Military escalation involves the process of increasing the intensity or geographic scope of a conflict. This is a critical component of deterrence and understanding the concept helps military planners and staff officers control their options in times of tension.
Escalation occurs in the form of both immediate and long-term actions. The former are typically tactical in nature and affect a battle immediately, such as injecting more troops or weapons into a fighting engagement. The latter are more remote in time and space, such as initiating a blockade or unrestricted submarine warfare. In both cases, escalation can have a significant effect on the outcome of a battle, and it is therefore important for military planners and staff officers to consider the implications of potential escalatory decisions.
National security policymakers often express concerns about military escalation and frequently call for restraint from their adversaries. But such calls may have dangerous unintended consequences. By overemphasizing the importance of restraint, they may put the United States at greater strategic risk and inadvertently plant the seeds for a future conflict. Instead, they should view escalation as a tool—useful at some points and dangerous at others—in a broader set of tools.
Revisionist powers seeking to overturn the status quo are more willing to accept risks associated with escalation. As a result, they tend to escalate faster and more often than do non-revisionist powers that prefer a stable world order. The United States and allied militaries need to understand these dynamics so that they can deter revisionist power escalation and limit their own escalatory options in the future.
About the Author
