ABSTRACT
This article addresses why the US in its military operations tends to focus on only one dimension in war – the military narrowly understood. More precisely, in the US case, its armed forces tend to be preoccupied with platforms and understand military capabilities as those that deliver death and destruction. I explain this one-sided understanding of the military dimension in war with how the US armed forces think about future war. How the US understands future war is, in turn, a reflection of how it organizes its long-term defense planning procedures. In particular, by approaching the concept of future as by and large structurally determined, a focus on platforms becomes natural. Investments in weapons systems, too, are more easily motivated to Congress since it is easier to attach a price to developing, for example, a new submarine than it is to attach a price to the cost of developing a military organization that is adaptive, learning and anticipating. The understanding of the future as something that happens whether you like it or not is particularly odd in the US context where of course a central tenet of the American dream is that the individual creates her own future.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Isabelle Duyvesteyn (Citation2013) has rejuvenated Bernard Brodie’s (Citation1949) term “strategic illiteracy” and called for increased strategic awareness in Western military operations.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jan Angstrom
Jan Angstrom is professor of War Studies at the Swedish Defence University. He earned his PhD at Department of War Studies, King’s College, London and is also an associate professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University. His latest book (co-authored with J.J. Widen) is Contemporary Military Theory: The Dynamics of War (Routledge, 2015).