Military escalation is the process by which opponents increase the intensity and geographic scope of a conflict. It serves a variety of purposes, from communicating stake and will to demonstrating capability, and it is critical for deterrence. Yet a generation of national security professionals has been trained to see escalation only in negative terms, which creates real problems for pre-conflict deterrence, conflict termination, and achieving desirable outcomes.
Conflict escalation is a complex and often misunderstood phenomenon. The emergence of nuclear weapons and the subsequent development of intercontinental ballistic missiles accelerated this process, dramatically increasing the capacity for destruction and violence. But escalation does not necessarily lead to war; it can end conflicts by convincing adversaries that one is prepared to escalate the level of violence and the extent of the conflict.
Achieving this requires a high degree of skill, including the ability to calibrate an escalation so that it is neither too hot nor too cold. It also involves avoiding a threat that is so incredible that it provokes a higher, unacceptable level of violence in response. This is why a key to a successful escalation strategy is understanding how an adversary perceives the escalation in order to avoid a counterproductive response.
To control escalation, our nation’s military officers and civilian defense policy makers need to understand how the strategic tools available below kinetic conflict operate. They must think deeply and critically about risk acceptance and recognize that avoiding operational risks and showing restraint may put the United States at greater strategic risk in the long run.
About the Author
