Current Research at ISERP
The Political Decisiveness of War
by Page Fortna (Political Science)
The United StatesÂ' war in Iraq has put the issue of achieving military and political victory front and center for policy makers. But a puzzling shift has occurred in war outcomes—one that has profound implications, but has been little noticed, let alone explained in security studies scholarship. War has become less politically decisive than it once was. For all its ills, warfare has traditionally served as a decision mechanism of last resort. When political issues could not be resolved diplomatically in international affairs, a contest of arms was used to settle the matter. In recent years, however, many wars have ended with no concomitant resolution of the underlying political dispute. Military outcomes no longer necessarily translate into political outcomes. Even after lopsided military contests, the losing side in the military fight often now refuses to concede the political issue, and many political disputes that have been fought over repeatedly (as Kashmir) remain unresolved.
This project aims to document this shift in the political decisiveness of war, to investigate its causes, and to explore its implications. The project involves systematically collecting information on the military and political outcomes of war (concepts that are conflated in existing data on war, but are measured separately in this study) over the last two centuries. HistoriansÂ' accounts of warfare prior to the Napoleonic era will also be used to provide a longer historical perspective on fluctuations in the military and political decisiveness of war. The study will explore possible explanations for changes in warÂ's ability to decide political issues, including shifts in material factors such as military technology or economic modes of production, changes over time in the issues over which wars are fought, and shifts in the practices and norms of war. The project will result in a book manuscript, and two articles, one explaining the change and one exploring policy implications.
The recent decline in the political decisiveness of war has profound implications for the stability of the international system, and particularly for the United States as the worldÂ's dominant military power. If war has become less likely to settle political disputes, this may contribute in the long-run to the obsolescence of war as a political practice. But in the meantime, it may result in more violence and war as unresolved issues are left to fester, flaring up into violence repeatedly. With its unprecedented military dominance, the US is likely to win its military engagements for the foreseeable future. But this project suggests it may have greater difficulty turning military victory in desirable political outcomes. Understanding the extent of this problem, and how best to ameliorate it, depends on understanding the causes of the apparent divorce between military and political outcomes. Very different policy recommendations follow if the decline in political decisiveness is the result of changes in military technology, say, rather than changing norms of warfare. Determining the causes of the decline in warÂ's ability to resolve political disputes, and the policy recommendations that follow, is the aim of this project.
See Also
- Research grant: The Political Decisiveness of War
- Seed grant: The Changing Meaning of War
- Featured publication: Peace Time: Cease-Fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace
Funded by Smith Richardson Foundation, Inc. »
