Archive for the ‘military strategy’ Category

Egypt, Israel and a Strategic Reconsideration | STRATFOR

February 8, 2011

Egypt, Israel and a Strategic Reconsideration

By George Friedman

The events in Egypt have sent shock waves through Israel. The 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel have been the bedrock of Israeli national security. In three of the four wars Israel fought before the accords, a catastrophic outcome for Israel was conceivable. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, credible scenarios existed in which the Israelis were defeated and the state of Israel ceased to exist. In 1973, it appeared for several days that one of those scenarios was unfolding.

The survival of Israel was no longer at stake after 1978. In the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the various Palestinian intifadas and the wars with Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008, Israeli interests were involved, but not survival. There is a huge difference between the two. Israel had achieved a geopolitical ideal after 1978 in which it had divided and effectively made peace with two of the four Arab states that bordered it, and neutralized one of those states. The treaty with Egypt removed the threat to the Negev and the southern coastal approaches to Tel Aviv.

The agreement with Jordan in 1994, which formalized a long-standing relationship, secured the longest and most vulnerable border along the Jordan River. The situation in Lebanon was such that whatever threat emerged from there was limited. Only Syria remained hostile but, by itself, it could not threaten Israel. Damascus was far more focused on Lebanon anyway. As for the Palestinians, they posed a problem for Israel, but without the foreign military forces along the frontiers, the Palestinians could trouble but not destroy Israel. Israel’s existence was not at stake, nor was it an issue for 33 years. (more…)

Lt. Col. Davis-Peritano on Clausewitz on Trial: An Application of Military Strategic Thought to Litigation

August 26, 2009
Lt. Col. Melinda L. Davis-Perritano, (USAF-Air War College, Air University) has written an excellent article applying the writings of the classic military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz to litigation entitled: Clausewitz on Trial: An Application of Military Strategic Thought to Litigation.

Here is the abstract:

Major General Carl von Clausewitz’s contributions to the world were not displayed through brilliant military maneuvers on the battlefield, but rather through his thoughts inscribed on paper. Clausewitz published numerous writings based on his lifelong study of history and war exploring the relationship between war and politics and the interplay of forces both internal and external to warfare. War and litigation share a similar relationship in conflict resolution—perhaps the type of relationship Clausewitz would have sought to explore and think about had he lived in the twentieth century age of litigation. Just as Clausewitz helps the Airman, Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Guardsman think about war, Clausewitz also helps the trial counsel think about the practice of litigation–both inside and outside of the courtroom. The study of military strategy, theory and thought provides the trial counsel an intellectual foundation from which to pursue their own ideas about litigation. The trial counsel should explore and study warfare as a means of developing an analytical framework for their advocacy. Trial counsel should establish a particular way of thinking about litigation that traverses the entire litigation process from pretrial to post trial. Every tactical move a counsel makes, whether it is in discovery, charging, or in motion practice, should have a strategic link to its client’s objectives. Decision making at the strategic level requires certain knowledge and skills and intellectual development that empowers them to recognize and analyze the full spectrum of a case in creating and executing an effective strategy. Trial counsel who are cognizant of military strategic concepts will have the capacity to operate at a much higher strategic level in the courtroom. This enhanced strategic level ability is the result of education and training. Accordingly, judge advocates should study military strategic thought in fine tuning their trial advocacy skills.

%d bloggers like this: