Last week, commenting on the US military's apparent predicament in its war against Iran, we opined that General staff, as professional as USMIL, delivered a weak hand to its politicians in imposing its will on Iran, militarily speaking. Either the Generals said what Team Trump/Hegseth wanted to hear (less likely), or Team Trump ignored military's professional advice (more likely). In either case, the USMIL will continue to share the blame, as they do for similar costly errors of omission and commission in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (twice), etc. US military's track record in prosecuting wars, in mostly Asian and Muslim context, is not very bright.

In a democracy, the rule of civilian supremacy over the military is well established, wherein politicians as elected leaders set politico-strategic objectives or war aims, and the Generals leading the military, assemble (array) forces and other tools to execute military operations for attaining the assigned political objectives. However, extensive literature also tasks Generalship with providing political advice to their civilian leadership, regarding pros and cons of the operations, including any geopolitical and military limitations. For this, the military leadership must be abreast with the geostrategic, economic, diplomatic and political developments. For run-up to operations, a seamless and continuous civil-military relationship, often tense, is of paramount importance; wherein the civilian side dictates the 'why' and 'when' of war, and the Generals execute the 'how' part through military manoeuvres.

Prussian theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) famously said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Since all military operations are inherently violent contests for........

© The Express Tribune