Air Power
Emergence of new technological advancements in business sector or a war comes with its fair share of advantages and disadvantages in terms of expenses and effectiveness. Previously, marginally, some technological findings may seem precise and usable from the genesis of development but fail to take off. Conversely, it takes effort before an innovative expertise replaces an ancient one. Hence, it takes finances before an innovative machinery breaks through and creates a new dimension for human communities all over the world. In the military department, airpower, that is, any guidable element that flies or moves in air, controlled from afar or directed is subject to technological strategies. John Warden III possess a vast knowledge and experience in administration, strategizing, development, writing and speaking on military issues and even sometimes commercial subjects. This paper will carry out an in-depth evaluation of Colonel John A Warden III’s suggestions on how air power overhauled the nature of war through the ‘warden’s Rings’ model and the air campaign of 1989. Furthermore, the essay will look into the appropriateness of utilizing air power campaign since 1989.
Warden Rings’ Models
After much research and publication, Colonel John Warden introduced the world into an innovative era of wartime targeting (Warden, 2011). Warfighters were no longer short of resources and strategies compared to past years, where a poorly framed system selected a wartime target. Relatively, Warden offered warfighters with creative up to date systems and equipment such as the five ring scheme concept that intensely improved the warfighter’s capabilities regarding isolation and narrowing down to targets.
It is an undisputable fact that airpower played a major role in a military operations such as Desert Storm. In fact, including the media journalists ascertained airpower was a hallmark success in most military operations such as Desert Storm (Warden, 2011). There was no debate surrounding the model’s ability to deliver success within any operations. However, some people believe that airpower alone could not deliver the victory but it had to work hand in hand with other military departments. Much of Desert Storm military operations’ success came from the manner in which the commanders executed the operations and the aspects of air power they decided to incorporate in the operation to bring about fruition. One of the incorporated aspect was John Warden’s ‘instant thunder’ strategy.
The history behind the supporting of Warden’s five-ring concept lies in Carl Clausewitz’s theory on ‘magnum opus’. According to Clausewitz, to effectively defeat an opponent, the state should concentrate heavily on countering the strengths of the opponent, in this instance, if the enemy depends on ground power the air (Gregory, 2015). Warden adopted this sentiments or principles and took them a notch higher hence creating another concept. Warden’s theory intended to direct wartime target assortment. In addition, he viewed an enemy as a structure patterned or coordinated with rings, each ring signifying the enemy center of operations that if properly examined would lead to victory against the enemy. Identifying enemy organization, one was likely to identify the flow of power from the center to the subordinates. Therefore, according to warden, using the ring model would attack the enemy and hurt them where it matters hence making the war expensive for them.
Descending in terms of vital elements, from the deepest to the remotest ring: administration ring which manages the entire system that is leaders of nation; systematic essential rings which caters to the needs of major productions and transport of other supplies hence essential for survival of operations for example oil, finances and food stocks; infrastructure ring that coordinates other rings consequently harmonizing the entire operation of the system (Gregory, 2015). Lastly, the population ring features nonmilitary personnel and other procedures that support the military operations indirectly without actual contact.
Warden alleged that the objective of any war was to manipulate the enemy into doing one’s request without them actually realizing it. With the right approach, one could successfully achieve this objective through speedy, concurrent attacks targeted at the inner ring, which represents administration ring (Karbasian, & Abedi, 2011). Only if a military is not in a position to attack the opponent’s leadership ring does Warden Advice on attacking other rings that support the leadership ring.
On a supplementary note, critics doubted Warden’s ring model structure concept meant for wartime targeting. One of the model’s critics claimed that Warden’s model fails to capitalize on the relationship formed from one ring to another and most importantly, falls short of mentioning whether attacking one ring will make another ring fall hence collapsing the entire enemy camp (Karbasian, & Abedi, 2011).. Still, other critics claim that Warden’s theory may contain some utility aspects despite people assuming it is a failure before trying and testing the entire model. While countering their arguments, Warden convinced many people that his template resulted to minimal harm during war and whatever outcomes from the model saves finances and lives in general.
Whether Warden’s ring model concept presents real time wartageting capabilities, is under constant debate day in day out. However, the Warden rings concept, got merit, and credible despite the numerous critics thrown at the concept. Ring model not only delivers as Warden suggests, but also gives warfighters better insight of the lion share contribution airpower made and continuously keep making during wars (Nikolic, 2018). Secondly, the ring theory model, as some scholars note, gives military warfighters with accessible gears for wartime aiming. Notwithstanding, basic principles composing the ring model dictate that no real harm can come after utilizing Warden’s model. In other words, running or operationalizing the ring model may lead to breaking international regulations, domestic laws, and mannerisms.
As stated previously, leadership at the midpoint of the prototype represents the top structure of the enemy. The other sections relate to military activities, frameworks, general populace, and systematic elements (Nikolic, 2018). The ring model is one of the most coveted military concepts ever advanced since its inception. The most notable element of the ring theory is its systematic perspective when it comes to managing and restricting the enemy in their own territory. In this regard, the application of the theory can generate list of intended targets in preparation for an attack. The ring theory also presents a person with options drawn from its framework hence does not rely on hearsay or unfounded speculations. This is because, by establishing a solid framework, the theory produces reliable information traceable and verifiable. Most importantly, military managers can utilize the system formula to chart vital enemy targets.
Based on ring theory principle, in the event of a war, the nation’s leadership divides into two sections: military and civilian administrators (Abruzzino, 2013). Civilian leaders’ term used in this case implies heads of government, defense ministers, and other high-ranking people serving various positions within the government. The second category consists of people who avoid doing the actual dirty work but contribute in one way or another in the execution of the war. While it raises ethical questions, there are many civilians administrators in latter group, perhaps judges, and leaders of other dockets.
Similar to the soldiers, they instruct, military leaders fall under combatant category during a war. Their respective governments normally instruct them on what to do and what not to do hence they are under special directions from the top government leaders. Therefore, military leaders carry out atrocities during war periods (Correll, 2013). Simply put, during war, the ring theory target military leaders due to the active role they play during war. For example, the British army tried to kill Marshal Erwin and admiral Isonoku during the World War II. Killing or attacking military leaders does not contradict international laws governing universal institutions because they themselves take part in atrocities during the war hence it balances the odds. At the end of the day, the ring theory achieves its objectives within given time.
It is very hard defining the legitimacy and ethics of the wartime when it target civilian administrators. Such difficulty primarily emergences from the fact that it may bear the aspects of assassination (Skattum, 2014). The word assassination is vague but regardless of the manner in which one decides to describe the word, assassination is an illegal act under any international law. Some countries define it as killing someone who belongs to a particular army or political side without trial.
In 1995, Warden campaigned for a strategic vision explaining his win in desert storm operations that marked a milestone in airpower technology. Warden developed his theory based on various air power with an adversary falling under the five-ring strategy. It is good to note that ring model is only a plot or a plan and not an actual strategy (Correll, 2013). Warden highlights airpower as being able to create force that jumps from external rings into the inner most core of the adversary’s rings. Which warden claims is the most viral part of the ring because of the delegation and dispensation power associated with leadership. Leaders are the brains that power the war, they provide resources and have authority to direct the way things are run within the adversary camp.
Warden came up with the paralysis strategy, where the airstrikes aimed at the center of the ring, were unstoppable and the enemies were helpless. As the concept states, the airstrikes are rationale and direct along enemy lines (Correll, 2013). The practicality of the concept relies on the fact that central target will collapse the entire system without failure. Hence if central government decentralizes its functions, it will be hard collapsing the entire system by attacking the main leadership heads.
The gulf war justified Warden’s theory but after careful scrutiny, it may not be the actual case. The army failed to attain an accurate target for the Ba’ath government together with its communication center (Nikolic, 2018). Despite the huge obliteration shaped by air campaign, it still needed ground militaries strategies to remove Iraqi inhabitants from Kuwait and then initiate a truce. Enlarging the survey takes some of the credibility of the theory away. Even though some instances of air power needed assistance from other sections of the army, it does not entirely mean the five ring theory does not hold water. There is no doubt airpower was a key element in defeating Germany, Japan and the Taliban administration but the success relied on central ring targets. In fact, The American administration engaged military personnel on the ground with important targets in various terrorist establishments after airpower failed delivering positive results.
Therefore, the theory is effective but relies on continuous assistance from other sectors of the military. For example, the warfighters on the ground can collect intelligence on the location of the central ring then plan on how airpower can effectively attack the identified location (Karbasian, & Abedi, 2011). Nevertheless, the attacking the central ring remains a favorable strategy for American military planners because gives an accurate and quick victory. In addition, the theory has a strong foundation without risking the lives of military personnel carelessly. Thus, a tactical attack has strong ripple effect due to the aspect of combined airpower application and using other sectors of military.
I summary, Air prohibition gives various options, which are flexible, and one can implement them from a remote place. Hence, it is not a matter of interdiction but proper application of various airpower strategies (Karbasian, & Abedi, 2011). On other hand, if one cannot target leadership ring, then the hitting the enemies’ vital features such as oil, food and other vital components may also cripple the enemy camp. In order to for the five ring theory to work out, the entire military personnel have to use a multiple approach and map out all the rings in the enemy camp. Hence Warden advices against attacking the central ring without sweeping through the content of other rings per se.
Reference
Abruzzino, D. R. (2013). Old wine in new bottles: Douhet, Warden, and counterinsurgency. Journal Article| Jul, 18(8), 39pm.
Correll, J. (2013). The assault on EBO. Air Force Magazine, 51.
Gregory, R. H. (2015). Clean bombs and dirty wars: air power in Kosovo and Libya. U of Nebraska Press.
Karbasian, M., & Abedi, S. (2011). A Multiple Objective Nonlinear Programming Model for Site Selection of the Facilities Based on the Passive Defense Principles. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Production Research, 22(4), 243-250.
Nikolic, N. (2018). Connecting Conflict Concepts: Hybrid Warfare and Warden’s Rings. Information & Security: An International Journal, 41, 21-34.
Skattum, M. M. H. (2014). Air Campaigns: Fact Or Fantasy?. Pickle Partners Publishing.
Warden Iii, J. A. (2011). Strategy And Airpower. Air Univ Maxwell Afb Al Airpower Journal.
