| ID | 127809 |
| Title Proper | How big powers fight small wars |
| Other Title Information | contending traditions of asymmetry in the British and American ways of war |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Chew, Emrys |
| Publication | 2014. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | "Globalized" low-intensity conflicts renew debates about how leading world powers contend with evolving complexities in unconventional warfare. The "foreign entanglements" of America's imperial present have been compared with the "savage wars of peace" from Britain's colonial past.1 Beyond the template of Anglo-American civilization, however, military, economic, and cultural manifestations of power must be set in their systemic and structural context for more meaningful comparison. Britain's variegated experience of unconventional warfare stemmed from its vast colonial milieu of "small wars" and "imperial policing." America's experience reflects transformational civil-military responses to both existential and ideological threats, reinforcing the evolution of a massive "way of war" over persistent frontier warfare. Integral to reading these small war traditions is the historical method, emphasizing particularity of causation while underscoring the value of flexible, hybrid approaches against overinstitutionalized "ways in warfare."2 Operational success, delivered by blending military skills with political savvy and cultural sensitivity, not only secured populations but support and legitimacy, without which even global powers risked defeat. |
| `In' analytical Note | Armed Forces and Society Vol. 40, No.1; Jan 2014: p.17-48 |
| Journal Source | Armed Forces and Society Vol. 40, No.1; Jan 2014: p.17-48 |
| Key Words | Low - Intensity Conflicts ; Counterinsurgency ; Asymmetric Warfare ; Hybrid Warfare ; British Colonial Campaigns ; American Way of War |