How Winning the Story Decides Modern Wars
For and By Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth, October 9, 2024
Introduction
In his reflections on the nature of war, Professor John Arquilla of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School posits that all conflicts boil down to two essential questions: "Who wins the battle on the ground?" and "Who wins the battle of the story?" These two questions delve into the dual realities of military strategy—tactical victory and the narrative that defines how that victory is perceived, both domestically and internationally. In many conflicts, the ability to control the battlefield is only part of the equation. Equally important, and sometimes even more so, is the ability to control the narrative that surrounds the conflict, shaping public opinion, morale, and international support. This essay will explore these concepts through the lens of three conflicts: the American Civil War, the Israel-Hamas war, and the U.S. War on Terror, providing insight into the critical importance of shaping the story in warfare.
The Battle on the Ground: Tactical Success and Failure
The first of Arquilla's two questions addresses the material reality of conflict—who physically controls the battlefield and wins tactical engagements. Throughout history, wars have been determined by armies and strategies that dominate in key engagements. In the American Civil War, Union forces eventually triumphed on the battlefield, defeating Confederate armies and forcing their surrender in 1865. However, the road to this victory was long and costly, and both sides experienced moments where tactical victories seemed fleeting. In battles such as Antietam or Gettysburg, tactical successes or failures influenced the immediate course of the war, yet neither battle alone decided the ultimate outcome. The battle on the ground involves winning key engagements, utilizing superior logistics, and maintaining the will to fight.
Similarly, in the Israel-Hamas conflict, the battle on the ground plays out through intense fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas militants. Tactically, Israel holds a significant advantage with its superior military technology, intelligence apparatus, and professional military forces. However, each skirmish, rocket exchange, and ground operation contributes to an ongoing tally of military gains and losses. In this conflict, like many others, the tactical victories, though crucial, do not alone determine the conflict's outcome.
The U.S. War on Terror also illustrates the challenges of winning the battle on the ground. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States quickly toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and ousted Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, despite these early tactical victories, the subsequent insurgencies and the difficulty of stabilizing both countries demonstrated that winning the initial battles was not enough to secure long-term peace or victory. The complexities of counterinsurgency warfare and the difficulty of maintaining control over vast, hostile terrains show that winning the battle on the ground can be elusive, particularly when faced with non-state actors and asymmetric warfare.
The Battle of the Story: Controlling the Narrative
If winning on the ground involves physical and tactical control, winning the battle of the story involves controlling how that conflict is perceived—by one’s own citizens, by adversaries, and by the broader international community. As Prof. Arquilla suggests, the story of the war can determine its ultimate outcome as much, if not more, than battlefield success. In the American Civil War, the Union ultimately succeeded not just because of battlefield victories but also because of the way the war was framed as a moral crusade to end slavery. President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 redefined the Union’s cause, transforming it from a mere political struggle into a fight for human freedom. By shaping the narrative, Lincoln rallied domestic and international support, particularly from European powers, which were dissuaded from recognizing the Confederacy.
The Israel-Hamas war offers another stark example of the battle for narrative control. While Israel often holds a military advantage, Hamas and its supporters frequently leverage the power of storytelling to shape international opinion. Images of civilian casualties, destruction in Gaza, and the portrayal of Israel as an occupying force resonate with global audiences, complicating Israel’s efforts to justify its military actions. In this conflict, both sides engage in an intense information war, seeking to win the battle of the story. Hamas, despite its military inferiority, has effectively used the narrative of resistance to galvanize support from various global actors, particularly in the Arab world, while Israel faces ongoing challenges in defending its actions on the world stage.
In the War on Terror, the U.S. experienced significant difficulty in controlling the narrative of the conflict. While the U.S. military achieved early successes, the prolonged nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the images of abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the civilian casualties from drone strikes undermined the U.S. position. The U.S. struggled to frame the war in a way that resonated with both domestic and international audiences. Terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS, meanwhile, proved adept at using propaganda to attract recruits and spread their ideology. The failure to win the narrative battle contributed to the war’s growing unpopularity at home and abroad, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of U.S. forces and a broader questioning of the efficacy of the entire War on Terror.
Shaping the Story: How to Win the Battle of Perception
In modern warfare, where global media and social networks spread information instantaneously, shaping the narrative is as vital as any military maneuver. To craft a more effective policy, advisors to presidents and political leaders must emphasize the importance of winning the battle of the story. This involves not only messaging that resonates with domestic audiences but also ensuring that international perceptions align with strategic objectives.
One of the most effective ways to shape the story is through a consistent and clear articulation of war aims that align with moral or ethical values. During the American Civil War, Lincoln’s framing of the conflict as a fight to preserve the Union and abolish slavery gave the North a clear moral high ground, which helped maintain public support through the war’s darkest days. Similarly, in conflicts like the War on Terror, messaging that focuses on the protection of human rights, the fight against extremism, and the promotion of democracy has a chance to resonate more strongly with global audiences than narratives centered around self-interest or power projection.
Another important aspect of shaping the story is transparency and honesty in the face of setbacks. Attempts to obscure failures or spin bad news can backfire, leading to a loss of credibility. In the Vietnam War, for instance, the U.S. government’s insistence that the war was being won, despite growing evidence to the contrary, led to a dramatic loss of public trust. Advisors to presidents should counsel that honesty in wartime communications is not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity.
Leaders must also be aware that the battle of the story occurs on multiple fronts. It is not enough to convince one’s own population of the righteousness of a cause; international opinion matters too. Coalitions of allies can fracture if public opinion in allied countries turns against a conflict. This was seen in the Iraq War, where global protests and discontent among U.S. allies strained international relationships. Successful narrative control requires a concerted effort to win hearts and minds both at home and abroad.
Conclusion: Balancing the Ground and the Story
Veterans of Vietnam and the War on Terror sometimes use the phrase "we won the battles but lost the war" to suggest that tactical victories in combat can still lead to defeat due to broader failures in strategy or politics. However, this view is often misleading and oversimplifies the complex nature of warfare.
Modern war involves far more than battles. Diplomatic negotiations, public opinion, economic stability, and international alliances all play decisive roles. Focusing only on military engagements ignores this broader context. In conflicts like the Vietnam War, the U.S. frequently won on the battlefield, yet failed to secure long-term political goals, leading to a perception and actual strategic failure. But to say the war was lost because of external, non-military reasons miss the point: the military's inability to convert tactical victories into lasting outcomes was itself part of the defeat.
Wars are won by achieving strategic objectives, not by counting battlefield wins. Nazi Germany, in World War II, won several early battles but failed to conquer Europe, which was its ultimate goal. The Allies' strategic coordination, along with the Soviet Union's resistance, outmatched Germany’s tactical successes. This demonstrates that battlefield victories are meaningless if they do not advance the overall war effort.
Another critical flaw in the "won the battles, lost the war" argument is that post-battle conditions often define the true victor. In the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces quickly won on the battlefield, but the aftermath—a prolonged insurgency and political instability—diminished those military successes. If a side wins battles but cannot maintain control or stabilize the situation afterward, the victory is temporary and largely symbolic.
The phrase also overlooks the long-term impact of war, misrepresenting what it means to "lose." A war may seem lost in the short term but have lasting positive consequences. The British won several battles during the American Revolution, yet the colonies ultimately gained independence. In hindsight, the battles won by the British seem irrelevant compared to the colonists' long-term political success.
Additionally, the phrase ignores the dynamics of asymmetric warfare, where the weaker side may lose battles but still win the war. In Afghanistan, the U.S. often defeated the Taliban militarily, but the insurgents’ ability to outlast foreign forces and maintain local influence turned those victories into hollow achievements.
Wars are not won solely through military might, nor are they determined only by who controls the battlefield. As John Arquilla argues, the outcome of a war depends as much on who wins the battle of the story as on who wins on the ground. The American Civil War, the Israel-Hamas conflict, and the U.S. War on Terror all illustrate the dual nature of warfare, where narrative triumphs must accompany tactical victories. Political leaders and their advisors must craft strategies that account for both realities. In the modern world, where information spreads rapidly, and public perception can shape policy as much as a military success, winning the battle of the story is essential to achieving lasting victory in any conflict.
Notes
1. John Arquilla, Bitskrieg: The New Challenge of Cyberwarfare (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021), 34-36.
2. James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 492-494.
3. Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 13-15.
4. Jason Burke, The 9/11 Wars (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 82-85.
5. Bruce Riedel, American Presidents and Israeli Settlements: An Ideological Conflict (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2020), 56-58.
Comments