Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Political Science Review |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212019000200204 |
Resumo: | This article presents a critical evaluation of the study of military coercion, a field that has gained growing prominence since the end of the Cold War. Its purpose is to analyze what may be the most representative work to come out of this line of research: Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, by Robert A. Pape (1996). It will interrogate the underlying premise of the work – one shared by the remainder of the substantial literature in this area – according to which military coercion is fundamentally different from war. This interrogation takes into account the contrast between Pape's approach (1996) and Carl von Clausewitz' theory of war (1993). It concludes by identifying what lies at the heart of military coercion and war, and makes two central assertions for the study of military coercion: 01. that military coercion is essentially war and, as such, is a wholly political phenomenon, with results entirely subordinate to politics; and 02. that the occurrences which Pape defines as successful military coercion are nothing more than manifestations of limited war – limited war being one of the two possible forms that war can take. |
id |
ABCP-1_86db347b5d0821ca4341a328303b0ca6 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1981-38212019000200204 |
network_acronym_str |
ABCP-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Political Science Review |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited WarMilitary coercionair powertheory of warlimited warstrategic studiesThis article presents a critical evaluation of the study of military coercion, a field that has gained growing prominence since the end of the Cold War. Its purpose is to analyze what may be the most representative work to come out of this line of research: Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, by Robert A. Pape (1996). It will interrogate the underlying premise of the work – one shared by the remainder of the substantial literature in this area – according to which military coercion is fundamentally different from war. This interrogation takes into account the contrast between Pape's approach (1996) and Carl von Clausewitz' theory of war (1993). It concludes by identifying what lies at the heart of military coercion and war, and makes two central assertions for the study of military coercion: 01. that military coercion is essentially war and, as such, is a wholly political phenomenon, with results entirely subordinate to politics; and 02. that the occurrences which Pape defines as successful military coercion are nothing more than manifestations of limited war – limited war being one of the two possible forms that war can take.Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política2019-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212019000200204Brazilian Political Science Review v.13 n.2 2019reponame:Brazilian Political Science Reviewinstname:Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP)instacron:ABCP10.1590/1981-3821201900020006info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMendes,Flávio Pedrosoeng2022-06-21T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1981-38212019000200204Revistahttps://brazilianpoliticalsciencereview.org/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbpsr@brazilianpoliticalsciencareview.org||bpsr@bpsr.org.br1981-38211981-3821opendoar:2022-06-21T00:00Brazilian Political Science Review - Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
title |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
spellingShingle |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War Mendes,Flávio Pedroso Military coercion air power theory of war limited war strategic studies |
title_short |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
title_full |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
title_fullStr |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
title_full_unstemmed |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
title_sort |
Air Power Meets Clausewitz: Military Coercion as Limited War |
author |
Mendes,Flávio Pedroso |
author_facet |
Mendes,Flávio Pedroso |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Mendes,Flávio Pedroso |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Military coercion air power theory of war limited war strategic studies |
topic |
Military coercion air power theory of war limited war strategic studies |
description |
This article presents a critical evaluation of the study of military coercion, a field that has gained growing prominence since the end of the Cold War. Its purpose is to analyze what may be the most representative work to come out of this line of research: Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, by Robert A. Pape (1996). It will interrogate the underlying premise of the work – one shared by the remainder of the substantial literature in this area – according to which military coercion is fundamentally different from war. This interrogation takes into account the contrast between Pape's approach (1996) and Carl von Clausewitz' theory of war (1993). It concludes by identifying what lies at the heart of military coercion and war, and makes two central assertions for the study of military coercion: 01. that military coercion is essentially war and, as such, is a wholly political phenomenon, with results entirely subordinate to politics; and 02. that the occurrences which Pape defines as successful military coercion are nothing more than manifestations of limited war – limited war being one of the two possible forms that war can take. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212019000200204 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-38212019000200204 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1981-3821201900020006 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Political Science Review v.13 n.2 2019 reponame:Brazilian Political Science Review instname:Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) instacron:ABCP |
instname_str |
Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) |
instacron_str |
ABCP |
institution |
ABCP |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Political Science Review |
collection |
Brazilian Political Science Review |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Political Science Review - Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bpsr@brazilianpoliticalsciencareview.org||bpsr@bpsr.org.br |
_version_ |
1754302908239708160 |