POLITICAL VICTORY IN WAR: ARMED FORCES AND THE SYNDROME OF “VICTORY LOST”

Dragan Stanar

Abstract

In this paper, author explores the meaning of the notion of victory in war and determines the existence of two different meanings – military and political victory, which can be different from each other. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the possible long-term practical consequences of potential semantical divergence of these two kinds of victory in war, i.e., of achievement of military victory that contributes nothing to the political victory, despite them being closely interconnected. Given the fact that the nature of war is necessarily political, as Clausewitz determined, the only meaningful victory in war is a political victory, i.e., a victory which attains and fulfills the key political aim of war. Every war has the same final political aim, which is the creation of a better, acceptable and sustainable peace for the victor, different from the peace in which the war started. In cases in which enemies are “only” militarily defeated in war, without reaching full political victory, the phenomenon of “victory lost” occurs – military victory that cannot be capitalized politically in the period of peace/truce that follows after war, and which is usually politically “lost” in this period. In addition, such an “empty” and pyrrhic military victory usually generates a substantial historical burden for the victor-nation, which can represent a significant politico-cultural and historical ballast for decades, if not centuries. All military victories are paid for dearly in human lives and sacrifices, and the inability to politically capitalize them can be crippling for nations as they strive to provide meaning for sacrifices and deaths of their warrior ancestors. Author concludes that it is necessary to raise consciousness, both in the realm of politics and in high military officers, about the necessary political nature and logic of war which must dictate all decisions during armed conflict and which conditions justified use of military force in war. One of the key mechanisms for this is strengthening of social sciences and humanities education within armed forces which would enable officers to develop a deep understanding of not just the nature of war, but also of their institution and its position within the political system and the entire society.

References

• Babić, Jovan. 2005. Moral i naše vreme. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
• Babić, Jovan. 2008. “The Structure of Peace.” Filozofski godišnjak 21 (1): 189‒198.
• Babić, Jovan. 2016. “Ethics of War as a Part of Military Ethics.” In Didactics of Military Ethics, edited by Thomas Elssner and Reinhold Janke, 120‒126. Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff.
• Bauman, Zigfrid. 2009. Fluidni život. Novi Sad: Mediterran Publishing.
• Bobbitt, Phillip. 2008. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. Knopf E-Book.
• Brick, Joe. 2018. “The Military Profession: Law, Ethics, and the Profession of Arms.” In Redefining the Modern Military: The Intersection of Profession and Ethics, eds. Nathan K. Finney and Tyrell O. Mayfield, 40‒54. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
• Burke, Edmund. 2004. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: Penguin Books.
• Clausewitz, Carl von. 1976. On War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Echevarria, Antulio J. II. 2003. Globalization and the Nature of War. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute.
• French, Shannon E. 2003. The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values Past and Present. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Guang Qian, Peng. 2012. “The Twenty-First Century War: Chinese Perspectives.” In The Oxford Handbook of War, eds. Yves Boyer and Julian Lindley-French, 287‒301. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hantington, Semjuel P. 2004. Vojnik i država. Beograd: Centar za studije Jugoistočne Evrope, Fakultet političkih nauka, Diplomatska akademija.
• Jerotić, Vladeta. 2002. „Rat i pravoslavlje.ˮ U Teorija politike – rider, priredio Dragan Simeunović, 282‒287. Beograd: Udruženje nauka i društvo.
• Kajtez, Ilija. 2019. Sociologija. Beograd: MC Odbrana.
• Kajtez, Ilija. 2021. „Filozofsko poimanje državne vlasti (društvene moći) i vojske (oružane sile).ˮ Vojno delo 73 (3): 9‒20. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo2103009K.
• Kopli, Gregori R. 2008. Umetnost pobede: kako društva opstaju i napreduju. Beograd: Službeni glasnik/Fakultet bezbednosti.
• Kreveld, Martin van. 2010. Transformacija rata. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, Fakultet bezbednosti.
• Lincoln, George A. 1954. “The Nature of War.” Naval War College Review 7 (2): 1‒20.
• O’Meara, Richard. 2013. “Jus Post Bellum – War closure in the 21^st century.” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War – Just war theory in the twenty-first century”, eds. Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G. Evans and Adam Henschke, 105‒119. New York/London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
• Orend, Brian. 2007. „Just Post Bellum: The Perspective of a Just-War Theorist.ˮ Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (3): 571‒591. doi: doi.org/10.1017/S0922156507004268.
• Pinker, Steven. 2001. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking.
• Pollard, Emily. 2013. “The Place of Jus Post Bellum in Just War Considerations.” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War – Just war theory in the twenty-first century, eds. Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G. Evans and Adam Henschke, 93‒104. New York/London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
• Rodin, David. 2008. “Two Emerging Issues of Jus post Bellum: War Termination and the Liability of Soldiers for Crimes of Aggression.” In Just Post Bellum: Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace, eds. Carsten Stahn and Jann K. Kleffner, 56‒76. The Hague: Asser Press.
• Shanks-Kaurin, Pauline. 2018. “Questioning Military Professionalism.” In Redefining the Modern Military: The Intersection of Profession and Ethics, eds. Nathan K. Finney and Tyrell O. Mayfield, 26‒39. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
• Stanar, Dragan. 2019. Pravedan rat: između apologije i obuzdavanja rata. Beograd: Dobrotoljublje.
• Stanar, Dragan. 2021a. Etika međunarodne politike. Beograd: Dobrotoljublje.
• Stanar, Dragan. 2021b. „Mir kao svrha vojske.ˮ Vojno delo 73 (3): 36‒47. doi: doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo2103036S.
• Starčević, Srđan V. i Srđan Blagojević. 2017. „Kreveldov spor sa Klauzevicem – da li je smisao rata politički?ˮ Srpska politička misao 56 (2): 117‒134.
• Starčević, Srđan, Ilija Kajtez i Goran Vukadinović. 2016. „Rat u središtu političkog – aktuelnost Šmitovog pogleda na rat.ˮ Vojno delo 68 (1): 102‒121. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo1701232S.
• Šmit, Karl. 2002. „Pojam političkog: Prijatelj – neprijatelj.ˮ U Teorija politike – rider, priredio Dragan Simeunović, 271‒277. Beograd: Udruženje nauka i društvo.
• Waldman, Thomas. 2010. “Politics and War: Clausewitz’s Paradoxical Equation.” Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College 40 (3): 1‒13. doi:  doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2541.
• Whetham, David. 2011. “The Just War Tradition: A Pragmatic Compromise.” In Ethics, Law and Military Operations, eds. David Whetham, 65‒89. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.