Bringing Back the Punitive Expedition
Kevin Benson | December 16, 2019
Because ends exist only in the imagination, they can be infinite. . . . Means, though, are stubbornly finite…Ends and means have to connect if anything is to happen. They’re never, however, interchangeable.
— John Lewis Gaddis, On Grand Strategy
In October 2019 we marked the eighteenth anniversary of the start of operations in Afghanistan—and with each year, the “Forever War†label applied by some pundits becomes more difficult to argue with. After eighteen years of conflict, lost lives and expended treasure it is past time to consider other options for action in the Department of Defense range of ways to more effectively employ military power. The range of military responses offered to a president who must do something in response to an incident sufficiently jarring to the national psyche must include punitive expeditions.
Given the scope of poorly governed and ungoverned spaces on the planet and the “stubbornly finite†means that Gaddis describes, a carefully crafted punitive-expedition option establishes a measured response to the action of a foe, is within the scope of existing laws of land warfare, and offers focus for military action taken in support of a policy objective. It is time to reconsider the military’s use of them. Including a punitive-expedition option when developing use-of-force options for policy makers fits into the absolute requirement to connect policy ends to the finite means of both military forces and sustaining the support of the people for a desired policy objective.
https://mwi.usma.edu/bringing-back-punitive-expedition/
