Source: shutterstock.com/metamorworks
Source: shutterstock.com/metamorworks
ArticlesEnglish Articles

The Influence of Media Narratives on Military Strategy

Abstract: Media is pivotal in shaping the discourse around attrition and manoeuvre warfare strategies in modern military contexts. These narratives contribute greatly to the perceived rivalry between the two strategies, impacting public perception and strategic decision-making. Given the prevalence of media bias in military reporting and its implications for public support and strategic outcomes, it is necessary to further challenge the notion of manoeuvre warfare’s obsolescence and reach a nuanced understanding that recognises the continued relevance and potential evolution of manoeuvre tactics in modern warfare.

Problem statement: How do contemporary technologies and media coverage impact the debate on manoeuvre and attrition warfare?

So what?: It is crucial for policymakers and military leaders to recognise and critically analyse the influence of media narratives on military strategy formulation. By understanding the impact of media representations, they can develop more informed and nuanced approaches to contemporary conflict scenarios. This will help to focus on how to adapt manoeuvre warfare to current and future threats.

Source: shutterstock.com/metamorworks

Source: shutterstock.com/metamorworks

All Models are Wrong…

“[…] All models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”

George E.P. Box, British Statistician[1]

Though this bold statement by British statistician George Box was intended for statistical models, its relevance extends far beyond the realm of data analysis. In many fields, including military strategy, models and theories are often imperfect representations of a complex reality. However, the true measure of their value lies not in their flawlessness but in their adaptability and continued relevance to the challenges they are meant to address.

Manoeuvre warfare, a strategy emphasising flexibility and taking advantage of the enemy’s weakness[2],[3], has long been a key element of military doctrine. Yet, in recent years, the evolving landscape of warfare—characterised by asymmetric threats, urbanised combat, and rapid technological advancements—has led some to question the viability of this approach. As such, some critics question whether manoeuvre warfare can still be effective in the modern context.

These debates often hinge on the assumption that today’s technology has made traditional manoeuvre impossible. With an enemy seemingly able to see and counteract every move, some argue that the days of manoeuvre are over and that attrition—grinding down the opponent through sheer force—has become the only promising strategy.

Manoeuvre Warfare in the Modern Battlefield

Manoeuvre warfare in the modern context is designed to achieve a position of relative advantage over the enemy by targeting their vulnerabilities while avoiding their strengths.[4] This approach focuses on flexibility, speed, and exploiting weaknesses rather than engaging in direct confrontation. The essence of manoeuvre is not just about moving forces but strategically positioning them to create the greatest impact with the least risk.[5] In today’s military operations, this means using intelligence, speed, and the element of surprise to outmanoeuvre the enemy, forcing them into disadvantageous positions.[6]

In today’s military operations, this means using intelligence, speed, and the element of surprise to outmanoeuvre the enemy, forcing them into disadvantageous positions.

The role of manoeuvre warfare has expanded with the advent of new warfighting domains such as cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum.[7] In addition, there is a rise in urban and underground warfare, as conflicts (e.g., in Ukraine and Gaza) continue to move into densely populated cities and complex subterranean environments.[8] These new dimensions require military leaders and planners to rethink how manoeuvre is applied across different theatres of operation. Tackling this obstacle will ensure that the concept of manoeuvre does not become diluted or misunderstood as it adapts to these emerging fields.

Challenges Posed by Modern Technology

The modern battlefield, characterised by technological transparency, poses significant challenges to traditional manoeuvre warfare. Technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous systems, and advanced surveillance capabilities have transformed how battles are fought, making it increasingly difficult to achieve the element of surprise and mobility that manoeuvre warfare relies on.[9] The proliferation of real-time intelligence and surveillance technologies has compromised the ability to move forces undetected, allowing adversaries to monitor and counter manoeuvres more effectively. Specifically, the critical hurdle here is sheer visibility on the modern battlefield. Enhanced surveillance and reconnaissance technologies have made it harder to conceal movements and mass forces, reducing the effectiveness of traditional manoeuvre strategies.[10] This increased transparency has reduced operational tempo, making it more challenging to achieve the decisive actions that manoeuvre warfare depends on.[11]

However, this does not render manoeuvre obsolete. Instead, it requires adaptation. The modern battlefield’s transparency is not inexorable and can be mitigated through various countermeasures. For instance, counter-unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operations, electronic warfare, and deception tactics can reduce an enemy’s ability to monitor and predict movements. These technologies and tactics can facilitate manoeuvre by creating moments of uncertainty or misinformation for the enemy.[12] Moreover, it is only a matter of time before one can leverage technical capabilities to conceal one’s true position and deceive the enemy during airspace reconnaissance. Generally speaking, the challenge of processing vast amounts of data in real time requires that forces increase their operational tempo. Speed in decision-making and execution becomes crucial.[13] Modern forces must leverage technology to process information quickly and make rapid decisions to maintain the advantage in manoeuvring. Artificial Intelligence might play an increasingly crucial role in this regard; whereas Quantum Encryption Methods might help in securing communication channels.

Deception and Manoeuvre

Deception plays a pivotal role in the effectiveness of manoeuvre warfare. It is not merely an auxiliary tactic but a fundamental component that allows forces to achieve the element of surprise and exploit an enemy’s vulnerabilities. In today’s transparent battlefields, where technological innovation makes concealment increasingly difficult, deception becomes even more critical. Historically, successful military operations have often depended on the ability to mislead the enemy about the true intentions of an attack. For instance, the success of the D-Day landings in the Second World War was significantly boosted by convincing the German leadership that the main assault would occur elsewhere, leading them to concentrate their forces away from the actual landing sites. This historical example underscores the enduring relevance of deception in manoeuvre warfare, even in the face of modern technological challenges. However, deception techniques must evolve to keep pace with advancements in surveillance and reconnaissance technologies. To achieve effective deception today, militaries can leverage cyber warfare, electronic countermeasures, and AI-driven tactics. For example, cyber operations could create false intelligence that misleads the enemy about troop movements or infrastructure vulnerabilities. Electronic warfare tools, such as jamming and spoofing, could disrupt enemy communications or generate phantom signals to create confusion about the location and strength of forces. AI can help simulate fake digital activity or manipulate sensor data, allowing military forces to mask their real movements.

Deception plays a pivotal role in the effectiveness of manoeuvre warfare.

Additionally, multi-domain deception should be employed, combining traditional tactics like camouflage with advanced digital and psychological operations that exploit weaknesses in the enemy’s decision-making processes. By creating contradictory information streams or overwhelming the enemy with data, commanders can influence the enemy to hesitate or misdirect resources. These integrated approaches enable forces to achieve moments of surprise and operational advantage, even in an era of increased battlefield transparency.

Manoeuvre vs. Attrition: An Endless Debate?

The debate between manoeuvre warfare and attrition warfare has long been a focal point in military theory, with interpretations dating back thousands of years. Whether considering the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, or the Vietnam War, this strategic discourse has continued engaging scholars and military thinkers across the ages. Despite the ongoing discussion, historically, there is little evidence for a binary view of manoeuvre and attrition.[14] Successful military operations have frequently depended on a blend of both strategies, with manoeuvre and attrition working together rather than in isolation.[15] Rather than viewing manoeuvre as an isolated strategy, it is more accurate to understand it as an element of doctrine, which might often be bolstered by attrition. While it is sometimes perceived as the opposite of attrition, in practice, manoeuvre almost invariably involves elements of attrition, and both can co-exist on the tactical, operational, and strategic levels.[16] For instance, manoeuvring forces to exploit an enemy’s vulnerability inherently requires applying combat power at decisive points, which is a form of attrition.[17]

Manoeuvring forces to exploit an enemy’s vulnerability inherently requires applying combat power at decisive points, which is a form of attrition.

The relevance of manoeuvre, particularly at lower tactical levels, remains significant even in the face of modern technological challenges. For platoons or companies, for instance, the ability to quickly exploit enemy weaknesses through agile movements is often crucial. Consequently, despite the increased transparency of the battlefield, manoeuvre remains vital.[18] Thus, the debate should be less about whether manoeuvre is viable and more about how it can be adapted to meet contemporary challenges.

A Symbiotic Relationship

The idea that manoeuvre and attrition are distinct and opposing strategies overlooks their inherent symbiosis. Effective military strategies have always required a combination of both approaches, with each complementing the other.[19] The key is not to choose between them but to understand how they can be integrated and adapted to the realities of modern warfare. This means refining the capabilities that enable manoeuvre—such as intelligence, deception, and technological innovation—while recognising that attrition is a necessary component of any comprehensive strategy.

Moreover, one could argue that manoeuvre becoming obsolete reflects a certain “first-world problem” perspective. In conflicts involving smaller nations, non-state actors, or an imbalance of power of a different kind, prolonged attrition warfare is often unfeasible due to limited resources and strategic vulnerabilities. These groups must rely heavily on manoeuvre—using agility, surprise, and innovative tactics—to offset their disadvantages in resources and technology. For them, manoeuvre is not just a strategic choice but a necessity for survival and success. This reality underscores the importance of maintaining and adapting manoeuvre strategies even as larger powers debate their relevance.

Thus, the future of military strategy lies in finding the right balance between these approaches[20] and adapting them to the ever-evolving landscape of warfare. Rather than viewing manoeuvres as outdated, military leaders and policymakers should focus on enhancing and integrating them within the framework of modern conflicts, ensuring their continued relevance and effectiveness.

Media Narratives & Public Debate

Media Influence on Military Strategy

The ongoing debate about manoeuvre and attrition is not just confined to military strategists and academics; it also plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and policy. Although the massive influence of media framing on public opinion is nothing new,[21] there are some aspects that must be specifically highlighted. Many outlets oversimplify complex topics,[22] such as foreign affairs and international conflicts, limiting public understanding and inhibiting nuanced discussions. The portrayals can be biased and often focus on sensationalism—accentuating controversy while neglecting nuanced analysis—and prominently negative stories.[23], [24] How the media frames the abovementioned debate can significantly influence public opinion, affecting how military strategies are supported or opposed. The public’s understanding of these concepts is often streamlined, leading to a preference for one approach based on how it is presented in the media. For instance, manoeuvre warfare is frequently romanticised as a more dynamic, prestigious, and less costly approach, emphasising speed and precision. In contrast, attrition is often depicted as brutal and grinding, leading to negative connotations. This framing can create biases in public perception – implying that manoeuvre is always the more reasonable choice –potentially affecting how military operations are conducted and supported.

Manoeuvre warfare is frequently romanticised as a more dynamic, prestigious, and less costly approach, emphasising speed and precision.

Understanding the media’s role in this process is essential for ensuring that public discourse around military strategy is both informed and balanced, allowing for a more nuanced appreciation of the complexities involved.

Driving Public Discourse

Media plays a substantial role in shaping the decisions of military leaders and policymakers by influencing public opinion. Mass media controls the flow of information through different means and can decide which topic or framing is salient for the public. This becomes significantly relevant to public discourse in the context of international crises and conflict scenarios, especially when hardly any data is publicly accessible, as is the case in classified military operations.[25] For example, conflicts are frequently simplified in media narratives, wherein attrition warfare is often seen as less preferable to manoeuvre because it is portrayed as less decisive and more costly.[26] This bias impacts how policymakers perceive the value of different military strategies, sometimes creating unrealistic expectations about the conduct of war. The media do not directly dictate public opinion but heavily shape what issues people focus on, guiding public discourse around key policy decisions. This concept of ‘issue salience’ can significantly influence public discourse, which, in turn, can indirectly affect policy decisions, such as adjustments to defence spending.[27]

This is highly relevant to policymaking as media can direct the public’s attention to specific issues, effectively influencing citizens’ readiness to bear the expense of deploying military force.[28] On the one hand, when a military strategy like manoeuvre warfare is portrayed as more effective or humane, there is public pressure to favour it, potentially leading to a shift in military tactics that may not align with battlefield realities. On the other hand, the portrayal of attrition warfare as gruelling and costly can lead to public disapproval, despite its necessity in certain combat environments. This framing can result in strategic misalignment, whereby the demands of public opinion steer military operations in a way that does not reflect the complexity of warfare. For example, during the Vietnam War, negative media coverage influenced public opinion and, ultimately, U.S. policy decisions, highlighting the media’s significant role in shaping strategic outcomes.[29] Another classic media rhetoric could be perceived during the Russian war in Ukraine. Media outlets have frequently framed the war as a battle between ‘good and evil’, banalising a highly complex situation.[30] Such depictions hinder meaningful discussions about the conflict’s risks, costs, and potential solutions.[31] This trivialised depiction of conflict dynamics reduces public understanding and pushes policymakers toward black-and-white thinking, where nuanced strategies like manoeuvre warfare are often overshadowed by more immediate concerns. As a result, the media can simultaneously elevate or marginalise the concept (i.e., manoeuvre or attrition warfare), depending on the context. In terms of policymaking, this dual effect can lead to tension between idealized strategic frameworks and immediate concerns. While the net influence varies, the core issue remains that media narratives often push policymakers to respond to urgent, visible crises rather than investing in more complex, intricate strategies like manoeuvre warfare. By acknowledging both of these media-driven forces, one can better understand the challenges in maintaining focus on strategic objectives in the face of public and political pressure.

During the Vietnam War, negative media coverage influenced public opinion and, ultimately, U.S. policy decisions, highlighting the media’s significant role in shaping strategic outcomes.

The issue of media influence becomes even more pronounced with the rapid dissemination of information through social media. The speed at which news spreads in the digital age has changed how military operations are reported and perceived.[32] Information can go viral within minutes, often before it has been fully vetted, further complicating the strategic communication landscape. This fast-paced news cycle encourages sensationalism, answering readers’ demands through “market-driven journalism.”[33] For instance, the presentation of certain events as either decisive victories or catastrophic losses leaves little room for the public to grasp the strategic nuances of a conflict. Quick reporting can easily mislead both the public and policymakers, driving decisions that are reactive rather than informed by a comprehensive understanding of the situation. In addition, echo chambers – the phenomenon of people auto-creating digital environments, where they are increasingly exposed to opinions that reflect their own – make it even more difficult to counteract the effect once information has been published.

Redirecting the Debate

The ongoing debate surrounding manoeuvre and attrition warfare is more than a theoretical exercise—it has significant implications for military doctrine, strategy, and public perception. As the character of warfare evolves, manoeuvre and attrition are increasingly perceived as being aligned on a spectrum rather than being opposites. Media narratives often oversimplify these strategies, shaping public opinion and, by extension, policy decisions. In this context, it is essential to explore how military doctrines can evolve, innovation can drive strategy, and training and strategic communication can be adapted to meet the demands of modern conflicts.

Evolving Doctrines

The changing character of war, marked by technological advances and shifts in geopolitical landscapes, requires a revision of existing strategies. NATO militaries, for instance, must “revise and revamp their doctrine, training, command, and control capabilities to effectively address the challenges posed by large-scale, joint, and combined operations”.[34] This need for evolution is not new; it reflects a broader historical trend, wherein shifts in warfare have often led to the development of new operational concepts.[35] Reassessment is vital to address the complex threats posed by major power competitors in diverse theatres of operation. Despite recognising the need for innovative operational concepts, current strategies have been criticised for lacking clarity on how to achieve decisive victories in these complex scenarios.

NATO militaries, for instance, must “revise and revamp their doctrine, training, command, and control capabilities.”

It would be foolish to assume that military concepts, which proved successful in the past, will never require adaptation to meet the challenges of ongoing and future conflicts. Such a rigid mindset on the battlefield could cost many lives. As Box wrote, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” In the context of military strategy, it could be interpreted that while past doctrines provide a useful framework, they must be continually reassessed and modified to remain effective in the ever-changing landscape of warfare.

Innovation in Military Strategy & Training

The future of military strategy lies in leveraging technological advancements, such as AI and autonomous systems, to optimise decision-making and resource allocation on the battlefield. For instance, the manoeuvre concept of “Mosaic warfare” involves AI systems that can efficiently pair available resources with specific tasks, such as targeting enemy forces.[36] Moreover, contemporary military strategies must incorporate a variety of defeat mechanisms, coordinating them to systematically disrupt and dismantle enemy systems across different dimensions and over time.[37]

The way manoeuvre warfare is understood and implemented directly influences problem-solving approaches in military operations. Without a clear and precise definition of manoeuvre, the concept could become too vague to be strategically useful.[38] Therefore, training programs should provide a detailed understanding of manoeuvre warfare, including its practical application in various conflict scenarios. This approach could be effectively augmented by integrating AI into military training. AI can simulate realistic combat scenarios that dynamically respond to soldiers’ actions, providing a more adaptive and responsive training environment. This technology enables the development of personalised training exercises, helping soldiers refine their decision-making and tactical skills in preparation for the unpredictable nature of modern conflicts. By incorporating AI and wargaming scenarios into training programs, military organisations can better prepare their forces for the complexities of future battlefields.[39]

Improving Strategic Communication

Strategic communication is vital in bridging the gap between military operations and public perception. Effective management of media relations by military leaders is crucial to ensuring that public narratives accurately reflect the realities on the ground. This involves responding to media portrayals and proactively shaping them through clear and consistent communication efforts.[40] By engaging with the media to promote accurate and balanced reporting, military organisations can prevent the public from forming distorted perceptions that may lead to a false impression of the operation. However, even in the context of military strategic communication, maintaining freedom of the press is paramount. While the military has a vested interest in ensuring that public narratives accurately reflect the realities of operations, any attempt to manage media portrayals must respect journalistic independence. Rather than controlling or constraining the media, the focus should lie on fostering open and transparent communication that encourages accurate reporting without infringing on press freedom while allowing space for independent scrutiny and criticism. Additionally, by recognising that media outlets are driven by the need to attract viewers and readers through dramatic headlines, military organisations should seek to collaborate with the press by offering relevant updates in a timely manner. While it might be difficult to promise exclusive stories to specific media outlets, offering helpful services such as providing pre-publication reviews of journalistic articles from a military perspective – where articles can be reviewed for accuracy from a technical standpoint if requested – can be a valuable option often appreciated in practice. Also, by emphasising the human elements of operations—stories of resilience, collaboration, and positive outcomes—the military can further provide media outlets with compelling narratives that also ensure a more balanced portrayal of the mission. Upholding the principles of a free press is not only a legal and ethical obligation but also a crucial element in maintaining public trust. By engaging with the media in good faith, and not only when one needs them, military organizations can help shape balanced narratives while respecting the media’s essential role in a democratic society.

Strategic communication is vital in bridging the gap between military operations and public perception.

Furthermore, enhancing media literacy within military training programs is essential for improving communication with the public and the press. Teaching strategies like anticipating all the tough and challenging questions that could arise during a press interview, and preparing thoughtful, well-reasoned responses—similar to the techniques used in debate clubs—can be incredibly valuable for officers, especially in high-stakes crisis scenarios, where successful communication is truly critical. By equipping officers with the skills to understand how media narratives are constructed through, military personnel can engage more effectively with the media. This not only improves their ability to respond to biased or incomplete information but also helps them proactively shape public narratives in a way that maintains public trust. Officers – including, but not limited to, Public Affairs Officers – who understand how media narratives are constructed can more effectively foster constructive relationship with the press, helping mitigate the impact of sensationalist reporting, and contribute to a more transparent dialogue.[41] This approach not only improves the relationship between the military and the media but also fosters greater public trust in military institutions by promoting transparency and accuracy in reporting.[42]

Officers who understand how media narratives are constructed can more effectively foster constructive relationship with the press, helping mitigate the impact of sensationalist reporting, and contribute to a more transparent dialogue.

Additionally, in today’s evolvingly hybrid warfare the armed forces cannot afford to neglect this area of communication. More specifically, strategic disinformation campaigns by enemy forces – such as the Wagner group’s defamation attempt on the French Armed Forces’ engagement in Mali in April 2022 – can cause severe damage to military operations by undermining public trust and eroding credibility. Therefore, the international security community, particularly through institutions like the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE), must step up efforts to enhance transnational strategies focused on strengthening media communication and public engagement. By leveraging expert resources, strategic communication can be better coordinated to protect military operations from disinformation and reinforce public confidence.

Call to Action

The debate over the relevance of manoeuvre warfare is far from settled. Much depends on how well military organisations can adapt to the changing nature of warfare. As the character of war evolves, so must the strategies and doctrines that guide military operations.

To remain effective in future conflicts, military organisations must continue to adapt their force design and capabilities. This includes prioritising technologies, such as long-range precision fires, advanced loitering munitions, and electronic warfare systems, which support the ongoing trends in modern warfare.[43] Additionally, learning from recent conflicts, such as the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, is vital to understanding how adversaries approach warfare. This could best be integrated through AI-assisted training since the lessons learned will be essential for updating military doctrines, ensuring they remain relevant in the face of new challenges.

While modern technology and battlefield transparency present significant challenges to traditional manoeuvre warfare, these challenges can be overcome through adaptation, innovation, and the strategic use of deception. Manoeuvre remains a vital component of military strategy, but its application must evolve to meet the demands of contemporary conflicts. The key to successful manoeuvre warfare in the modern era lies in understanding and adapting to these new realities, ensuring that manoeuvre continues to play a central role in achieving military objectives. Policymakers and military leaders must recognise the impact of how armed forces’ interventions are framed in the media. Their understanding of the public’s perception and need for information is vital for establishing a positive relationship between the actors. Moreover, they should consider incorporating this understanding as a crucial component of training programs for all officers. In looking to the future, further options, such as the role of so-called “watchdog” organisations–which independently verify and fact-check information and point out actions that seem to be against the public interest[44]–could also complement military strategic communication. Alongside other relevant institutions, like the NATO StratCom COE, the possibilities to contribute to each other’s strategic work should be explored.

While modern technology and battlefield transparency present significant challenges to traditional manoeuvre warfare, these challenges can be overcome through adaptation, innovation, and the strategic use of deception.

In the ever-evolving landscape of warfare, where technology and tactics continuously reshape the battlefield, it is essential to remember that while all models may be flawed, their utility lies in their adaptability. The true test of strategies will not be in their rigidity but in military leaders’ ability to innovate and refine them, ensuring that they remain effective tools for achieving victory and preserving lives.

 


Tamsyn Karlotta Garinet; Captain (OF-2) Bundeswehr; Ecological Security Fellow 2024 at the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR), M.Sc. Psychology; Research Topics: Civil-Military Cooperation; Ecological Security; Social, Differential & Media Psychology; Leadership. The views contained in this article are the author’s alone and do not represent the views of the Bundeswehr, the Helmut-Schmidt-University or the CSR.


[1] George E. P. Box and N. R. Draper, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987), 424.

[2] Michael A. Hamilton, “Words Matter: Demystifying ‘Maneuver’,” Infantry Magazine, Spring 2024, 32-33.

[3] Jeroen Verhaege, “Is NATO Land Operations Doctrine Aiming Too High?” War On The Rocks, August 06, 2021. https://warontherocks.com/2021/08/is-nato-land-operations-doctrine-aiming-too-high/.

[4] Hamilton, “Words Matter: Demystifying ‘Maneuver’,” 28.

[5] Ibid., 33.

[6] Robert J. Elder, D.Engr., Information Maneuver in Military Operations, ed. Ali Jafri (Strategic Multilayer Assessment, NSI Inc., August 2021), 3.

[7] Hamilton, “Words Matter: Demystifying ‘Maneuver’,” 28.

[8] Daphné Richemond-Barak, “Tunnel Warfare: Grappling with the Legal and Military Challenges of Subterranean Combat,” moderated by Amichai Magen, virtual lecture, February 23, 2022, posted March 14, 2024, FSI Stanford YouTube, 7:27, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwBAV-t3cBg.

[9] Michael Mayer, Multi-Domain Operations, Emerging Military Technology and the Future of Manoeuvre Warfare (Kjeller, Norway: Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, 2024), 4.

[10] Franz-Stefan Gady, “Manoeuvre Versus Attrition in US Military Operations,” Survival 63, no. 4 (2021): 132.

[11] Mayer, “Multi-Domain Operations, Emerging Military Technology and the Future of Manoeuvre Warfare,” 4.

[12] Idem.

[13] Idem.

[14] Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2013), 209, accessed June 16, 2024, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[15] Frank Hoffman, “Defeat Mechanisms in Modern Warfare,” Parameters 51, no. 4 (2021): 51, doi:10.55540/0031-1723.3091.

[16] Jeffrey A. Springman, The Rapier or the Club: The Relationship Between Attrition and Maneuver Warfare, USAWC Strategy Research Project (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2002), 1.

[17] Ralph Peters, “In Praise of Attrition,” Parameters 41, no. 4 (2011): 1, doi:10.55540/0031-1723.2614.

[18] Christopher Tuck, “The Future of Manoeuvre Warfare,” in Advanced Land Warfare: Tactics and Operations, ed. Mikael Weissmann and Niklas Nilsson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023), 42, online edition, Oxford Academic, April 20, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192857422.003.0002, accessed July 29, 2024.

[19] Peters, “In Praise of Attrition,” 2.

[20] Franz-Stefan Gady and Michael Kofman, “Ukraine’s Strategy of Attrition,” Survival 65, no. 2 (2023): 7, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2023.2193092.

[21] Maxwell E. McCombs, and Donald L. Shaw, “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, no. 2 (1972): 185.

[22] Amartya Sen, ed., Peace and Democratic Society (Cambridge, UK: OpenBook Publishers, 2011), 95.

[23] Matteo G. Martemucci, “Regaining the High Ground: The Challenges of Perception Management in National Strategy and Military Operations” (Thesis, Joint Advanced Warfighting School, 2007), 17.

[24] Theresa Bly, Impact of Public Perception on US National Policy: A Study of Media Influence in Military and Government Decision Making (Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 2002), 69, Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive.

[25] Matt Evans, “Framing International Conflicts: Media Coverage of Fighting in the Middle East,” International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 6, no. 2 (2010): 209.

[26] Amos Fox, “Setting the Record Straight on Attrition,” War on the Rocks, January 30, 2024, accessed July 2, 2024, https://warontherocks.com.

[27] Stuart Soroka, “Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy,” The International Journal of Press/Politics 8, no. 1 (2003): 34.

[28] Jens Ringsmose, and Berit Kaja Børgesen, “Shaping public attitudes towards the deployment of military power: NATO, Afghanistan and the use of strategic narratives,” European Security, 20, no. 4 (December 2011): 524.

[29] Bly, Impact of Public Perception, 25.

[30] Matthew Blackburn, “Cheering and Jeering on the Escalator to Hell: One Year of UK Media Coverage on the War in Ukraine,” Russian Politics 8, no. 2 (2023): 227, https://doi.org/10.30965/24518921-00802006.

[31] Blackburn, “Cheering and Jeering on the Escalator to Hell: One Year of UK Media Coverage on the War in Ukraine,” 226-227.

[32] Thomas Zeitzoff, Hamilton, “Words Matter: Demystifying ‘Maneuver’,” 33, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 61, no. 9 (October 2017): 1980.

[33] Chikezie Uzuegbunam, “Sensationalism in the Media: The Right to Sell or the Right to Tell,” Journal of Communication and Media Research 5, no. 1 (April 2013): 1.

[34] Alessandro Marrone, The War Against Ukraine and Its Lessons for NATO Militaries: Food for Thought (Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali [IAI], February 2023), 4.

[35] Prakash Gopal and Chris Rahman, Scenarios for Wargaming: ADF Contributions to Coalition Operations in the Western Pacific, Issue Brief No. 11 (Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security [ANCORS], University of Wollongong, 2023), 1.

[36] Mayer, Multi-Domain Operations, Emerging Military Technology and the Future of Manoeuvre Warfare, 4.

[37] Hoffmann, “Defeat Mechanisms in Modern Warfare,” 64.

[38] Hamilton, “Words Matter: Demystifying ‘Maneuver’,” 28.

[39] Jeremy Kofsky, “Embracing AI,” Marine Corps Gazette, September 2024, 72.

[40] Martemucci, “Regaining the High Ground: The Challenges of Perception Management in National Strategy and Military Operations,” 74.

[41] Bly, Impact of Public Perception on US National Policy: A Study of Media Influence in Military and Government Decision Making, 73.

[42] Ringsmose & Børgesen, “Shaping public attitudes towards the deployment of military power: NATO, Afghanistan and the use of strategic narratives,” 524.

[43] U.S. Marine Corps, Force Design 2030 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2020), 3.

[44] “Watchdog,” Harvard Law School, accessed October 24, 2024, https://hls.harvard.edu/bernard-koteen-office-of-public-interest-advising/about-opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-interest-work-types/watchdog/.

You may also like

Comments are closed.