How do the weak win wars? The likelihood of victory and defeat in asymmetric conflicts depends on the interaction of the strategies weak and strong actors use. Using statistical and in-depth historical analyses of conflicts spanning two hundred years, in this 2005 book Ivan Arregúin-Toft shows that, independent of regime type and weapons technology, the interaction of similar strategic approaches favors strong actors, while opposite strategic approaches favors the weak. This approach to understanding asymmetric conflicts allows us to makes sense of how the United States was able to win its war in Afghanistan (2002) in a few months, while the Soviet Union lost after a decade of brutal war (1979–89). Arreguín-Toft's strategic interaction theory has implications not only for international relations theory, but for policy makers grappling with interstate and civil wars, as well as terrorism.

This thesis builds on the research and ideas of the school of thought that believes strategy is the most important factor in predicting war outcomes. One shortcoming of that school is the inability to explain why strong actors would implement a strategy that does not provide the highest probability of victory. The thesis uses game theory to illustrate how a seemingly nonoptimal strategy may be rational for the initial phases of a conflict (this rationale would not apply beyond the initial stages of the conflict). To explain nonoptimal strategy selection in prolonged conflicts, the author analyzes strategy drivers -- factors that influence strategy selection and implementation. Probability of victory is only one of the factors that has been found to influence strategy implementation. The author finds that the institutional predisposition of a military is the most important factor because it is the most consistent and the most controllable by the military. Using this conceptual basis, the author analyzes U.S. involvement in Afghanistan since 2001, U.S. operations in Iraq since 2003, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The model and case studies illustrate a U.S. military institutional predisposition towards direct attack. As such, the thesis recommends that the U.S. military take action to adopt a more neutral institutional predisposition.

This report builds on the research and ideas of the school of thought that believes strategy is the most important factor in predicting war outcomes. One shortcoming of that school is the inability to explain why strong actors would implement a strategy that does not provide the highest probability of victory. This project uses a game theoretic model to illustrate how a seemingly non-optimal strategy may be rational for initial phases of the conflict. However, this rationale does not apply beyond initial stages of conflict. To explain non-optimal strategy selection in prolonged conflicts, this project analyzes strategy drivers--factors that influence strategy selection and implementation. Probability of victory is only one of the factors found to influence strategy implementation. Other than probability of victory, this study finds that the institutional predisposition of a military is the most important because it is the most consistent and the most controllable by the military. With this conceptual basis, the project analyzes U.S. involvement in Afghanistan since 2001. It also takes a cursory look at U.S. operations in Iraq since 2003, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The model and case studies illustrate a U.S. military institutional predisposition with an excessive disposition towards direct attack. As such, this thesis recommends taking action to provide the U.S. military with a more neutral institutional predisposition.CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION * A. AVOIDANCE IS NOT AN OPTION * B. NEED FOR A THEORY * C. THESIS * CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF WAR OUTCOME EXPLANATIONS * CHAPTER III - A CLOSER LOOK AT ARREGUIN-TOFT * A. STRONG AND WEAK * B. DIRECT ATTACK * C. INDIRECT ATTACK * D. DIRECT DEFENSE * E. INDIRECT DEFENSE * F. SHORTCOMINGS * CHAPTER IV - GAME THEORETIC MODEL * A. ORDINAL VALUES FOR STRONG ACTORS * B. ORDINAL VALUES FOR WEAK ACTORS * C. THE RESULTING GAME * D. PREDICTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS FROM THE GAME * CHAPTER V - STRATEGY DRIVERS * A. DESCRIPTION OF FACTORS THAT DRIVE STRATEGY * B. RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF STRATEGY FACTORS * CHAPTER VI - AFGHANISTAN CASE STUDY * A. STRATEGIC INTERACTION #1 * B. STRATEGIC INTERACTION #2 * C. ATTEMPTED STRATEGIC INTERACTION #3 * CHAPTER VII - OTHER CONFLICTS AT A GLANCE * A. OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM * B. USSR IN AFGHANISTAN * C. U.S. INTERACTIONS IN VIETNAM * D. INSIGHTS FROM CASE STUDIES * CHAPTER VIII - DISCUSSION * CHAPTER IX - RECOMMENDATIONS * CHAPTER X - CONCLUSION

How can you achieve victory in war if you don't have a clear idea of your political aims and a vision of what victory means? In this provocative challenge to US political aims and strategy, Donald Stoker argues that America endures endless wars because its leaders no longer know how to think about war, particularly wars fought for limited aims, taking the nation to war without understanding what they want or valuing victory and thus the ending of the war. He reveals how flawed ideas on so-called 'limited war' and war in general evolved against the backdrop of American conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These ideas, he shows, undermined America's ability to understand, wage, and win its wars, and to secure peace. Now fully updated to incorporate the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, Why America Loses Wars dismantles seventy years of misguided thinking and lays the foundations for a new approach to the wars of tomorrow.

The first documented, systematic study of a truly revolutionary subject, this 1937 text remains the definitive guide to guerrilla warfare. It concisely explains unorthodox strategies that transform disadvantages into benefits.

In the pantheon of air power spokesmen, Giulio Douhet holds center stage. His writings, more often cited than perhaps actually read, appear as excerpts and aphorisms in the writings of numerous other air power spokesmen, advocates-and critics. Though a highly controversial figure, the very controversy that surrounds him offers to us a testimonial of the value and depth of his work, and the need for airmen today to become familiar with his thought. The progressive development of air power to the point where, today, it is more correct to refer to aerospace power has not outdated the notions of Douhet in the slightest In fact, in many ways, the kinds of technological capabilities that we enjoy as a global air power provider attest to the breadth of his vision. Douhet, together with Hugh “Boom” Trenchard of Great Britain and William “Billy” Mitchell of the United States, is justly recognized as one of the three great spokesmen of the early air power era. This reprint is offered in the spirit of continuing the dialogue that Douhet himself so perceptively began with the first edition of this book, published in 1921. Readers may well find much that they disagree with in this book, but also much that is of enduring value. The vital necessity of Douhet’s central vision-that command of the air is all important in modern warfare-has been proven throughout the history of wars in this century, from the fighting over the Somme to the air war over Kuwait and Iraq.

Keen investigates why conflicts are so prevalent and so intractable, even when one side has much greater military resources. He asks who benefits from wars-- whether economically, politically, or psychologically-- and argues that in order to bring them successfully to an end we need to understand the complex vested interests on all sides.

Many of war's lethal failures are attributable to ignorance caused by a dearth of contemporary, accessible theory to inform warfighting, strategy, and policy. To remedy this problem, Colonel Geoffrey F. Weiss offers an ambitious new survey of war's nature, character, and future in the tradition of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. He begins by melding philosophical and military concepts to reveal war's origins and to analyze war theory's foundational ideas. Then, leveraging science, philosophy, and the wisdom of war's master theorists, Colonel Weiss presents a genuinely original framework and lexicon that characterizes and clarifies the relationships between humanity, politics, strategy, and combat; explains how and why war changes form; offers a methodology for forecasting future war; and ponders the permanence of war as a human activity. The New Art of War is an indispensable guide for understanding human conflict that will change how we think and communicate about war.