War Termination: Strategic Dynamics and Peacekeeping in Modern Conflict

By Fouad Sabry

What is War Termination

The study of "how wars end" is the primary emphasis of the subfield of war studies known as "war termination." This subfield also includes views of how wars can and should be declared over.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: War Termination

Chapter 2: Carl von Clausewitz

Chapter 3: Civil war

Chapter 4: Negotiation

Chapter 5: On War

Chapter 6: War

Chapter 7: Transaction cost

Chapter 8: Collective bargaining

Chapter 9: Ceasefire

Chapter 10: Negotiation theory

(II) Answering the public top questions about war termination.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of War Termination.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 24, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: War termination

The study of how wars end is the primary emphasis of the subfield of war studies known as war termination. This subfield contains various views of how wars can and should be stopped.

When compared to other parts of the conflict, The termination of war has been the subject of relatively less research.

According to Fred Charles Iklé, Historians are the, specialists in international relations, Moreover, military strategists have given a great deal more consideration to the topic of how and why wars start. Similarly, Gideon Rose is of the same opinion, who writes:

However, despite the fact that endgames are historically significant and full of drama, they have garnered a significantly smaller amount of attention than other phases of battle. There are a few novels that examine the conclusion of specific conflicts, and there is a modest body of scholarly literature concerned with what political scientists refer to as the termination of wars. Endgames, on the other hand, have been ignored by academics in the same way that they have been ignored by politicians.

There are three primary schools of thought that are utilized in the study of the elements that constrain and shape the activities of decision-makers and strategists in the process of bringing an end to combat operations:

The realist perspective, which holds that the primary priority of a nation's foreign policy is security concerns, and which views world power politics to be the most significant component; There is a school of thought known as liberalism, which asserts that the most important variables are those that are found within, such as political philosophy and domestic politics; Those who believe that psychological elements, such as the personalities of a country's leaders and the experiences that the population has had in the most recent battle, are the most important in determining the actions that those leaders will do in the endgame.

Conflict resolution is a form of coercive bargaining.

It has been stated by the Slantchev, On the other hand, the manner in which the adversary conducts himself when negotiating is an additional crucial method of acquiring knowledge about him.

Since the willingness to communicate can be so illuminating,, It could be a valid justification for postponing overt diplomatic initiatives until after an armistice has been reached.

(…) For example, The ability to make an excessive demand is a sign of strength, but weakness is revealed when one is defeated in battle.

Players are able to change their assumptions regarding the results of the war whenever they are provided with the fresh information that they have obtained from the battlefield and from the bargaining table. As soon as they are sufficiently converging, a room for bargaining is created, and the conflict can be resolved by a settlement that steers clear of the expenses associated with war.

The adjustment of expectations, on the other hand, may also be the result of a change in the leadership of the foreign policy itself, or, as Stanley and Sawyer (2009) would put it, from adjustments in the domestic coalition. The term domestic governing coalition refers to the elite foreign policy decision-making group in each belligerent government, which means that it refers to the individuals who have the authority to decide whether or not a country will participate in war or whether it will terminate the conflict. A phenomenon known as domestic coalition shift, according to the definition provided by the authors, is either (1) a consequential change in the identity of the decision makers or (2) a substantive change in the type of government. Putting it another way, the internal factors of the players, like as the type of regime they are under and the qualities of their leaders, can have an effect on the outcome of the war.

When the domestic coalition is taken into consideration, the Equifinality of War theory suggests that there are three different types of barriers that can stand in the way of peace. The first one is a matter of preference: if those in charge of making decisions do not want to halt the war, whether it be for personal stakes, reputation, or security (for example, when the costs of not engaging are higher than going to war), then there is no room for discussion.

It is possible that a domestic coalition shift might speed up this process and eliminate the barriers that stand in the way of peace, according to Stanley and Sawyer. This is because the termination of the war requires at least one party to adjust its expectations about the results of the war. The coalition shift allows different political actors — with different interests, assessments of the war, and constituencies — to take power.

One assumption is made by the Principle of Convergence, the Equifinality of War, and every other theory of war termination. This assumption is that at some point in time, a negotiation with the adversary is going to be feasible, acceptable, and ultimately desired. Regardless of the intelligence that is gained through military conflict, there will always be room for diplomatic negotiations at some point. According to Clausewitz's definition, the most important factor in achieving peace is the understanding by the parties involved in the conflict that the outcomes of the war are irreversible and cannot be altered through the use of force should more favorable circumstances arise.

Title: Understanding War Termination: A Critical Analysis in Military Science

Introduction:

War termination stands as a pivotal aspect within the realm of military science, delving into the complex dynamics of bringing conflicts to an end. It encapsulates not only the cessation of hostilities but also the intricate processes and negotiations that lead to a lasting peace. In this article, we embark on an exploration of war termination, examining its theoretical underpinnings, historical precedents, contemporary challenges, and future prospects within the domain of military science.

Theoretical Foundations:

At the heart of war termination lies a myriad of theoretical frameworks that seek to explain how wars conclude and the factors influencing these conclusions. One such framework is the bargaining theory, which posits that wars end through negotiations between belligerents aiming to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement. Bargaining power, asymmetry, and resolve play crucial roles in shaping the outcomes of these negotiations. Additionally, the concept of victory, whether it be military, political, or psychological, often serves as a determinant in the decision-making process of war termination.

Another prominent theoretical perspective is the conflict resolution approach, which emphasizes the importance of addressing underlying grievances and resolving root causes to achieve sustainable peace. Conflict resolution strategies encompass diplomatic efforts, mediation, reconciliation, and post-conflict reconstruction, aiming to transform the structural conditions that fuelled the conflict in the first place.

Historical Perspectives:

Throughout history, wars have ended through a variety of means, ranging from decisive military victories to diplomatic negotiations and treaties. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, for instance, brought an end to the Thirty Years' War in Europe, establishing the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity that continue to shape the international system today. Similarly, the end of World War II saw the signing of multiple treaties and the establishment of international organizations such as the United Nations, ushering in a new era of multilateral diplomacy and collective security.

However, history also bears witness to the challenges and complexities of war termination. The aftermath of World War I, marked by the Treaty of Versailles, sowed the seeds of resentment and instability, ultimately contributing to the outbreak of World War II. Likewise, the Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty, leaving the Korean Peninsula divided and tensions unresolved to this day.

Contemporary Challenges:

In the contemporary landscape, war termination faces a host of challenges that complicate the process and prolong conflicts. The rise of non-state actors, transnational threats, and asymmetrical warfare has blurred the lines between combatants and civilians, making it increasingly difficult to achieve decisive victories and negotiate with elusive adversaries.

Moreover, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the advent of cyber warfare have introduced new dimensions of complexity to war termination, raising concerns about escalation, retaliation, and the potential for catastrophic outcomes.

Furthermore, the intersection of regional rivalries, geopolitical interests, and humanitarian crises often exacerbates conflicts and impedes efforts