Lokos
03-04-2005, 11:48 PM
Most psychologists recognize the recurring trend of human actions and reactions when it comes to engagement in conflict, physical or otherwise. The conflict, of course, begins before the confrontation - the underlying causation providing the basis for initial posturing, followed by a challenge from one participant, at which point the other(s) may respond with a challenge of their own or escalate the situation and thus begin posturing for a confrontation that quickly becomes inevitable sans the intervention of outside forces. The rhythm of this gradual escalation is usually determined by cultural indoctrination and societal norms, in combination with the subconscious animalistic tendencies of the human being. To put it more plainly, both combatants are usually aware of when and how the confrontation will begin by locating the tier of escalation they are currently on. Whilst insofar we have only applied this concept to the individual, the same concept can and should be applied to nation states.
The so-called Rhythm of Escalation has actually become a tradition in the Western way of war. The cause for war, the initial diplomatic flurry, the movement of forces, the mobilization, the last-minute diplomatic talks followed by a 'surprise' attack or a declaration of war by one side is generally how physical conflicts between nation states begin. For the purpose of this article, we will ignore other forms of conflict on a state level and concentrate on military confrontation.
What this article aims to do is show the advantages that can be gleaned from recognizing the structure provided by the Rhythm of Escalation in conflict, and the ways in which that rhythm can be disrupted by one side. A carefully timed disruption of said process can bring about victory through psychological impact and state paralysis alone. Until the RoEsc is seen for what it is on a global level, the predictability of the onset of conflicts remains both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is an advantage in the sense that state policy makers can actually plan the gearing up of the nation for war. The disadvantage lies in the potentiality of the other combatant understanding the structure of conflict escalation and using it to take action that disrupts the activities of its adversary well enough to thereby triumph.
The article, apart from explaining the RoEsc in depth and showing how it applies to conflict in the modern era also aims to present the practical means by which a nation state can successfully disrupt the RoEsc so as to bring about conditions conducive to victory. These include operational secrecy, strategic surprise and understanding of enemy defensive planning and deployments amongst others. While there are few armed forces in the world today that have the outright capability to disrupt the age-old RoEsc tradition, those same armed forces have a great advantage over their rivals in the realm of military capability.
This is an abstract from a recent article in the JSMS.
It raises an interesting concept. Albeit some aspects of this article are slightly ambigious and perhaps not all that practical, I like the way the author has combined individual and social psychology and transmuted it into something that could actually be used for military purposes.
Lokos
The so-called Rhythm of Escalation has actually become a tradition in the Western way of war. The cause for war, the initial diplomatic flurry, the movement of forces, the mobilization, the last-minute diplomatic talks followed by a 'surprise' attack or a declaration of war by one side is generally how physical conflicts between nation states begin. For the purpose of this article, we will ignore other forms of conflict on a state level and concentrate on military confrontation.
What this article aims to do is show the advantages that can be gleaned from recognizing the structure provided by the Rhythm of Escalation in conflict, and the ways in which that rhythm can be disrupted by one side. A carefully timed disruption of said process can bring about victory through psychological impact and state paralysis alone. Until the RoEsc is seen for what it is on a global level, the predictability of the onset of conflicts remains both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is an advantage in the sense that state policy makers can actually plan the gearing up of the nation for war. The disadvantage lies in the potentiality of the other combatant understanding the structure of conflict escalation and using it to take action that disrupts the activities of its adversary well enough to thereby triumph.
The article, apart from explaining the RoEsc in depth and showing how it applies to conflict in the modern era also aims to present the practical means by which a nation state can successfully disrupt the RoEsc so as to bring about conditions conducive to victory. These include operational secrecy, strategic surprise and understanding of enemy defensive planning and deployments amongst others. While there are few armed forces in the world today that have the outright capability to disrupt the age-old RoEsc tradition, those same armed forces have a great advantage over their rivals in the realm of military capability.
This is an abstract from a recent article in the JSMS.
It raises an interesting concept. Albeit some aspects of this article are slightly ambigious and perhaps not all that practical, I like the way the author has combined individual and social psychology and transmuted it into something that could actually be used for military purposes.
Lokos