Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2013 | nr 1 | 5--30
Tytuł artykułu

Teoria zwycięstwa : przegląd problematyki

Warianty tytułu
The Theory of Victory : a Brief Outline of a Debate
Języki publikacji
Teoria zwycięstwa, akcentując dynamikę zwycięstwa strategicznego, związany z nim ściśle element percepcji, elastyczną relację między (zmiennymi) celami wojny a jej realnymi efektami, zachęca do dalszych badań warunków gwarantujących trwałe i optymalne zakończenie konfliktów zbrojnych. Mają one nie tylko znaczenie poznawcze i edukacyjne zamykające się w obszarze poszukiwań akademickich. Z uwagi na współczesne typy konfliktów zbrojnych rośnie także znaczenie praktyczne rozpoznania i możliwie pełnego zrozumienia zagadnienia zwycięstwa militarnego. Ono bowiem może i powinno wspierać dobre rozwiązania polityczne i wojskowe. Kwestia ta zasługuje na zainteresowanie także w Polsce. (fragment tekstu)
Many researchers in the field of contemporary armed conflicts consider military victory the focal point of their analysis. Contrary to the bulk of scholarly war studies they do not limit themselves to pondering (in a technical sense) methods of achieving military victories and defeating the opponent on the battlefield. They challenge themselves intellectually in searching for such a theoretic framing of the issue that could be useful for democratic governments, and allow to understand how to transform military victories into durable, long-term political benefits (a better peace, to use the concept of sir Basil Liddel-Hart). The following article reflects on the contemporary scientific debate concerning the analytical framework of a theory of victory, including essential research questions, and emerging areas of concurrence and disagreement. Such a debate, reflected in a number of brilliant scholarly studies, does not constitute however a theory in the sense of a coherent conceptual system. It is not so rare in the realm of strategic studies, which contain so many inconclusive debates about the international alliances, strategy or security, to name just a few obvious concepts. Theory of victory research remains subject of continuous development, ranging from the modest intent to systemize basic terminology and concepts, to the point of open criticism of the military sciences, viewed as describing ways of winning wars, and falling short of investigating their sources and long-term consequences for the post-war era. Still, it does not belong to any of the great international relations theories. It challenges the traditional approach to the history of armed conflicts, but at the same time highly values the analysis of the past, which provides vital comparative substance for evaluation of the sources of modern military conflicts. Each type of war and their cultural context creates its own perception of victory - it is different in case of classic inter-state war, nuclear one or in the war on terrorism. It may also look differently on the tactical-operational and strategic levels as well as in the context of the grand strategy. The theory of victory, by emphasising the dynamics of the strategic victory, closely linked with the element of perception, through the flexible relation between (varying) aims of war and their real effects, encourages the continuing studies of conditions assuring lasting and favourable conclusion of the armed conflicts. In fact, it should be a contributing factor in any smart strategy for war ending and peace-building. It is both a postulate for further research effort and strategies for "a good peace". (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • P.L. Sullivan, At What Price Victory? The Effects of Uncertainty on Military Intervention Duration and Outcome, "Conflict Management and Peace Science" 2008, nr 1, s. 49-66.
  • Ch.P. Potholm, Winning the War. Seven Keys to Military Victory Throughout History, Boulder 2010.
  • S. Biddle, Military Power. Explaining Victory and Defeat on Modern Battle, Princeton 2004.
  • M.E. Brown, O.R. Cote, S.M. Lynn-Jones, S.E. Miller (red.), Do Democracies Win Their Wars?, Cambridge 2002.
  • G. Merom, How Democracies Lose Small Wars. State, Society, and the Failures of France in Algieria, Israel in Lebanon and the United States in Vietnam, Cambridge 2009.
  • I. Arreguin-Toft, How the Weak Win Wars. A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict, Cambridge 2005.
  • E.N. Luttwak,-0« the Meaning of Victory. Essays on Strategy, New York 1986, s. 289.
  • F.C. Ikle, Every War Must End, New York 1991, s. 14.
  • K. Paul, A Farewell to Victory, "Newsweek" z 12 stycznia 2010 r.
  • J.G. Bloch, Przyszła wojna pod wzglądem technicznym, ekonomicznym i politycznym, Warszawa 2005.
  • H. Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, New York 1969, s. 189.
  • C.S. Grey, Nuclear Strategy. The Case for Theory of Victory, "International Security" 1979, nr 1, s. 54-87.
  • T. Schelling, Arms and Influence, New Haven 1966, s. 31.
  • R. Mandel, The Meaning of Military Victory, Boulder 2006.
  • W.C. Martel, Victory In War. Foundations of Modern Military Policy, Cambridge 2007.
  • W.C. Martel, Victory In War. Foundations of Modern Strategy, Cambridge 2011.
  • I. Bickerton, The Illusion of Victory. The True Costs of War, Melbourne 2011.
  • C.S. Gray, Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory -, s. 11-13.
  • B. Bond, The Pursuit of Victory. From Napoleon to Saddam Hussein, Oxford 1998.
  • J. Angstrom, I. Duvesteyn (red.), Understanding Victory and Defeat in Contemporary War, London 2007.
  • T. Franks, S. Biddle, P.Ch. Choharis, J.M. Owen, D. Pipes, G. Rosenau, D. Zakheim, Is This Victory?, "The National Interest" z 20 października 2006 r.
  • M. Motten (red.), Between War and Peace: How America Ends Its Wars?, New York 2011.
  • R.J. Spiller, Six Propositions [w:] M. Motten (red.), Between War and Peace: How America Ends Its Wars?, New York 2011, s. 1-20.
  • J. Boone Bartholomees, Theory of Victory, "Parameters" lato 2008 r., s. 25.
  • C. von Clausewitz, O wojnie, Lublin 1995 (tłum. A. Cichowicz, L.W. Koc, F. Schoerner), s. 46.
  • M. Madej, Zagrożenia asymetryczne. Bezpieczeństwo państw obszaru transatlantyckiego, Warszawa 2007, s. 32-68.
  • W. Murray, P. Mansor, Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present, New York 2012.
  • B. Heuser, Czytając Clausewitza, Warszawa 2008 (tłum. P. Budny).
  • B. Bond, The Pursuit of Victory. From Napoleon to Saddam Hussein, New York 1998.
  • J. B. Cozzens, Victory from the Prism of Jihadi Culture, "Joint Forces Quarterly" 2009, nr 1, s. 86-91.
  • A. K. Cronin, How Terrorism Ends. Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns, Princeton 2009.
  • S. Aday, J. Cluverius, S. Livingston, As Goes the Statue, So Goes the War. The Emergence of Victory Frame In Television Coverage of the Iraq War, "Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media" 2005, nr 3, s. 314-331.
  • I. Bickerton, The Illusion of Victory. The True Costs of War, Melbourne 2011, s. 18-22.
  • W.L. Peace, End Game Strategies. Winning the Peace, US Army War College, lipiec 2012 r.
  • M. Duffy Toft, Peace Through Victory. The Durable Settlement of Civil Wars.
  • R. Mandel, Reassessing Victory in Warfare, "Armed Forces and Society" 2007, nr 4, s. 461-495.
  • R. Mandel, Defining Postwar Victory, [w:] J. Angstrom, I. Duyvesteyn, Understanding Victory and Defeat in Contemporary War, London 2007, s. 13-46.
  • G. John Ikenberry, After Victory. Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars, Princeton 2001.
  • J. Boone Bartholomees, A Theory of Victory, [w:] J. Boone Bartholomees (red.), US Army War College Guide National Security Issues, Washington 2008, t. 1, s. 79-94.
  • R. Aron, Peace and War. A Theory of International Relations, New York 1970, s. 150-173.
  • S.E. Landis, Is There a Substitute for Victory? Acceptance of Defeat in War, US Army War College, Carlisle 2008.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.