Abstract
From the perception of the imminence of threats at the political level to the seizing of initiative through proper timing at the tactical level, temporality is directly related to war and warfare. Yet, despite some analyses of the importance of time at the political/grand strategic level (usually by scholars) and at the tactical level (usually by military professionals) there is surprisingly little discussion of the impact of time on the preparation and the conduct of warfare. This article introduces the concept of ‘wartime paradigm’ as a heuristic device to understand the relationship between the perception of time and the conduct of warfare, and argues that after the Cold War, a specific ‘wartime paradigm’ combining an optimization for speed and an understanding of war as risk management has guided western warfare, from force structure to the conduct of actual operations. It shows how the changing character of warfare directly challenges this wartime paradigm and why, if western forces want to prevail in future conflicts, the establishment of a new wartime paradigm guiding technological improvements and operational concepts is critical.
Abstract. From the perception of the imminence of threats at the political level to the seizing of initiative through proper timing at the tactical level, tempo
academic.oup.com
Interesting article but quite stating the obvious. A2/AD, hypersonic weapons and foreign political influence has disturbed the Western military decision making.
Countering A2/AD 'bubbles' can be done more easily than countering hypersonic weapons and foreign influence. Saturation attacks with cheap stand-off munitions, EW and cyber attacks can destroy A2/AD bubbles so that western forces can use the current wartime paradigm build on speed.
Against hypersonic weapons, perhaps DEW can be used effectively but only time will tell.
Against foreign political influence, a more robust counter-intel system and political-ideological strengthening is needed to counter that. How much ideological strengthening can secular, liberal, individual and post-modern societies where truth is relative, accept and adopt before internal political resistance rises to such a degree that said political-ideological strengthening is seen as authoritarian and backfires? Not very much I think. It requires a much deeper ideological reflection and debate and a change of course in the West.
This is the most difficult part except for those western countries with a deep seating military culture where military conscription and a historical high-risk of invasion has lead them to decades of preparation for a 'resistance' war, like Finland and Sweden. These countries can build upon their history to strengthen political-ideological resistance and to provide other western countries an example to follow. This doesn't mean that they will succeed in this endeavor of course, but they can try.
