Relevance of Conventional War Strategy in the Twenty-first Century

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Artsin
Strategic studies
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to all people who have supported me intellectually, morally, spiritually, and financially in the process of writing this publication. Primarily, the Almighty God for giving me strength, peace of mind, and wisdom;
He deserves glory and honour. My deepestgratitudegoesto my supervisors and advisors that provided enlightenment, timely guidance, and wise counsel in every step of the thesis.

Abstract
Conventional war strategies remain highly relevant in the contemporary society despite the apparent shift to more unconventional means. A large number of contemporary wars have been conducted through conventional warfare. Conventional warfare is a form of warfare that target specific combatants and the approach is designed for the battlefields that the sole occupants are professional soldiers representing contesting parties. Conventional warfare is detached from politics in those regions that the conflict is taking place. Its functionality is largely based on the belief that the conflict takes place between outside forces and a countrys formal armed forces. The approaches towards the war are influenced by the technical approach of the military.A critical review of literatures about war strategies in WWI, WWII, Vietnamese War, Afghan, and Iraqi warfare will be done. This study is limited to warfare that has taken place in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, as civil and other wars that happened before the two eras will not be considered.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Special Forces Armeddivisionshighly trained to execute high-risk assignments
The Afghan Model A war strategy specifically used during the Afghan warfare
UK United Kingdom
US United States
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WWI World War I
WWII World War II

Table of Contents
Description Page Number
Title Page i
Letter of Recommendation ii
Letter of Approval iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Abbreviations and Acronyms vi
1.0. Chapter 1 Introduction of the Study 1
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 1
1.3. Objectives of the study 1
1.3.1. Specific Objectives 2
1.4. Research Methodology 2
1.5. Scope of the Study 2
1.6. Hypothesis 3
2.0. Chapter II Review of the Literature 3
2.1. Literature Review 3
2.2. Relevance and Efficacy of the Conventional Construct 8
2.3. Is Conventional War Being Replaced? 14
2.4. Conventional Threats 20
2.5. Potential Conventional Confrontation 26
3.0. Chapter III Major Findings 30
4.0. Chapter IV Conclusion 31
References 32

Chapter 1 Introduction of the Study
Introduction
Western countries and the United States have been at the fore regarding the use of conventional warfare strategies in the Twenty-first strategies. Nevertheless, the influence of conventional warfare has lost ground with Special Forces taking care of all warfare operations that have emerged. This shift is largely because of the shortcomings of conventional warfare, which include numerous casualties and warfare spending. The likelihood of going back to conventional warfare strategies is still looming because recently, Russia has been involved in threatening United States allies and befriending known enemies of the same. China has also been involved in arrangements with Iran, which has not been in good terms with the United States for a long period. This study focuses on the relevance of the conventional war strategy in the Twenty-firstcentury. Moreover, emerging forms of warfare that have erased conventional warfare will be mentioned.
Statement of the Problem
It is of essence to decipher whether the conventional war strategy remains relevant in the contemporary world despite the proliferation of non-conventional means. Warfare in the Twenty-firstcentury is different from the conventional forms adopted in the Twentieth century and it is important to know whether conventional war strategies can still be used during wars that occur in the contemporary society. Moreover, in the wake of globalization and a shift of war loci to culture it is important to know how states are preparing themselves for war and the best methods that are adopted in such preparations.
Objectives of the study
The main objective of the study is to determine whether the conventional war strategy is still relevant or whether it has been replaced by non-conventional means.
Specific Objectives
To determine new forms of modern warfare
To assess how new forms of modern warfare can be categorized
To determine the efficacy of the conventional construct.
Research Methodology
The study will apply a retrospective design whereby, past literature about conventional war strategies will be reviewed. Primary data will collected from available primary sources. Nevertheless, the study will majorly depend on secondary data, as the study will entail an evaluation of past events/wars. The review of literature will focus on major wars of the Twenty-first century, mainly the Iraqi and Afghani wars. A review of the twentieth century war strategies will be of importance to help in evaluating the changes and relevance of conventional war strategies.
Scope of the Study
This study remains highly relevant in the modern studies on warfare as it helps to determine the numerous forms of warfare. The study helps understand war strategies used in the Twenty-first century and how they have been either successful or unsuccessful. The study entails a review of literature centered on wars strategies in the Twentieth and the Twenty-first centuries. The scope of the literature review is to allow a comparative analysis to determine the relevance of conventional war strategy in the twenty-first century. A critical review of literatures about war strategies in WWI, WWII, Vietnamese War, Afghan, and Iraqi warfare will be done. This study is limited to warfare that has taken place in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, as civil and other wars that happened before the two eras will not be considered. This delimits the comparative scope between centuries.
Hypothesis
If conventional war strategies have been replaced, then modern warfare is characterized by non-conventional means.
Conventional war strategy is still relevant in contemporary warfare.
Efficacy of the Conventional Construct is high.
Chapter II Review of the Literature
Literature Review
From guerrilla, to conventional warfare, warfare is an art that is constantly undergoing evolution. Handel (2012) reveals that war strategies change from an era to another. In the twentieth and the twenty-first century, warfare has experienced some of the biggest historical changes. Particularly, the twentieth century was characterized by unprecedented development in the technological domain and industrialization. As such, a widespread evolution of warfare from the course it had set at the beginning of the century existed. Late in the twentieth century, warfare emerged in two distinct ways. First, there was unprecedented technology use. Second, the need for standing armies that were larger was rendered non-existent. Instead of such armies, modern warfare emerged and it was characterized by small elite units, which could be deployed in less time and to any location in the world. To expound further, there are various examples emanating from recent history that demonstrate the nature of modern warfare.
Through new technologies, new warfare was created. This was cyber warfare and nuclear warfare. Before this, conventional warfare had dominated all forms of warfare that had taken place earlier on in the Twentieth century. The new forms of warfare that emerged late in the Twentieth century had the potential of being more devastating than the effects of conventional weapons. Special Forces have played a vital role in times of warfare and this role continues to increase, currently, there are no operations that can attain success devoid of the use of elite and easily deployable troops. In the late 20th century, new tactics and technological advancements came to revolutionize warfares nature (Keane, 2005).
In addition to the aforementioned changes in technology, tactics have changed to cope with changing times. Because of nuclear warfare, conventional warfare has been rendered ineffective and it can no longer be fought against conventional armies. However, such warfare is fought via Special Forces. The way warfare manifested in the Twentieth century is different from the current state of warfare because in the Twenty-first century, there are less and less wars that are being fought conventionally. Even at the end of the Twentieth century the trend had been adopted and there arose the need for small elite units that could be deployed anywhere in the world. These units are the Special Forces. An example of an operation that was carried out by the Special Forces is Operation Entebbe that was carried out by Special Forces from Israel in 1976. In this event, terrorists hijacked a flight and flew it to Uganda where they released everyone except the Israeli hostages. They threatened to kill these hostages in case Israel failed to comply with their demands. In response to the situation, the Special Forces of Israel planned and organized an operation to rescue the hostages(Greene, 2010).
 This operation is considered as one of the most awe-inspiring feats of contemporary warfare. The commandos from Israel were able to take out all the terrorists and rescue the hostages with minimum casualties. Although the operation sparked outrage from Arab and communist countries, it received praise from the western world. To this day, the operation remains an amazing feat that reveals the effectiveness of deploying Special Forces. The aforementioned circumstance reveals the challenge that governments have sometimes faced. Moreover, governments have had to deal with guerrilla fighters and terrorists in the wake of shifts in contemporary warfare. Of important note is the fact that conventional armies do not perform well when they wage war against terrorists. Therefore, for a nation to combat terrorism effectively, it needs to use Special Forces. All nations have been involved in the creation of Special Forces while shifting their focus away from strategies used in conventional warfare. This has in turn changed the nature of warfare since for several centuries; conventional warfare has been the dominant form of warfare across the globe (Mockaitis& Rich, 2012).
Nowadays, an increasing number ofwars have been fought between the terrorists and units of Special Forces. Moreover, there exists the need for a quick deployment of units. An example that illuminated the effectiveness and quickness of operations by Special Forces is the operation in Uganda that was perpetrated by Israeli commandos. This operation lasted for 53 minutes. This time was used to land, annihilate the enemies, rescue Israeli hostages, and leave. Such an operation was successful because of Special Forces since conventional warfare would have demanded extensive lines of supply. Furthermore, it took much longer time for either side to assume victory in a confrontation of a conventional nature. The nature of warfare in the latter quarter of the Twentieth century was unique in the sense that it was no longer based on convectional armies. The advantages of using Special Forces are that it will be used numerous times in any form of confrontation that takes place in the future. Thanks to Special Forces, the nature of contemporary warfare has changed (Mockaitis& Rich, 2012).
According to Cimbala (2000),every age has experienced numerous wars. A contest of human will, whereby the sponsor wishes to subjugate the opponent will via non-kinetic or kinetic means that are at his disposal outlines what entails war. Nevertheless, the application of the above definition mandates a wide array of engagement rules for different countries based on their political aspirations and behavior where they construe whatever constitutes war. Even in the Twenty-first century, wars remain highly relevant as they address serious problems in the society. Among these problems are terrorism, insurgency and factions threatening governments operations. According to Herd and Kriendler (2013), wars are highly relevant because they represent a trinity nature in which ideology, economy, and culture become the fulcrum of wars. Nevertheless, the characters of the war and not the nature, changes with emerging technologies, means of carrying out full wars or making a choice from a variety of options available when waging wars.
In the modern society, wars are fought in geographical spaces, cyberspaces and the interplanetaryspace, and mostly in the mind space. The hearts and the minds of the people and the civil populace is also a ground for warfare to take place. Conventional and non-conventional warfare means have been ambiguous complex, and technologically intensive. From the onset of the Twenty-first century, wars are fought on numerous fronts. These wars are precipitated by the existence of geographical, economic, social, and ideological boundaries that continue to divide the nations. Analysts have adduced that in the Twenty-firstcentury, economic, resource, and social wars shall gain precedence over wars fought in the geographical realm (Herd & Kriendler, 2013).
The existence of nuclear deterrence has created a space for hybrid wars, exhibiting conventional war strategies to take place across the wide spectrum of conflicts that take place across the globe. Technological changes have changed the character of war. War experts predict that future conflicts might comprise of legitimate and illegitimate weapons but the basic relevance or the nature of the war will not change. Increased globalization in the Twenty-firstcentury has compressed the geographical domain because of increased information and the increased technological influence. Proliferation of war has also been exacerbated by the increased power transition from bi-polar, uni-polar, to multi-polar world in which a large number of powers are challenging each other on a number of realms. Further, the existence of weapons of mass destruction has had a negative ramification on interstate wars. Wars are being privatized with non-state actors emerging to play huge role in determining the course of the war. Furthermore, the non-state actors are being enabled and enacted by radical ideologies with increased access to open source technologies and financing. Transparency and media intrusiveness has raised the bar for international law and disseminated norms and common values of global behavior on how to use military power (Herd & Kriendler, 2013).
A look into the past three decades shows that there are a number of ways in which wars have been waged and how different countries have participated. Although state and non-state actors are the main factions in the happenstance of war, the state has been responsible for sponsoring hybrid warfare. A look into organizations, command, and weapons reveals the subtle difference that is occurring in the contemporary warfare. A general summation reveals an increase in technology and irregular conflict threshold is in the hands of actors of a non-state nature(Cimbala, 2000).
Warfare strategies are changing the nature in which a war is used as a last resort available to the nations. Pacifist assessments have failed to disprove such a theory but in general, war strategies have changed during the Twenty-first Century. Incase regular forces are involved in conducting regular military activities, this becomes an act of war. This is just a quarter of the domain of warfare. Nevertheless, a balanced look at warfare reveals that it is either an irregular force carrying out regular activities, or irregular forces being involved in irregular activities. The latter occupies the most space in the operations spectrum. Hence, the irregular domain is very large because it occupies three-quarters of the warfare space. To summarize the aforementioned findings it is core to recognize that irregular warfare not only occupies the largest part but also this irregularity is determined by special cultural and historical circumstances (Tammen, 2000).
A look at modern warfare that takes a conventional form shows that the government and the military fight the population. On the other hand, irregular warfare takes the form of the population and the government fighting the military. Upon a combination of conventional warfare, criminals, terrorists, and irregulars there emerges the Hybrid War. Further, a division of all forms of warfare helps us discover inductive and deductive errors that help understand the warfare character (Tammen, 2000).
Relevance and Efficacy of the Conventional Construct
Conventional warfare constructslie in the center of terrorism, crime, and irregular activities. This construct indicates that the aforementioned warfare forms are unpredictable and interconnected and are adaptive in space and time. Kortüm(2006) reveals that conventional warfare comprises irregular formations and tactics. This also includes criminal disorders and terrorist acts. All the manifestations of conventional warfare have catastrophic and disruptive capabilities, which have the influence of changing warfare character to become full spectrum warfare. Conventional warfare is conducted by different or similar entities or units the same space and time. It can be coordinated at operational, strategic, and tactical levels in the major battle space. Hence, the coordination has the likelihood of being on three levels and depends upon how fast the war is carried out. Under the strategy of conventional war, major demographic shifts have taken place. The physical dimension of the enemy and the psychological dimension of the population have succeeded in destroying the might of the military. In the zone of militaristic operations, or the shift to peace from war, the conventional war strategy is manifested.   Conventional unconventional warfare has been blurred via numerous distinctions and blending approaches. Distinct war modes are no longer present with the main strategy being to fit the objectives and goals according to the needs of the time or picking anything from the range of options that are within the capacity of the state.
Conventional warfare takes numerous asymmetrical forms that counterbalance the enemy. The basic rules are that there are no rules in the battleground because the blurring faces of the war comes in the form of weapons that suit newer concepts to achieve the political end that is desired by the state. These ends range from economy, space, technology, internet, and other things. With such a menu being available for peace and war, the state may use all means necessary to achieve victory with a controlled application on a very selective basis and based on the particular time requirements. Every state aims to avoid annihilation by the other state and goes to the extent of using non-lethal weapons in order to alter the war process while maintaining the essence of remaining undefeated. India is among the states that have dealt with a hybrid character of war with the most recent being at the start of the Twenty-firstcentury. The lesson learnt in this war is that the leaders need to change their strategy and they need to adapt themselves with the character of war that is changing rapidly. A de novo approach to the aspect of organization, training, and equipment is also necessary to deal with the challenges of unrestricted and hybrid warfare (Kortüm, 2006).
Galula (2006),mentions the conventional war strategy used by western countries and the United States, is a reference to practices and beliefs entrenched in the United States system with regard to war and conflict. It incorporates all the guidelines on how war relations should be conducted.It also incorporates the nature with which the war has a nexus with political conflicts. According to this strategy, the nature with which armed conflict is carried out is never determined by political origins or economic origins that are presumed to ignite the war. Such a definition is important in explaining why most of modern global conflicts are conducted in a similar manner, notwithstanding inherent differences that are in each conflict.
One of the main forms of conventional warfare in the Twenty-firstcentury is the war that took place in Iraq. The United States was in alliance with several countries namely; Poland, Austria, UK, which invaded Iraq to abolish the oppressive Baathist government that severely, limited the rights of Iraq civilians. As a result, Saddam Husseins regime was toppled and his Baathist party removed from power. Following the capture of the capital city, other countries allied to the United States joined in the venture with the aim of disarming the country and facilitate its reconstruction. In this case, the US highlighted its interests in the Middle East region after the war on terror that was conducted in Afghanistan. The aforementioned application of warfare has nevertheless led to decisive and quick results with the United States experiencing little losses. Such is the case illuminated in the war against terror launched in Afghanistan (Kortüm, 2006).
 This war was meant to annihilate terrorism networks in the country believed to receive strong support from the then government. Following the terrorist attacks that took place at the start of the Twenty-first century, the United State waged a war against the Taliban, a group that was based in Afghanistan and believed to be responsible for the attacks. The war, characterized by the use of convectional war strategies, started in the last quarter of the year. The approaches used for this war are lauded by many for their uniqueness and dubbed The Afghan Model. As compared to the convectional war strategy used in the past, the model adopted in Afghanistan differed widely with regard to the United States ground forces that were deployed. Concisely, the forces were limited (Rothbart, Korostelina, & Cherkaoui, 2012).
Conventionally, the US had made an open announcement of its war on Afghanistan and called on its allies to aid in conducting a military excursion. However, the whole operation in Afghanistan was not convectional as mentioned by Mallik (2004) who reiterates that the United States used unconventional war strategies in engaging the Special Forces in identifying the targets for the strikes. Moreover, indigenous allies were empowered by being given access to lands that were entirely the reserve for enemies who were annihilated via air strikes. By refusing to adhere to the United States request for surrender of Osama bin Laden and other key players in the leadership positions within the network of Al-Qaeda, the United States had to engage in conventional warfare with its interests being purely militaristic. Nevertheless, it was hard not to use unconventional methods because the Al-Qaeda terrorist network had entrenched itself in the Afghan government and to overthrow the regime translated to radicalization of remaining Al-Qaeda elements in the local populace and government positions. During the operation to foster everlasting freedom, freedom fighters in the country had to be empowered. These freedom fighters were antagonistic to Talibans terrorist tendencies. Hence, the United States had to embark on breaking the structure of Al-Qaeda and Taliban movements as well as to prevent the possibility of the country plunging into a harbor for terrorists in the future.
Conventional warfare is necessary in the contemporary society because of the spectacular raids and special operations that attract wide publicity. The Strike conducted by the U.S seals on Abbottabad to destroy Osama bin Laden was well lauded by civilians and political bigwigs. The nature in which the whole operation was conducted reveals that there is the need for convectional war strategies. Even the fight against Taliban forces was carried out meticulously because it helped in ending the oppressive regime(Daniel, 2013).
Metz (2000) reveals that conventional warfare entails special operations conducted by special military forces. The relevance of convectional war strategies in the Twenty-first century stems from their effectiveness in dealing with other convectional forms of warfare such as guerilla warfare, insurgency, and terrorism. Often, the Special Forces undergo training to counter the aggressive insurgents using superior supply, equipment, mobility, and supply. Their increased mobility enables them to defeat insurgents and guerrillas who embark on unconventional tactics because of necessity. The Special Forces who use the conventional war strategies often seek to deprive the irregular opponents of the tactical advantages in their possession through denial of mobility, surprise, initiative, and sanctuary. In other cases, the conventional war strategy may entail the use of insurgency or guerrilla warfare against adversaries with a link to the government. This entails harassing or harrying the supplying lines, raising the partisan force, distracting the enemy forces from their conventional operations, and compelling them to combat threats to the areas deemed more secure or pacified(Metz, 2000).
Conventional war strategy is also important in thwarting contemporary terrorism that has escalated in the recent past. Amphibious and airborne units are responsible for conducting an airfield seizure, amphibious landing, and airborne assault, which are necessary in dealing with terrorist factions. Nevertheless, it requires retraining, re-equipping, and significant time in order to conduct an array of tasks. Specialized units that conduct conventional war strategies have a unique purpose, achievements, and traditions.
According to Mallik (2004), conventional war strategy is necessary to realize the military principle of economy. This is because a small number of operators can achieve great results. With these forces, lives have been saved and hostages saved. Away from the special warfare that was conducted in the past, contemporary warfare operations have the advantage of sustaining effective units for Special Forces. Contemporary conventional war operations have their genesis in the Second World War. During the aforementioned conflict, the military forces involved in unorthodox activities were created when the need arose and then disbanded after the completion of their actions. Currently, Special Forces are maintained on a permanent basis and this gives them greater capacity than their predecessors did.
According to Kortüm (2006), conventional war strategy is highly applicable in the contemporary society because of indirect application of force, which guarantees fewer casualties. Sometimes, this strategy may be devoid of the use of force. Under the strategy, there are non-kinetic or indirect operations that require a lot of patience to conduct. This is because a lot of time can elapse before their ramifications are felt. Special Forces that conduct the indirect operations seek to perform their work via proxies mostly through partisan or insurgent groups. These groups conduct unconventional warfare, through third parties like host governments that let the Special Forces perform counterinsurgency in their countries, through nonviolent actions like digging wells and building schools.
The goals of the indirect special operations under the conventional war strategy are to increase the effectiveness of the security forces or local insurgents, to influence morale, and the target audiences cohesion. This is done in an economical manner with very little publicity because the political missions are highly sensitive. In 2002, the United States started offering support through an avalanche of special operations to the government of the Philippines as it struggled with a number of insurgent groups and terrorists located in the Southern Islands of the country. Lack of publicity on this operation reflected the indirect nature of special operations and the mutual desire on the United States and Philippines not to incite the public.The two nations also wish not be subjected to political backlash via visible, aggressive, unconventional or direct military support.The above-mentioned military operations whether conducted indirectly or directly, with or without non-conventional military forces are guided by the principle of resolving economically specific problems at the strategic or operational level. These problems are difficult and sometimes impossible to deal with using unconventional means (Kortüm, 2006).
Is Conventional War Being Replaced?
Preceding conventional warfare was Guerrilla warfare, which dominated the 18th and the 19th century. Guerilla warfare demanded less training and hence had several flaws. Therefore, it was slowly replaced by another form of warfare that emanated from influence of different events. This new form of warfare was dubbed conventional warfare after it gained popularity. In the new form of warfare, fighting formationsexpanded. Besides,they could be transported over extremely long distances. Europeans were rendered capable of fighting each other over some colonies that were located in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. It became a necessity for all the troops that took part in conventional warfare to don distinctive uniforms in order to distinguish them from the enemies. They openly carried their weapons, fought in organized formations and wore insignias. Armies became highly specialized in their work, which entailed defending their national security. Hence, they were freed from the responsibility of maintaining law and order with the responsibility being given to separate forces, the police (Heuser, 2010).
Navies and armies gained more professionalism with the defense personnel being separated from the community.For the first ever, professional soldiers spent a lot of time without engaging in fighting. Previous personnel were recruited to take part in precise campaigns and demobilize once the fighting ceased. Workforces were now engaged in stableservice with fighting consuming a small segment of their time. Conventional war strategy is what was used by the British to maintain a monopoly in the seas and oceans until the happenstance of the FirstWorld War. The strategies were also vital in putting a stop to the slave trade that was being conducted via the Atlantic Ocean. The power amassed by British troops in the use of the new war strategy was of great help to the United States. The naval power of the Great Britain provided a wall by which the new government of the United States could gradually expand its control across the continent of North America devoid of any fear from any European invader that tried to claim North America (Stone, 2011).
At the beginning of the Twentieth century, warfare on land had witnessed little changes in tactics relative to the Napoleonic wars that had taken place in the previous decade. Commanders placed a lot of importance on the use of offensive weapons such as soldiers on horseback, and cavalrys role. Infantry attacks were greatly emphasized, as they were instrumental in helping some factions gain advantage over others. Conscription had also been introduced and this was what led to an increase in the Germans army from half a million in 1900 to triple the figure in 1914. Railways were the most effective means of transport in these days as they facilitated fast transportation of troops that were more efficient. This form of transport was also vital in transporting weapons, supplies, and troops. The main conventional weapon at the start of the Twentieth century was the light field gun, which was the standard equipment that could fire more than 15 shells in one minute. The machine gun was also in common use (Herd & Kriendler, 2013).
The Twentieth century was dominated by conventional warfare with the latter quarter of this century being an era when more advanced forms of conventional war strategies were witnessed. Osinga (2007) indicates that towards the end of the Twentieth century, the nuclear and the conventional war strategies began to dominate major wars. With the destructive power possessed by the nuclear weapons acting as deterrents, countries chose to fight with conventional weapons that had evolved to become high tech. Kortüm (2006), reiterates that the beginning of the Twentieth century was a period when warfare shifted from mass killing to highly mechanized warfare. Machines were involved in annihilation of other machines. An allied cavalry charge took place in 1917 with some units of the Canadian army defeating a regiment from Germany. Warfare had evolved from primitive forms to become an activity of production planners and the quartermaster general.
Nevertheless, Wilkie (2009, 17) indicates that the conventional war strategy has lost popularity because after the Second World War, other wars have become longer although none has been expensive, intensive, and extensive. An example of such a war was the Iran-Iraq war that took place in the 1980s. The prime reason for the conventional warfare decline is the cost that came with warfare mechanization. Governments were now incapable of affording the same equipment stock that they used to obtain. Moreover, weapons became relatively cheap and often came through mobilization. However, equipments have become more costly and less sustainable. These machines are highlydestructive and useadditional firepower compared to previous machines. This in addition means the highly effective machineriescould bedamaged with ease with lesser chances of being repaired. All the major wars that have taken place since the 1960s and have led to victories won in little time. If a side cannot conqueranother in the stipulated time, then the warfarecontinues. This was the case in the Iran-Iraq war. The war took place for nearly a decade.
According to Wilkie (2009, 15), conventional warfare does not refer to the capabilities that are employed, rather is a reference to the way a society fights. This encompasses doctrinal thinking, engagement rules, and the more appropriate goals of violence. The employed capabilities are a reference to equipments that are technologically advanced and industrially manufactured. What makes warfare conventional is it adheres to dominant conventions of a particular time. According to Sinai (2005, 151), conventional warfare changes through time as conventions and societies that are involved in generation of conventional war approaches continue to evolve. Therefore, the conventional forces that dominated Napoleonic wars differ from the conventional war strategies that characterize modern day France.
The evolution that characterizes conventional war might incorporate permissible conduct changes. An example of this is chemical weapons being deemed as conventional weapons in the First World War context but such is not the case in the contemporary society. In addition, cities like Dresden could be flattened in 1945 but this strategy cannot be adopted in the modern conventional warfare. Such a revelation indicates that conventional warfare can be characterized by changes in the structure of the force. Furthermore, is hard to understand why it was easy to use conscripts, as a component of conventional military during the Vietnam operation but the same cannot be adopted presently. The use of private contractors is also a source of queries as to whether such a form of outsourcing is conventional or whether it changes the relationship between the state and the society and those who enact such dire forms of violence (Sinai, 2005, 151).
Upon a close examination of warfare in the 20th and the Twenty-first century, it is apparent that conventional warfare may involve changes in concepts. Among various examples of such a scenario is maneuvervs.attritional force. In this case, the conventional approach that was used by the British forces was to take the place of shock action and maneuver for firepower. Such changes in warfare concepts might comprise of the actors against whom the force is being used. According to Sinai (2005, 153), conventional warfare may sometimes be used to involve armies that engage in warfare with other armies. Allied forces that won the Second World War care seen in the eyes of the majority as the best definition of conventional forces. Nevertheless, they invested much of their resources in European theatre into the strategy of bombing the civilian morale of the enemy and the production capacity of the war. Destruction of the main forces was not the topmost agenda.
The aforementioned variations are profound and are sometimes assumed within the blanket of conventional warfare definition. Hence, what is understood of conventional heuristically is a good approach to war fighting. Heuser (2010, 105) reveals that the term conventional refers to a war firepower intensive, state centric, industrialized strategy, whose focus is on armies as the center of gravity for the enemy. Further, the conventional war strategy is regulated and regularized. It covers an avalanche of war fighting approaches and neglects great deal of variations even in individual societies in a certain period. According to Herd and Kriendler (2013, 19), conventional war fighting must be just a good way of making polemical points that favors the view of an individual on appropriate strategies. Conventional warfare is attritional, stale and inappropriate, especially to the challenges that exist in the modern era. Neglecting conventional warfare can be to our peril because of fading skills in critical branches like armor and artillery.
According to Mallik (2004, 48), for the past decades, the Marine Corps have been equipped and trained to carry out operations in an environment of conventional warfare. Nevertheless, the current operations of irregular warfare have dominated the training of Marine Corps since the genesis of Operation Enduring Freedom. Further, since 2002, the Marine Force has never conducted a full-scale exercise using combined arms, as is the routine for conventional war strategies. Although Marine Corps have shown their capacity to thrive and adapt in the irregular environments in Afghanistan and Iraq, conventional training in warfare has been eradicated from present training exercises. Nevertheless, the likelihood of future conventional war is imminent. A look into the present worldwide circumstances shows that Marine Corps ought to refocus a fraction of their training from the present unconventional tactics of warfare to conventional tactics because enemies are posing as conventional threats. These enemies are expanding their capabilities, threatening their allies, and befriending well-known enemies of the United States.
Nuclear warfare is the third wave,a form of warfare among the forms that have replaced conventional warfare. Nuclear warfare emanates from conventional aerial warfare. Leaders that orchestrated the Second World War decided to avert a repetition of the trench warfare that took place in the First World War. Therefore, they had to look for methods that would quickly move firepower over very long distances. Under nuclear warfare, the bomber aircraft was the most favorite means of perpetrating nuclear warfare around Europe. The periods technologywas quaint going by the standards that had dominated warfare five decades earlier. Following various bomb tests, the quest for more advanced and powerful bombs continued. The work led to the conceptionof nuclear bombs. These weaponriesdecided the war counter to Japan by ending it with politicians reasoning that atomic weapons were to be of great importance in conflicts that would take place in the future. Through research,emphasis has shifted towards the use of missiles from aircraft bombing (Herd & Kriendler, 2013, 10).
The limitation of this new warfare form is that it has an extensive killing capacity. Missiles are highly destructive. Nuclear weapons have the potential of destroying all of which the attacker would be determined to control eventually. Moreover, with this new weapon, a powerful nation was rendered incapable of protecting its people from any attacks by the enemy. Nuclear missiles are incapable of being shot down. Despite several innovations to try to shoot down some missiles, it became hard to do so and only two percent of the missiles possessed by the Soviet were enough to annihilate main cities in the United States. The agreements made towards the end of the Twentieth century about nuclear weapons between the United States and the USSR revealed that both nations had recognized that these weapons were limited, especially when used for political purposes. Nevertheless, the United Statesremains vulnerable to attacks by nuclear weapons because Russia possesses several strategic missiles to date. According to Tammen (2000, 85), the United States was safer from such attacks in 1945 than it is in the Twenty-first century. Meanwhile, mostsocietiesareexposed to rebel groups possessingnuclear-powered devices. The knowledge of such dangerous weapons is there to stay.
Conventional Threats
Despite the end of the conventional war strategies as the Twentieth century progressed, all forms of warfare that take place in the contemporary society involve some conventional forms. Modern fighting has been characterized by people fighting with highly sophisticated weapons to very old and homemade ones. Nevertheless, most of the wars that are taking place in the Twenty-first century are purely political, a development that goes against the motives of the conventional war. This is a revelation that conventional warfare may have been rendered irrelevant in the contemporary society. Guerilla seems to have returned because of the proliferation of sporadic raids. The much firepower that was the case of the United States troops in Vietnam succeeded in alienating the local populace because of the temptation to use the power wantonly. In the light of this, the United States never lost the war in Vietnam due to firepower shortage but because of excessive use of the firepower. Under Guerilla warfare, the guerrillas can lose various battles but win the entire war because the warfare conducted by guerrillas is anattrition that entails exhausting conventions forces until frustration and exhaustion sets in (Greene, 2010, 164).
Contemporary transport is greatly important to guerillas because it renders them excessively mobile so that the group can attack it opponents offices in the other nations (embassies). Furthermore, it provides targets, aircrafts and airports, where difficulties in maintaining security occur. Hence, a dispute in a certain country may spill over into the other countries. The mass media of the modern society have publicized attacks from the guerillas. Although only few civilians are killed in these raids, the war strategy attracts a great deal of coverage on the news. Concisely, guerrilla warfare remains a lesser problem and the cause of the many casualties because in some countries accidents kill more people than guerrillas kill but they get a lot of attention from the media. Such a realization is what prompted Thatcher, the then prime minister of Britain to call for media restraint in reporting activities carried out by guerrillas. This was also prompted by the realization that the terrorists would be greatly motivated by such news.The extent to which the media continues to report warfare perpetrated by the guerrillas in an extensive manner is what has made the guerillas to become more adept in their use of the media to convey their viewpoint (Rothbart, Korostelina, & Cherkaoui, 2012, 69).
According to Rothbart, Korostelina, & Cherkaoui (2012, 73), the USSR seems not to have learnt from the experience of the United States in Vietnam because the formers Afghanistan operation revealed that it failed to understand guerrillas unusual nature. The Israelis also made a similar mistake in the occupied territories. Other nations that have failed to decipher the activities and dynamics of guerrilla warfare are Burmese forces, and India in Sri Lanka. The most complicating factor in contemporary society is that nuclear weapons have become available to the guerrilla groups. Sinai (2005, 152) reveals that although there are no signs of a Third World War, there is an increased fear and risk that guerrilla groups may eventually gain access to nuclear weapons and this may hinder progress of global peace. It is also important to note that the weapons are not very sophisticated and their delivery system can be thought as mere tricks. This reveals that there exists the need to study the dynamics of guerrilla warfare because such research can aid in combating it before it brings a global disaster.
The recent focus by the Marine Corps on irregular threats during training has enabled the military giant to expand military prowess and capabilities of conventional warfare. Among threats to the United States hegemony has been China whose current army comprises of more than two million soldiers. The latter has also increased its annual spending on defense to more than $ 60 billion dollars. Such facts elucidate that Chinas expanding spending on defense is not solely focused on improving the defense capabilities of their homeland. Moreover, distinct increases have also been tracked on the capabilities of both aerial and naval powers. Recently, China has engaged in global naval exercises and increased the strike range of its bombers through enhancement of aerial refueling and radar system's capabilities. The fighter jet dubbed Jian 10 is among the major defense build ups formulated by China in the recent years and has been a milestone in staying relevant with contemporary warfare. This aircraft is among the most advanced in the world and has evoked emotive sentiments from technology analysts who posit that they have been surprised with the way China has made progress from being a country that buys arms to a country that is promising to become a country with front-edge technology, particularly on military. Mallik, (2004, 70) reveals that although the Chinese have not established any deadline, they have made clear indications that they possess the capability and desire to engineer an aircraft carrier that would permit them to expand global military influence.
Increased spending on defenceby China coupled with its capacity to develop highly advanced equipment for the military have converted it into a formidable conventional threat. This threat is among the numerous ones that the United States will be faced with and which Marine Corps have to be prepared for. When compared to China, North Koreans also pose similar conventional threats owing to their robust equipment and military capabilities. Boasting of over a million people carrying arms, the military of North Korea has in its possession a large arsenal of artillery and submarines in the world. Furthermore, the country has more than eleven thousand pieces of artillery and about four thousand light and medium armor assets. Unlike China, most of the military equipment possessed by North Korea is not only aged but also outdated. Nevertheless, the sheer numbers of equipments and personnel makes the country a conventional force that can only be undermined at the peril of a nation (Rothbart, Korostelina, & Cherkaoui, 2012, 49).
It is important to note that although the prospect of the United States and Russia engaging in a conventional confrontation was deemed to have ended in 1991 following the Soviet Union collapse, the Russians have begun to increase their capacity in the military. This venture has taken more than one decade. However, it has been accelerated by gas and oil boom and President Vladimir Putin played a huge role in making the military stage a major comeback. Currently, Russia is presently resizing its military personnel toward large numbers to become effective and highly efficient. Russian leaders have also established plans to increase the spending of their defense by a third and this translates to an annual budget of nearly $50 billion dollars. This money will be entirely used to develop defence systems in space and in the air as well as the development of better warships. The capability and sheer size of the Russian, Chinese, and North Korea militaries have made them formidable conventional threats to the United States. Furthermore, the money invested in defense reveals that their capabilities for conventional threats are increasing. To maintain the capacity to face stronger enemies, the Marine Corps should prepare themselves for conventional threats (Herd & Kriendler, 2013, 102).
Presently, the tense relations that exist between Taiwan and China are possible source of strain on the relationship between China and the United States. Early in the Twentiethcentury, China was grappling with the effects of a civil war. During this time, efforts were being directed towards the creation of a communist state and a more democratic and nationalistic nation. The fight ended in 1949 with communism dominating the mainland and the nationalists occupying Taiwan after leaving the mainland. Subsequently, Taiwan was determined to separate from China and be a sovereign state with own independence. Although fighting between the two countries has ceased, tension has persisted to date with China believing that Taiwan is a part of one China (Metz, 2000, 63).
The persisting wrangles between Taiwan and China have brought a challenging situation, particularly for the United States. The latter has been careful not to support the independence of Taiwan and focused on supporting the peaceful co-existence of the two nations. Nevertheless, the recent sales of weaponry and military equipment to Taiwan by the United States have been to Chinas displeasure. Moreover, these developments have increased tension between the two nations. The sale of arms to Taiwan by the United States amounting to more than five billion dollars was meant to bolster the defense of the Island. The sale of equipment such as Apache helicopters, anti-tank weaponry, and patriot missiles is a strong indicator that conventional warfare is far from reaching an end despite non-conventional warfare means dominating contemporary warfare. The opinion of Chinas Foreign Ministry is that the arms deal between the United States and Taiwan has contaminated the aura of military relations. Moreover, the deal translates to a grave jeopardy of the national security of China (Herd & Kriendler, 2013, 98).
Further, Cimbala (2000, 47) reveals that such a deal is a threat to world peace and stability. Such a realization by the Foreign Ministry of China is a revelation that China does not want the United States to get involved in how it deals with Taiwan. It is also clear that the United States perceived assistance to Taiwan has the potential of culminating into an unfortunate conventional war happenstance. Ironically, Taiwan requires the involvement of the United States in order to sustain its sovereignty. To maintain such a delicate peaceful balancer continues to remain a big challenge for China and the United States.
Kortüm (2006, 132) reveals that Russia has not only been involved in threats but has taken extremely aggressive militaristic action against its allies. Following the 1991 Communism collapse, Georgia a hitherto Soviet republic declared its independence. Currently, Georgia has befriended the United States and is seeking to get NATO membership. This is to the displeasure of Russia, which feels that the relationship between the United States and Georgia, alongside the latters membership to NATO, isa potential threat to its endeavors and influence in the region. In the light of this, Russia has recently demonstrated the desire to re-assert its position as a conventional power.Recently, Russia aggressively imposed herself on the republics that formerly belonged to the Soviet hegemony. Some of the major indicators of the aforementioned speculations in the 21st century include the entry of the Russian into Georgian territory in which the Russians attacked using ground and aerial assets killing military personnel and a substantial number of Georgian civilians.
According to Herd & Kriendler (2013, 61), the attack was strategic as Russia was aware of the present preoccupation of the United States in the war on terrorism, which made it highly unlikely for military action to take center stage. The United State supports the territorial integrity of Georgia. Washington DC has demanded an end to the bloodshed happening in the former Soviet state. Because Georgia is not a NATO member presently, it is difficult for the United State to justify military interventions. The aggressive attack by Russia on Georgia is a clear revelation that there exists the desire to regain its position as a world power. Russia and China are presently threatening or engaging in aggressive actions towards some well-known allies of the United States. Pertinently, the Marine Corps must be prepared to defend United States interests againstreal conventional threats if the need arises.The fact that Russia and China are only engaging in open threats and attacks on United States allies swerves as a manifestation of potential threats of conventional warfare that continue to face the United States. It is of the essence for the Marine Corps to maintain their capacity to carry out warfare with the conventional powers in an attempt to maintain their capability to preserve the United States interestsin the future.
Potential Conventional Confrontation
Stone (2011, 23) reveals that Russia has not only been involved in threatening nations that are allied to the United States but has also been involved in the establishment of friendly relations with nations that have objectives which contradict those of the United States. These relations have been established because of Russias displeasure with the former, especially with regard to plans for the establishment of a defense shield for missiles in the Eastern Europe. Moreover, Russia seems to have been angered by the apparent expansion of NATO. In an act of defiance, Russia has on the other hand re-established its relations with Iran notwithstanding Irans aggressive intentions and the increased desire to engineer nuclear weaponry. Actually, officials in Russia have expressed little concerns over the nuclear plans that Iran has and instead they seem to have decided to believe that Irans intentions are for better purposes such as energy. The quest for nuclear weaponry is very dangerous given the past the Iran has had.
According to Herd and Kriendler (2013, 33), Russian leaders may one day come to realize and regret the games they have been playing because Iran is a dire instability source in the south of Russia. In a similar example, Russia has befriended Venezuela, a nation that has been at feud with the United States since Hugo Chavez assumed the presidency of the South American nation.  Russia has been keen to take advantage of this strained relationship and has converted it into a means by which it can gain access to a nation that is within the proximity of the United States. Russia has not only befriended Venezuela but it has made grand plans to conduct military exercises in the Caribbean waters jointly. Such actions are synonymous with the Cold War happenstance because the last time a Navy ship emanating from Russia plied the Caribbean azure waters for joint maneuvers with a country that is anti-US, was during the Cold War.
Similar to Russia, China has been engaged in friendly relations with Iran. Because of Chinas abundant petroleum use, the country is seeking Irans friendship with the aim of securing its supply in the future. Tammen (2000, 154) indicates that China now produces its oil for domestic use only. Analysts claim that oil reserves become depleted after 14 years and China is using such facts to launch an aggressive campaign meant to secure its supplies in the future. Currently, Iran is the second largest imported oil source. There are two reasons as to why such a relationship is of major concern to the United States. First, China intends to compete with the United States to gain supremacy in the area. China sees Iran as the most suited opportunity for accessing the Middle East, which is an area containing significant importance Geo-strategically. Of essence, this relationship will gift China a better opportunity to further its influence on the global domain. Second, the support that China has given Iran emboldens the latter and this provides an avenue for Iran to avoid sanctions from the United Nations over its nuclear programs that are increasing by the day. Vetoing the Security Council of the United Nations, China has emerged as a key impediment to global pressure on Iran. Upon a visit to Irans capital, Tehran, Chinas foreign minister signaled that China had no role and did not intend to compel the council to launch a debate on the nuclear program by Iran.
The relation between China and Russia should not be rendered insignificant because the two countries are conventional powers that have over the years been undermining the United States and threatening to gain supremacy over the Middle East. Such acts have the likelihood of exacerbating tensions and serve as another manifestation of why the Marine Corps should focus much energy towards training fora conventional warfare. The fights that have been taking place in the Middle East in the Twenty-first century have been lauded by many analysts as the only conventional confrontation of the Twenty-first century. Whilst in power, Bush stated that America is nowadays less threatened by successful states than they were threatened by failing ones. Such claims were ignorant because the former president had not recognized potential threats in Russia and China. Furthermore, Bush added that the United States was less menaced by armies and fleets than they were by catastrophic technologies that were in the hands of few embittered nations. Nevertheless, key players in the defense of the United States believed that conventional threats and challenges persisted. Nevertheless, these players believed that the United States was capable of sustaining superiority in conventional war strategy for a few years. This viewpoint ensured that the majority of the focus expended by the United States would go towards irregular threats. Further, spending would also continue to be on the same threats. Incase such opinions remained at the United States forefront of preparation and planning, then emerging threats of conventional nature would prove highly effective against the conventional capacity of the United States that seems to be diminishing (Rothbart, Korostelina, & Cherkaoui, 2012, 134).
Notwithstanding the aforementioned speculations about the potential of occurrence of conventional confrontation, most of the warfare that take place nowadays are not guerrilla wars but also not strictly global. Most wars that took place in the Twentieth century were global. This was manifested in a way that one nation was either attacking a group of nations or vice versa. Conventional forces became that main way through which operations were conducted. Nevertheless, international warfare is very rare nowadays (Handel, 2012, 67).
The contemporary trend in warfare has taken the nature of groups trying to break away from existing nations in an attempt to create their own nations. In addition, there has been the occurrence whereby groups have been trying to overthrow their own government to form their own government. In both techniques, guerrilla warfare has been preferred. Although no international war has taken place recently, Daniel (2013, 103) reveals that a war culminates into a global war if other nations become involved or when international forces are deployed. Among the forces that may be deployed with this regard are the peacekeeping operation forces that are deployed by the United Nations. Once more, there arises a huge problem when conventional forces intervene largely because they have never received guerrilla warfare training. In such a case, the best response to such a scenario is through examination of underlying war causes. Conventional domestic forces are at greater advantages than the foreign forces because the former are well versed with the geographical terrain of their country.
Aside from eclipsing conventional warfare, guerrilla warfare has also had numerous implications such as the civilians withstanding the worst of the fighting. A key factor and an advantage in conventional warfare is that there existed a clear distinction between civilians and the professional soldiers. One of these sides offered protection to the other and the reward was special status within the society. This is exemplified by the feat that male members of the royal families served for a few years in the defense forces. Moreover, the senior officers received preferential treatment at publicfunctions,in rewarding for the role they played in the war and for showing will to die for the sake of the society. Nevertheless, the number of civilians that have been killed after the Second World War has increased tremendously. This is highly expected because of the nature with which war has changed. War traditions maintained that the only targets were buildings and military personnel. Nowadays, the targets have increased with the embassies being the latest inclusions (Herd & Kriendler, 2013, 54).
Chapter III Major Findings
In the wake of cultural based warfare, the conventional war strategy is losing its ground because cultural forces do not contend with the armies that are based on state in a traditional way. Upon an encounter with battalions of jets, missiles, and tanks, cultural opponents dissolve into the population. Moreover, these opponents advantage from territoriallyconfined states and are able to interchangeeasily from a territory to another, as state-based warfare does not apply whereby states have to negotiate with other states. Under the former, the spy networks of the state are limited severely by social-cultural factors.The Marine Corps has dedicated little effort and time towards training of conventional warfare over the past decade. Present training seems to be focused tactics on conventional war strategies. Although this is because of present operational demand, the marine generation is losing its capacity to utilize the tacticsof conventional warfare effectively. Such a loss may be a source of concern because emerging threats are presently increasing their capabilities for conventional warfare, threatening the allies of the United States and befriending some revered enemies of the United States. The main point is not to discredit or diminish the relevance of training on non-conventional warfare but to dedicate a fraction of the training towards convectional conventional tactics, which may eventually prove of major importance to the United States future interests.
Chapter IV Conclusion
According to Stone (2011, 96), despite the extensive use of conventional war strategy, it seems to have been replaced by other non-conventional means because conventional warfare has become unworthy as a war declaration. Contemporary warfare is characterized by a situation whereby those individuals able to fight under the nuclear parasol who are; corporate legionnaires, supranational terrorists, tribal guerrillas, among others, have achieved the dominance of major conflicts within the post-modern epoch. The aforementioned encounters are unexplainable under the statist scheme.
The Twenty First century has seen a different world as compared to previous times because presently, the world exists as distinct civilizations and not sovereign states. The aforementioned civilizations have been delineated along social-cultural lines such as Western, Hindu, Islam, Buddha, and Sinic among others. In the light of this, the cultures that have been dominated by Western powers are showing their dominance and showing their intent to challenge the status quo. Hence, the loci of war have changed from the state to culture. Under this kind of war based on civilization, cultures are buffeting up against each other. Some of the most famous types of conflicts in which culture has taken the fore as the loci are lndo-Pakistan wars and Sudan battles among others. Such wars have stark differences with the First and the Second World War.


 References
Cimbala, S. J. (2000). Nuclear strategy in the twenty-first century. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Daniel, O. (2013). Waging war with knowledge:Doing strategic spiritual warfare and bold intercession.Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
Greene, R. (2010). The 33 strategies of war.London: Profile Books.
Handel, M. I. (2012). War strategy and intelligence.London: Routledge.
Herd, G. P., & Kriendler, J. (2013).Understanding NATO in the 21st century:Alliance strategies, security and global governance.London: Routledge.
Heuser, B. (2010). The strategy makers: Thoughts on war and society from Machiavelli to Clausewitz:Thoughts on war and society from Machiavelli to Clausewitz. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Keane, M. (2005).Dictionary of modern strategy and tactics. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
Kortüm, H.-H. (2006). Transcultural wars: From the Middle Ages to the 21st century. Munich: Akademie Verlag.
Mallik, A. (2004). Technology and security in the 21st century:A demand-side perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Metz, S. (2000).Armed conflict in the 21st century:The information revolution and post-modern warfare.Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute.
Mockaitis, T. R., & Rich, P. B. (2012).Grand strategy in the war against terrorism.London: Routledge.
Osinga, F. P. (2007). Science, strategy and war:The strategic theory of John Boyd.London: Routledge.
Rothbart, D., Korostelina, K., & Cherkaoui, M. (2012).Civilians and modern war:Armed conflict and the ideology of violence.London: Routledge.
Sinai, J. (2005). Forecasting terrorists' likelihood to embark on "conventional" to CBRN warfare.International Studies Review, 7 (1), 151-153.
Stone, J. (2011). Military strategy:The politics and technique of war.London: Continuum.
Tammen, R. (2000). Power transitions: Strategies for the 21st century. Washington: CQ Press.
Wilkie, R. (2009). Hybrid warfare.Air & Space Power Journal, 23 (4), 13-17.