubtedly exist all around the world and states still have armed forces as they use as a symbol of power. Nonetheless, war as cognitively known to most non-combatants, war as a battle in a field between men and machinery, war as a massive deciding event in a dispute in international affairs, industrial war — such a war no longer exists. We are now engaged, constantly and in many permutations, in war amongst the people. We must adapt our approach and organize our institutions to this overwhelming reality if we are to triumph in the confrontation and conflicts that we face.

“The Utility of Force”, Knopf hardback, p. 415. Emphasis in original.

This is also the concluding paragraph in the book. Anyway, sometimes the question is not only, “is this a good book”, but it is also “is this an important book?” In almost every way, the answer to both questions, at least today, is “yes”.