The peacemaker’s power games

The President of the United States of America probably believes that the road to peace is through war. War brings eventual peace, and to fight wars, America needs a ministry of war. Simple. President Trump claims to be brokering peace in at least three conflicts: India-Pakistan, Russia-Ukraine, and Israel-Hamas.

Eyes still on the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump has signed a Presidential Order to rename the Department of Defence as the Department of War. This restores the earlier nomenclature for the department. The Department of War, created in 1789, became the Department of Defence in 1949, with an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, unifying the branches of the military: Army, Navy, and Air Force.

While it is the prerogative of the US President to change the names of departments under his administration, it is not clear as to how changing this change will make America great again, any sooner than what the Department of Defence would have achieved.

The US has two immediate neighbours, Canada to the north and Mexico to the South, with whom the country shares land borders. So, it has no enemies in its neighborhood to fight a war, unless the present occupant of the White House decides to create one by antagonising friends and turning them into foes.

All the wars that America has fought, beginning in the last century, have been miles away from its territory, be it Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. In all these wars, America’s military can claim victory, but questions about achieving the long-term objectives of the wars remain unanswered, despite the huge costs, regional imbalance, and lack of tangible benefits.

One notable aspect of the several conflicts in the first quarter of the century is the use of technology, which has surpassed the deployment of manpower. America has had the time and the economic power over the last few years of the last century to analyse the outcomes of the wars it fought and make a course correction by improving its satellite technology, operational agility, logistic support, and command systems that control modern warfare. All this was probably made possible by several layers of institutional frameworks functioning under the command and control system of the Department of Defence. Will the Department of War retain these structures? There are already murmurs in the corridors of the Pentagon about the huge cost involved in creating new stationery instead of making use of the dollars for capacity building and improving the conditions of the men and machinery.

Besides, America should also worry about the technological quantum jump made by its bête noire, China. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has transformed itself into one of the most modern, technologically superior, and war-ready military forces. China is considered to be superior in several critical areas such as missile, drone and hypersonic technology, naval capabilities, cyber warfare, artificial intelligence and robotics, and more importantly, psychological warfare.

The British Military Doctrine (1989) identifies the “physical, intellectual and moral” aspects of defence preparedness as three salient components of military effectiveness and fighting power. The ‘physical’ includes weapons, manpower, troop movement logistics, etc., while the ‘intellectual’ is all about understanding the nuances of the conflict, and systems and processes to be deployed. The ‘moral’ component involves a study of the cultural and social aspects of the opponent, knowledge of the enemy force, and its civilisational strengths and weaknesses. Modern warfare is not confined to defence equipment and firepower.

Commenting on America’s wars, Maj. Gen. Robert H Scales Jr., US Army (Retd) writes, “War is a thinking man’s game. Wars are won as much by creating alliances, leveraging non-military advantages, reading intentions, building trust, converting opinions, and managing perceptions; all tasks that demand an exceptional ability to understand people, their culture, and their motivation”.

In the future, America may not have the luxury of choosing the battleground, the time, the means, or the methods of war. The Department of War will now have to coordinate with several of the departments under the dispensation in the White House. These departments may not always be happy about the superiority of the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of War. President Trump would be well advised to realise and appreciate the need for a better understanding of the cultural, social, and civilisational aspects, and the strengths and weaknesses of the countries he is planning to deal with, through war, peace, or trade.

The writer reads between the lines on big national and international developments from his vantage point in the BJP and the RSS.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.