Supplying Instability: Military Sustainment in International Relations

• In Event: Resources, Logistics, and War

Abstract

How do logistics requirements of conflicts impact international politics? The debate about the effects of the Global War on Terror have focused on the effects of actual combat operations in terms of the effects on the nations involved. However, sustainment of combat forces has been a major challenge and a significant factor in how these operations have unfolded, particularly in Afghanistan. The field of International Relations tends to neglect sustainment considerations, even though efforts to sustain military forces directly impact the foreign policy choices and relations among nations. This paper argues that the requirements of sustaining military operations often have deep consequences for international relations and foreign policy, including the possibility of these sustainment requirements resulting in the decision to go to war. While acknowledging the inherent limitations of typologies, this paper offers a simplified model with four potential outcomes driven by the logistical requirements of conflict or potential conflict. Based on the criticality, or urgency, of need and the costs of bargaining, a state has four basic options: it can cooperate or partner with the providing nation in compliance with its existing policies; it can choose to ignore or mitigate the need in cases where the potential providing nation refuses to cooperate; it can choose to pursue warped policy, where it modifies or ignores its own policy as a pragmatic means to secure the logistics resource; or, if all else fails, it can choose conflict or war as a means to secure those resources. After providing an overview of military sustainment, it will examine cases that explore these options.

Author

• Jason Schultz, Brown University