Doctor of Philosophy / Department of History / Donald J. Mrozek / During the Cold War, the United States’ foreign policy relied heavily on its ability to project military power. More often than not, the central component of force projection rested on the United States military’s effectiveness in employing air power both by establishing air superiority and through accurate delivery of ordnance. As the primary service tasked with conducting aerial warfare, the United States Air Force (USAF) was expected to maintain this capability either to achieve deterrence or, when necessary, to military action. In January 1973, the USAF seemed incapable of performing the latter task due to the North Vietnamese Integrated Air Defense System’s (NV-IAD’s) effectiveness in Operation Rolling Thunder and its successor, Operation Linebacker. Eighteen years later, Air Force aircraft spearheaded the Coalition’s air attack on the Iraqi Integrated Air Defense System (I-IADS) in January 1991. Considered by many to be the most effective air defense system outside the Soviet Union’s, the I-IADS was expected to exact heavy casualties from the allied forces. Instead, in less than twenty days, the USAF’s dominance was so complete that politicians, analysts and military historians quickly proclaimed a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA). The majority of the current historiography credits advances in precision-guided munitions (PGMs), airframes, and computer technology as the impetus for the RMA. Others have claimed that the USAF’s training methodology and construction of advanced training sites such as the Red Flag complex at Nellis Air Force Base were the primary drivers for the Air Force’s success. While acknowledging the role all of these factors played, this dissertation also demonstrates the key role played by the development of Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) doctrine from January 1973 through August 1991. In the aftermath of the American war in Vietnam, the Air Force considered defense suppression a tactical task that was secondary to the primary mission of putting ordnance on target. At the end of Desert Storm, proponents of the Air Force’s SEAD doctrine had convincing evidence that an enemy IADS was not just an ancillary weapons array, but functioned a critical national system just like manufacturing, government, or the people’s will. The process by which this viewpoint changed had effects on the development of the United States Air Force’s Cold War conventional capability in general, and the development of training methods, electronic warfare platforms, and modern airframes specifically.

This study examines if theory of deception can be understood in successful air operations on a tactical level. Research on deception is mostly conducted on a strategic level and the different theories vary in aim and tend to be comprehensive. Studies of air power are mostly conducted on a tactical level and deception within air power has become more common throughout the years. This study aims, using a theory testing case study, to explain how theories of deception work on a tactical level. The analysis is based on Barton Whaley’s structure of deception, and the cases that were analyzed were the Six-Day War and Operation Desert Storm. The result showed that the theory partly could describe deception on a tactical level as a majority of the different categories of Whaleys theory were present in both conflicts. However, the priority of the different categories in the theory did not correspond to either of the cases. This led to the conclusion that Barton Whaley’s theory of structure of deception does not alone describe success in air operations on a tactical level.

This thesis examines how the use of combined arms according to Robert Leonhards theory can explain the military success on the tactical level of war in two historical cases. Previous studies focus mainly on how combined arms shall be understood and how it shall be used and not how combined arms has contributed to military success. This thesis uses a theory testing case study to examine how combined arms contributed to the military success of the Israeli forces in the Yom Kippur-war and to that of American forces in  Operation Desert Storm.   The analysis is based on Robert Leonhards three principles of combined arms. The result of the analysis shows that both the Israeli forces and the American forces used the different principles of combined arms. The analysis also showed that the use of combined arms created military success at the tactical level of the different wars, but combined arms cannot by itself explain the military success as the technical advantages, moral and educational level also had a significant impact on the outcome.

Recent aggressions and geopolitical insecurities in the Baltic region have made it necessary for the Swedish armed forces to change their focus from an international defense policy to a territorial defense strategy. This change focuses mainly on strengthening the defensive capabilities of the Swedish armed Forces by reshaping the brigade structures with a focus on combined arms warfare in conjunction to maneuver warfare. Current doctrine and manuals show a lack in combined arms concerning its contribution to tactical success as well as its origin. As such a question whether tactical success can be explained with combined arms has been raised. This thesis aims to examine if Robert R Leonhard’s theory on combined arms can explain success at a tactical level during Operation Desert Storm and the Yom Kippur war and the analysis focuses on Robert Leonhards three principles of combined arms. The result of the study shows that the theory can partly explain success at a tactical level in both cases. But further studies must be conducted on the subject in order to increase the theories explanatory power.

Amsterdamfördraget som trädde i kraft 1999 hade bland annat som mål att, med unionens svagaagerande på Balkan i minnet, reformera och utveckla den gemensamma utrikes- och säkerhetspolitikenskapad sex år tidigare genom Maastrichtfördraget. Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera de förändringarsom skedde i EU:s aktörskapacitet inom den andra pelaren i samband med Amsterdamfördraget samtpåvisa dessa förändringar i unionens konkreta arbete i ett fall. För detta ändamål används en modell avGunnar Sjöstedt framtagen för värdering av unionen utifrån dess strukturella förutsättningar. Detempiriska materialet utgörs till stor del av unionens officiella dokument och fördragstexter men även förområdet relevant litteratur har använts.Analysen visar på den grundproblematik som råder inom området i form av en intressekonflikt mellangemensamt agerande och medlemsländernas inflytande över förd politik. Uppsatsen lyfter fram tvåförändringar som trots denna konflikt stärkt unionens förutsättningar att agera på det internationellaplanet. Dessa är införandet av befattningen hög representant för den gemensamma utrikes- ochsäkerhetspolitiken samt ökade möjligheter till flexibilitet vid beslutsfattande. Unionens konkreta arbetehar analyseras utifrån dess agerande mot Makedonien. Här visar analysen på ett stärkt engagemang frånunionens sida där den höge representanten med sina resurser spelat en stor roll. Unionens stärkta förmågatill agerande i Makedonien måste anses som en framgång för den gemensamma utvecklingen, dockkvarstår att se om detta går att upprepa i ett större och mer komplext fall. / The Amsterdam Treaty which entered into force 1999 had as one of theobjectives, in light of the European Union’s weak actions in the Balkans, toreform and develop the Common Foreign and Security Policy that was createdsix years earlier through the Maastricht Treaty.The aim of this essay was to analyse the changes in EU’s actor capabilitywithin the second pillar as the Amsterdam Treaty came into force, as well asshowing how these changes influenced the work performed by the EU in oneparticular case. In order to achieve this, a model by Gunnar Sjöstedt was used.The model was developed to evaluate the EU based on its structuralprerequisites. The empirical material used, came, to a large extent, from theEU’s official documents and treaties, but other relevant literature within thefield has been used as well.The analysis identified the fundamental issue within this field, namely, aconflict of interest between the joint action and the member countries´influence on the policies. The essay underlined two changes which havestrengthened the EU´s prerequisites to act at the international level. These arethe appointment of a High Representative for the Common Foreign andSecurity Policy, as well as the creation of increased possibilities for flexibilityin the decision making process. The work of EU was analysed from its actionsin Macedonia which showed a strengthened engagement from its side, wherethe High Representative and its resources have played an important part. TheEU’s strengthened ability to act in Macedonia must be seen as a success for thejoint development. It remains to be seen, however, whether this can be repeatedin a bigger, more complex case. / <p>Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps. Hylla: Upps. ChP 01-03</p>

Denne studien har hatt som mål å undersøke om vestlig offensiv luftmakt benytteroperasjonskunst i planlegging og gjennomføring av militære operasjoner, og omoperasjonskunst er nødvendig for effektiv utnyttelse av luftmakt? Hensikten har vært å seom det konsept som er valgt på felles (joint) nivå - operasjonskunst - også brukes avluftkomponenten. Som teoriforankring har studien benyttet en operasjonalisering avClausewitz sin teori om nødvendigheten av en balanse i ”treenigheten” mellom folket,feltherren og fyrsten, og metoden har innebært å studere problemet utifra tre uvahenigevariabler; teori, doktriner og praksis. Empiridelen omfatter dermed en studie av tekster frabåde operasjonskunstens utvikling, og såvel tidligere luftmaktsteoretikere som mermoderne teorier (Warden, Boyd og effekt baserte operasjoner). NATO og amerikanskefelles- og luftforsvarsdoktriner ble studert for å påvise eventuelle relasjoner til studiensspørsmål. Den praktiske bruk av moderne offensiv luftmakt ble undersøkt ved å studereluftkampanjen under operasjon Desert Storm i 1991, og noen av de trender som tegnet seg ioperasjon Iraqi Freedom i 2003.Studiens resultat viser at vestlig offensiv luftmakt i liten grad har kjent til og benyttetteoriene rundt begrepet operasjonskunst, og at dens konsepter har vært mye tuftet påluftspesifikk teori og doktrine. Videre konkluderer den med at noen av effektene avoperasjonskunst likevel kommer frem i praksis, og at trendene som Irakkrigen tegner tyderpå en større fokus på fellesoperasjoner også i luftmiljøet. Studien konkluderer til slutt medat luftmakten kan være best tjent med å ta til seg konseptet med operasjonskunst for å ståbest mulig rustet til å møte de forskjellige utfordringer i moderne krigføring. / This thesis examines two basic questions. Does Western airpower practice operationalart as a guiding principle of warfare, and is operational art necessary to achieve successin modern air warfare? The purpose was to study whether the use of offensive airpowerwas set on the conceptual basis of operational art, used at the joint level of warfare, or ifit was just a question of “targeting”. The study applied Clausewitz’ theory of a “trinity”between what is commonly represented as the people, the military, and the governmentas its theoretical base. To reflect the relative complexity of the study, it used a methodof examining the questions from three different angles; theory, doctrine andemployment of offensive airpower. Through the study of these subjects and use ofairpower in Operation Desert Storm (and to a limited degree during Operation IraqiFreedom), the focus and essence of airpower is highlighted. Airpower theorists havealways tried to put emphasis on the unique capabilities of the airplane and operations inthe third dimension. Strategic use of airpower, they have proclaimed, is the best use ofairpower, tactical use, and especially in support to land, is the least effective. Much inopposition to and in competition with the older Navy and Army, a separate mission forthe Air Force has been stressed.Modern airpower doctrine has in large followed suit. At the same time operational art isbeing introduced as the conceptual basis for first land- and then joint operations. The aircampaign(s) in this study gives insight into an airpower shaped both by theory and bydoctrine. Modern airpower was used with success in operations that in large focus onoverwhelming force and superior technology, but at the same time tried to achieve someof the leverage and synergy of the joint battlespace. The study concludes that westernoffensive airpower up to now did not practice operational art in warfare, and that itsconcepts largely were founded on airpower specific theory and doctrine. It alsoconcludes that the trends shown in Iraq 2003 indicate a change toward a more jointthinking in the airpower community. It also concludes that airpower would be bestsuited to meet the challenges of modern warfare by considering employing the conceptof operational art in joint operations. / Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps.Hylla: Upps. ChP 02-04

This paper examines how precision resources, such as Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), can affect the OODA loop decision making cycle. PGMs add precision and force to kinetic strikes, whilst UASs bring precision and endurance to the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) field. The research is conducted as a qualitative case study with two cases - the first one being Operation Desert Storm (1991) where precision weapons were first introduced in a large scale operation, and the second one being Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) which was conducted in a similar environment and organization, but with a huge technological advancement when it came to PGMs and UASs. The four phases of the OODA loop are examined separately, and the two cases are compared to reveal any similarities or differences. The results indicate that precision resources have a beneficial impact on the speed and accuracy of all four phases, as well as the overall efficiency of the OODA loop. The results also indicate the importance of having sound intelligence (which cements John Boyd’s claim that Orientation is the most important part of the loop) and that the next challenge after precision and ISR-capabilities might be successful coordination of the joint forces on tactical and operational levels to gain speed even further.