An American Way of Political Warfare: A Proposal

Abstract

American combat experiences since 2001 have revealed stunning military capabilities and repeated tactical successes. Yet the United States has failed to achieve acceptable and durable political arrangements that serve and protect U.S. interests, suggesting that there are fundamental flaws in its approach to modern warfare. The U.S. approach has emphasized existing and largely conventional models and tools, making little accommodation for a changing adversary and its evolution toward nonconventional means. The consequence has been troubled campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq; against the Islamic State; and against various irregular forces in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere. And the United States is unprepared to contest the nonconventional means being employed by revisionist, revolutionary, and rogue powers, which the U.S. National Security Strategy recognizes as engaged in "fundamentally political contests" employing a blend of political, economic, cyber, and military tools.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jul 01, 2018
Accession Number
AD1084823

Entities

People

  • Andrew M. Liepman
  • Charles T. Cleveland
  • Daniel Egel
  • David Maxwell
  • Ryan Crocker

Organizations

  • RAND Corporation
  • Smith Richardson Foundation

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Cyber
  • Energy and Power Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Asymmetric Warfare
  • Counterterrorism
  • Department Of Defense
  • Department Of State
  • Governments
  • Hybrid Warfare
  • Law
  • Military Organizations
  • National Politics
  • National Security
  • Personnel Management
  • Terrorism
  • Unconventional Warfare
  • Unified Combatant Commands
  • United States
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Strategic Security Studies

Technology Areas

  • Cyber