The nature of warfare has undergone a fundamental transformation since 1991, shifting from the physical battlefield to the cognitive domain, from Clausewitzian state-on-state conflict to a perpetual contest across every dimension of society.
Jean Baudrillard’s provocative thesis that the Gulf War “did not take place” now reads less as postmodern provocation than as prescient warning: warfare has become inseparable from its media representation, information operations have achieved parity with kinetic force, and the distinctions between war and peace, combatant and civilian, have collapsed into a continuous grey zone of competition. The $8 trillion spent on the Global War on Terror, achieving tactical victories while failing strategically, demonstrated the limits of military power against ideological adversaries [1][2]. Now, as great power competition returns with China’s rise, the accumulated technological and doctrinal transformations of three decades meet an adversary capable of challenging American dominance across every domain simultaneously.
When French philosopher Jean Baudrillard published three essays in early 1991 claiming the Gulf War “did not take place,” critics dismissed him as an irresponsible provocateur denying real violence. Yet Baudrillard was making a subtler argument that proved remarkably durable: the Gulf War marked the emergence of warfare as hyperreality, where media simulation becomes more real than the underlying events, where war becomes spectacle indistinguishable from entertainment [3].
Baudrillard identified several features that distinguished the Gulf War from traditional conflict. The extreme asymmetry, with coalition forces suffering 247 deaths against Iraqi losses in the hundreds of thousands, made it “execution rather than battle” [4]. The television coverage, with its “beautifully arranged fireworks over Baghdad” and camera-mounted missiles showing crosshairs on targets, transformed war into aestheticized violence divorced from human suffering. Almost nothing was communicated about Iraqi deaths. Viewers watched what Baudrillard called “a simulacrum of war” where the gap between military reality and public understanding became unbridgeable [5].
The Gulf War inaugurated what military theorists would later call the “CNN effect,” the transformation of warfare by real-time media coverage that both shapes and is shaped by military operations. When CNN reporters Bernard Shaw and Peter Arnett delivered the first live coverage of airstrikes over Baghdad on January 17, 1991, they created a new relationship between war and its audience [6]. The irony, as Baudrillard noted, was that Pentagon officials admitted they were “also sitting around watching CNN” to find out what was happening.
What appeared as postmodern excess in 1991 now reads as foundational analysis for information-age warfare. Baudrillard anticipated drone warfare’s removal of pilots from physical risk and moral proximity to killing. He predicted how embedded journalism would create controlled narratives masquerading as transparent access. His framework illuminates contemporary conflicts where social media floods create what scholars call “cyber simulacra war,” where people fight viciously over narratives while actual casualties remain invisible. The Ukraine and Gaza conflicts have vindicated his central insight: controlling the narrative has become equivalent to battlefield victory.
Carl von Clausewitz’s foundational insight, that “war is merely the continuation of policy with the addition of other means,” anchored Western military thinking for nearly two centuries. His framework assumed state actors pursuing rational interests through organized violence, with clear distinctions between war and peace, combatant and civilian. The transformation of warfare since 1991 has systematically dismantled these assumptions [7].
The fourth-generation warfare (4GW) theorists, led by William Lind and T.X. Hammes, articulated what they saw as a fundamental break. Lind’s 1989 Marine Corps Gazette article traced warfare through four generations: massed manpower and line tactics (post-1648), industrial attrition (Civil War through World War I), maneuver warfare (World War II), and finally the emergence of non-state actors attacking political will rather than military capability [8]. As Hammes wrote in The Sling and the Stone, “4GW does not attempt to win by defeating the enemy’s military forces” but rather “uses all available networks, political, economic, social and military, to convince the enemy’s political decision-makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly.”
Martin van Creveld pushed further in The Transformation of War (1991), arguing that Clausewitz’s entire framework, “a reflection of national interest and an extension of politics by other means,” no longer applied [9][10]. Post-1945 conflicts featured “a different cast of characters — guerrilla armies, terrorists, and bandits — pursuing diverse goals” that defied rational analysis. Future wars, van Creveld predicted, would be “waged by groups of terrorists, guerrillas and bandits motivated by fanatical, ideologically-based loyalties.”
John Boyd’s contribution was less about the obsolescence of Clausewitz than the centrality of cognitive tempo. His OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, emphasized that victory goes to whoever can cycle through decisions faster than their adversary [11][12]. Operating inside the enemy’s decision cycle creates confusion and psychological paralysis. Boyd’s insight that the “Orient” phase, where information is contextualized through experience and culture, matters most anticipated the cognitive warfare frameworks now emerging.
The hybrid warfare paradigm, crystallized by Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, demonstrated how these theoretical developments manifested operationally [13]. Russian forces combined cyberattacks, propaganda, subversion, unbadged special forces (“little green men”), and conventional military backing in a campaign conducted below NATO’s Article 5 threshold. The result was what analysts call “grey zone” conflict, continuous competition that blurs the boundary between war and peace entirely.
Fifth-generation warfare pushes this logic further into the cognitive domain. NATO’s 2021 study declared that “the brain will be the battlefield of the 21st century” and that cognitive warfare’s objective is to “make everyone a weapon” [14][15]. Chinese doctrine articulates warfare across public opinion, psychological, and legal domains as coequal with kinetic operations. The goal is achieving strategic victory without overt violence, what Sun Tzu called “winning without fighting.”
The Global War on Terror represents the most consequential demonstration of tactical success paired with strategic failure in modern military history. Despite $8 trillion in expenditure, approximately 900,000 deaths, and overwhelming tactical victories against overmatched adversaries, the twenty-year campaign failed to achieve identifiable strategic objectives [16][17][18]. The Taliban’s 2021 victory in Afghanistan, two decades after their initial defeat, crystallized the fundamental disconnect between military operations and political ends that Clausewitz warned against [19].
The strategic drift began almost immediately. The initial mission, destroy Al-Qaeda, capture Osama bin Laden, deny terrorist safe havens, was clear and achievable. Within months, the Taliban offered surrender terms that the United States rejected, confident in imminent military victory. By March 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld worried that Afghanistan was “drifting” as attention shifted to Iraq [20]. The 2003 invasion, justified as part of the GWOT despite Al-Qaeda’s absence from Iraq, severed the campaign from its original logic. As counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen observed directly: “There undeniably would be no ISIS if we had not invaded Iraq” [21].
The conceptual error was declaring war on a tactic rather than an enemy [22][23]. Terrorism is a method of violence employed by groups with diverse ideologies, ethnicities, and objectives across centuries. The true adversary, Salafi jihadism as an ideology, operates independently of any single organization or leader. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi articulated this clearly: “Would we be defeated and you be victorious if you were to take Mosul or Sirte or Raqqa? Certainly not! We would be defeated and you victorious only if you were able to remove the Koran from Muslims’ hearts” [24].
The leadership decapitation strategy proved similarly futile. Stanford researcher Jenna Jordan documented that “leadership targeting has been an ineffective strategy against al-Qaeda,” unable to “significantly degrade and defeat al-Qaeda or any of its franchises” [25][26]. The killing of Zarqawi in 2006, bin Laden in 2011, Baghdadi in 2019, and Zawahiri in 2022 failed to end the threat [27][28]. Al-Qaeda’s franchise model, AQAP in Yemen, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, JNIM in the Sahel, proved remarkably resilient, with junior commanders empowered to take risks and rebuild after decapitation.
David Kilcullen’s “accidental guerrilla” thesis explained much of what went wrong [29][30][31][32]. Local populations fought American forces not because they supported Al-Qaeda’s global jihad but because foreign troops had invaded their space. Western intervention created the enemies it sought to destroy, transforming limited local conflicts into manifestations of global terrorism. Kilcullen estimated the United States spent $1.5 million for every dollar Al-Qaeda expended, a cost-imposition strategy that exhausted American will.
The Iraq surge of 2007–2008 exemplified tactical success without strategic progress [33][34]. Violence dropped dramatically, Al-Qaeda in Iraq membership was decimated, and coalition forces achieved overwhelming operational victories. But political reconciliation benchmarks went unmet. When Prime Minister Maliki’s sectarian governance alienated Sunnis, ISIS emerged from Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s remnants to seize one-third of the country by 2014 [35]. As one Army historian concluded: “It was a tactical and operational success. Strategically, it’s a little mixed.”
Clausewitz’s dictum, “No one starts a war, or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so, without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war” was violated systematically [36][37][38]. Hew Strachan, the foremost Clausewitz scholar, argued that post-9/11 wars resulted from “a fundamental misreading and misapplication of strategy itself.” Military means dominated political ends, objectives shifted with administrations while war continued, and tactical success substituted for strategic thought. The Taliban’s assessment captured the strategic reality: “You have all the clocks but we have all the time.”
The 1991 Gulf War served as the showcase for what Pentagon analysts called the Revolution in Military Affairs [39]. Coalition airpower struck 150 individual targets on the first day, compared to roughly 50 target sets in all of 1943 for the Eighth Air Force. Only 8% of ordnance was precision-guided, but those weapons delivered 84% of the campaign’s cost and transformed targeting from area bombardment to discriminate strikes. The “Big Five” weapons systems, Abrams tank, Bradley IFV, Apache helicopter, Black Hawk, and Patriot missile, demonstrated technological overmatch against a Soviet-equipped adversary.
The precision revolution accelerated dramatically. The Joint Direct Attack Munition, developed after Desert Storm exposed weather limitations of laser-guided bombs, entered service in 1999 and achieved combat debut in Kosovo, where B-2 bombers flew 30-hour roundtrips from Missouri to deliver 600+ JDAMs [40][41][42]. With a cost of approximately $24,000 per unit converting “dumb bombs” into 9.6-meter accuracy weapons, over 550,000 JDAM kits have been produced [43]. Extended-range variants now achieve 100-mile standoff from HIMARS launchers.
Unmanned systems underwent even more dramatic transformation [44][45]. The United States possessed 90 drones in 2001; by 2010 it had 11,000. The MQ-9 Reaper, introduced operationally in 2007, carries 500% more payload than its predecessor with 27+ hour endurance, capable of striking targets thousands of miles from operators sitting in Nevada. The January 2020 strike killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport demonstrated drones’ capacity for strategic-level operations. The emergence of drone swarms, DARPA’s OFFSET program demonstrated 250+ coordinated UAVs in 2021 [46], and potentially autonomous systems like the Turkish Kargu-2 (reportedly conducting autonomous lethal engagement in Libya in 2020) represents the next frontier.
Cyber warfare has matured from theoretical possibility to operational reality [47]. The Stuxnet operation against Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, discovered in 2010, was the first genuine cyber weapon, using four zero-day exploits to cause centrifuges to spin out of control while reporting normal operations to monitors. NotPetya in 2017, attributed to Russian military intelligence, caused $10+ billion in global damage while masquerading as ransomware. The SolarWinds compromise in 2020 penetrated 18,000 organizations including multiple U.S. government agencies through supply chain manipulation.
Space has emerged as a contested warfighting domain [48][49]. China’s 2007 anti-satellite test, destroying its own FY-1C weather satellite and creating 2,700+ pieces of trackable debris, demonstrated kinetic ASAT capability. By 2024, China operated 970+ satellites including 490+ ISR-capable assets [50], with ground-based lasers capable of disrupting satellite sensors and higher-power systems expected by the late 2020s. The U.S. Space Force, established in 2019, acknowledged that American satellites experience “reversible attacks” from China and Russia “every single day.”
The Ukraine conflict has provided the most intensive demonstration of electronic warfare since World War II [51][52][53][54]. Russian systems like the Krasukha-4 jam X- and Ku-band radars while GPS jammers have degraded the accuracy of JDAM and Excalibur precision munitions. Ukrainian forces adapted through frequency-hopping radios, modified commercial drones resistant to jamming, and Starlink terminals positioned in defensive configurations with SpaceX software countermeasures. As one Space Force official observed: “Not having control of spectrum leads to fatalities.”
The accumulated transformations of three decades now confront their ultimate test: great power competition with a peer adversary capable of challenging American dominance across every domain simultaneously. China’s military modernization has created what analysts call an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment that fundamentally alters the calculus of power projection in the Western Pacific [55].
The centerpiece is China’s arsenal of precision ballistic missiles. The DF-21D “carrier killer,” the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile, can strike moving aircraft carriers at 1,500–2,150 km range with maneuverable reentry vehicles achieving 20-meter accuracy [56][57]. The DF-26 extends this range to 4,000–5,000 km, bringing Guam within reach [58][59]. The newly revealed DF-27, with 5,000–8,000 km range, potentially threatens U.S. West Coast naval bases [60]. Supporting systems include advanced air defenses, Type 055 stealth destroyers, an expanding submarine fleet, and forward-deployed assets on artificial islands in the South China Sea.
CSIS wargaming has provided the most rigorous unclassified analysis of potential Taiwan scenarios. In 24 iterations of a 2026 amphibious invasion scenario, U.S./Taiwan/Japan forces could defeat the Chinese assault, but at catastrophic cost: 10–20 warships lost including 2 aircraft carriers, 200–400 aircraft destroyed, and 3,000+ American troops killed in three weeks. China would suffer 90% of its amphibious fleet destroyed. Four conditions proved critical for success: Taiwan must resist and not capitulate, the U.S. must intervene immediately, American forces must operate from Japanese bases, and adequate anti-ship missile stockpiles must exist. Notably, 90% of U.S. aircraft losses occurred on the ground from Chinese missile strikes on forward bases.
The nuclear dimension compounds escalation risks. China’s arsenal has expanded to 470–600 warheads with projections of 1,000+ by 2030. Approximately 320 new ICBM silos are under construction across three fields. The DF-41 carries up to three MIRVs with 12,000–15,000 km range; the JL-3 submarine-launched missile enables continuous at-sea deterrence patrols from positions near China’s coast. CSIS nuclear wargaming found the greatest pressure for nuclear use comes when China’s invasion faces defeat that might threaten CCP rule, a “gambling for resurrection” scenario where conventional failure pushes toward nuclear escalation.
Information and cognitive warfare would pervade any conflict [61][62]. Chinese doctrine treats the “Three Warfares,” public opinion, psychological, and legal, as coequal with kinetic operations. AI-enabled influence campaigns use generative models to create targeted disinformation, bot networks to drown alternative narratives, and personal data harvested from breaches (including 21.5 million records from the OPM hack) to craft psychologically targeted messages. Taiwan opened a Cognitive Warfare Research Center in 2024 with three divisions dedicated to countering Chinese influence operations.
Economic interdependence creates both vulnerability and leverage. Taiwan’s TSMC produces 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors, disruption would be “catastrophic for the global economy.” U.S. export controls have restricted Chinese access to advanced chips and manufacturing equipment, with December 2024’s third major crackdown adding 140+ companies to the Entity List. China controls 80% of rare earth refining capacity essential for high-tech weaponry. The semiconductor chokepoint cuts both ways: Chinese economic coercion against Australia, Lithuania, and others demonstrates willingness to weaponize trade relationships.
The intellectual architects of American strategy diverge on approach. Elbridge Colby, nominated as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, advocates “deterrence by denial,” making Chinese conquest of Taiwan so costly as to be unthinkable, requiring priority allocation of resources to the Pacific over other theaters [63]. Oriana Skylar Mastro emphasizes that deterrence depends on capabilities rather than signals of resolve, noting Chinese exercises are “rehearsals, not signals.” Michael Beckley and Hal Brands argue China is a “peaking power” facing demographic and economic constraints, making it more dangerous in the near term as windows of opportunity close.
The evolution of warfare from the Gulf War’s precision strikes to today’s cognitive operations reveals a consistent trajectory: the center of gravity has shifted from physical terrain to the human mind. Baudrillard’s observation that the Gulf War was “fought” primarily through media simulation was the early indication; the integration of information operations into all phases of conflict confirms the pattern. When NATO declares the brain “the battlefield of the 21st century” [64], when Chinese doctrine treats cognitive warfare as coequal with kinetic operations, when the distinction between war and peace dissolves into continuous grey zone competition, we have arrived at a genuinely post-Clausewitzian moment.
Yet Clausewitz’s deeper insights retain relevance [65][66]. His warning about the primacy of political objectives, violated systematically during the War on Terror, applies equally to potential conflict with China. Wars require achievable aims that military action can serve. His trinity of passion, chance, and reason captures dynamics that persist regardless of technological change. The fog of war has not lifted; it has merely migrated to information space, where competing narratives and AI-generated content create uncertainty as profound as any physical battlefield.
The technological capabilities accumulated over three decades, precision munitions, networked sensors, autonomous systems, cyber weapons, space-based assets, represent unprecedented destructive power. Whether that power can achieve political objectives, or will once again demonstrate the limits of military force against adversaries who understand the cognitive dimension better than ourselves, remains the defining strategic question of our era. The transformation of war continues.
The thirty-five years since Desert Storm have witnessed warfare’s migration from physical terrain to cognitive space, from Clausewitzian state conflict to continuous grey zone competition, from massed formations to precision systems to autonomous swarms. Baudrillard’s insight that the Gulf War existed primarily as media spectacle anticipated an era when controlling narratives rivals controlling territory. The War on Terror’s strategic failure demonstrated that overwhelming tactical capability cannot substitute for achievable political objectives. Now, China’s rise presents an adversary capable of contesting American dominance across every domain, kinetic, cyber, space, information, and cognitive.
The theoretical frameworks matter because they shape what strategists see as possible. Fourth- and fifth-generation warfare theories, hybrid warfare concepts, and cognitive domain operations all represent attempts to understand conflicts that no longer fit traditional models. The technological revolution, from JDAMs to Reapers to Stuxnet to AI-enabled influence operations, provides capabilities but not strategy. The critical question for US-China competition is whether American strategists can integrate these capabilities into coherent approaches that achieve political objectives without catastrophic escalation.
What the evolution of warfare since 1991 ultimately reveals is that military technology has outpaced strategic thought. The tools of twenty-first century warfare exist; the frameworks for employing them effectively remain contested and incomplete. The next major conflict will test whether three decades of transformation have produced genuine strategic advantage or merely more sophisticated means of achieving inconclusive results.
[1] ACE. “The Global War on Terror: Successes and Failures — A Case of Al-Qaeda.” https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-foreignpolicy/the-global-war-on-terror-successes-and-failures-a-case-of-al-qaeda/
[2] Brown University. “Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths.” https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar
[3] Baudrillard, Jean. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Internet Archive. https://ia902302.us.archive.org/8/items/Baudrillard/Baudrillard.1991.The-Gulf-War-Did-Not-Take-Place.pdf
[4] Baudrillard, Jean. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Internet Archive. https://ia902302.us.archive.org/8/items/Baudrillard/Baudrillard.1991.The-Gulf-War-Did-Not-Take-Place.pdf
[5] Baudrillard, Jean. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Internet Archive. https://ia902302.us.archive.org/8/items/Baudrillard/Baudrillard.1991.The-Gulf-War-Did-Not-Take-Place.pdf
[6] EBSCO. “CNN coverage of the Gulf War.” https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/cnn-coverage-gulf-war
[7] E-International Relations. “Is Clausewitzian Thought Really Timeless as Some Have Claimed?” https://www.e-ir.info/2012/01/24/is-clausewitzian-thought-really-timeless-as-some-have-claimed-discuss-with-reference-to-the-war-on-terror/
[8] Hammes, T.X. The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century. ThriftBooks. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-sling-and-the-stone-on-war-in-the-21st-century_thomas-x-hammes/322130/
[9] Van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War. Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Transformation-War-Reinterpretation-Conflict-Clausewitz/dp/0029331552
[10] Van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War. AbeBooks. https://www.abebooks.com/9780029331552/Transformation-Radical-Reinterpretation-Armed-Conflict-0029331552/plp
[11] John Boyd Homepage. “Understanding War.” https://www.colonelboyd.com/understanding-boyd
[12] OODAloop. “John Boyd on Patterns of Conflict and the OODA Loop.” https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2022/02/26/john-boyd-on-patterns-of-conflict-and-the-ooda-loop/
[13] ICoCA Blog. “10 years of Russian annexation of Crimea, reflections on the role of PMCs in hybrid warfare.” https://blog.icoca.ch/10-years-of-russian-annexation-of-crimea-reflexions-on-the-role-of-pmcs-in-hybrid-warfare/
[14] Encyclopedia of World Problems. “Cognitive warfare.” https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/cognitive-warfare
[15] U.S. Army Mad Scientist Laboratory. “Challenging Reality: Chinese Cognitive Warfare and the Fight to Hack Your Brain.” https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/547-challenging-reality-chinese-cognitive-warfare-and-the-fight-to-hack-your-brain/
[16] ACE. “The Global War on Terror: Successes and Failures — A Case of Al-Qaeda.” https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-foreignpolicy/the-global-war-on-terror-successes-and-failures-a-case-of-al-qaeda/
[17] Brown University. “Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths.” https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar
[18] The Intercept. “Over Two Decades, U.S. Global War on Terror Has Taken Nearly 1 Million Lives and Cost $8 Trillion.” https://theintercept.com/2021/09/01/war-on-terror-deaths-cost/
[19] LSE Public Policy Review. “Why Did the Taliban Win (Again) in Afghanistan?” https://ppr.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/lseppr.54
[20] Wikipedia. “David Kilcullen.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilcullen
[21] University of South Florida. “Journal of Strategic Security.” https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=jss
[22] Friends Committee On National Legislation. “The Failures of the War on Terror.” https://www.fcnl.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/FailuresOfTheWarOnTerror.14.pdf
[23] Australian Army Research Centre. “Defeating Militants and Winning Moderates: Reconceptualising the War on Terror.” https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/australian-army-journal-aaj/volume-2-number-2/defeating-militants-and-winning-moderates-reconceptualising-war-terror
[24] Foreign Affairs. “The Never-Ending War on Terror.” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/never-ending-war-terror
[25] Stanford University Press. “Leadership Decapitation.” https://www.sup.org/books/politics/leadership-decapitation/excerpt/excerpt-introduction
[26] War on the Rocks. “Killing Terrorist Leaders Is No Silver Bullet.” https://warontherocks.com/2021/10/killing-terrorist-leaders-is-no-silver-bullet/
[27] West Point Combating Terrorism Center. “The Global State of al-Qa`ida 24 Years After 9/11.” https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-global-state-of-al-qaida-24-years-after-9-11/
[28] ACE. “The Global War on Terror: Successes and Failures — A Case of Al-Qaeda.” https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-foreignpolicy/the-global-war-on-terror-successes-and-failures-a-case-of-al-qaeda/
[29] Australian Army Research Centre. “Book Review — The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen.” https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/australian-army-journal-aaj/volume-6-number-2/book-review-accidental-guerrilla-david-kilcullen
[30] Pritzker Military Museum & Library. “David Kilcullen: The Accidental Guerrilla.” https://www.pritzkermilitary.org/whats_on/pritzker-military-presents/david-kilcullen-accidental-guerrilla
[31] Wilson Center. “Book Discussion: The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One.” https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/book-discussion-the-accidental-guerrilla-fighting-small-wars-the-midst-big-one
[32] Goodreads. “The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One by David Kilcullen.” https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3348656-the-accidental-guerrilla
[33] U.S. Army. “Army marks 10th anniversary of troop surge in Iraq.” https://www.army.mil/article/186745/army_marks_10th_anniversary_of_troop_surge_in_iraq
[34] Wilson Center. “Timeline: the Rise, Spread, and Fall of the Islamic State.” https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state
[35] U.S. Army. “Army marks 10th anniversary of troop surge in Iraq.” https://www.army.mil/article/186745/army_marks_10th_anniversary_of_troop_surge_in_iraq
[36] Modern War Institute at West Point. “A Clausewitzian Lens on Modern Urban Warfare.” https://mwi.westpoint.edu/a-clausewitzian-lens-on-modern-urban-warfare/
[37] National Security Archive. “Afghanistan 20/20: The 20-Year War in 20 Documents.” https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/afghanistan/2021-08-19/afghanistan-2020-20-year-war-20-documents
[38] University of South Florida. “Journal of Strategic Security.” https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=jss
[39] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. “Technology in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.” https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/technology-persian-gulf-war-1991
[40] The Defense Post. “GBU-38 JDAM: The Kit That Revolutionized Airstrike Accuracy.” https://thedefensepost.com/2025/12/17/gbu-38-jdam-guide/
[41] Military.com. “Joint Direct Attack Munition JDAM.” https://www.military.com/equipment/joint-direct-attack-munition-jdam
[42] U.S. Navy. “Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).” https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2166820
[43] Military.com. “Joint Direct Attack Munition JDAM.” https://www.military.com/equipment/joint-direct-attack-munition-jdam
[44] Taylor & Francis Online. “Beyond the Predator paradigm: what the Iraq and Afghan wars did (and did not) tell us about emergent drone warfare.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09592318.2025.2572592
[45] WION News. “MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, MQ-20 Avenger and more: 5 most destructive US war drones ever deployed.” https://www.wionews.com/photos/mq-1-predator-mq-9-reaper-mq-20-avenger-and-more-5-most-destructive-us-war-drones-ever-deployed-1766652282844
[46] DARPA. “OFFSET Swarms Take Flight in Final Field Experiment.” https://www.darpa.mil/news/2021/offset-swarms-take-flight
[47] The Conversation. “Five notorious cyberattacks that targeted governments.” https://theconversation.com/five-notorious-cyberattacks-that-targeted-governments-230690
[48] Wikipedia. “ASAT program of China.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASAT_program_of_China
[49] Andrew S. Erickson. “China Adds Hundreds of Satellites for Use in War.” https://www.andrewerickson.com/2024/09/china-adds-hundreds-of-satellites-for-use-in-war-russia-building-nuke-to-destroy-enemies-assets/
[50] Taylor & Francis Online. “Killing them softly: China’s counterspace developments and force posture in space.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2388658
[51] IEEE Spectrum. “The Fall and Rise of Russian Electronic Warfare.” https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-fall-and-rise-of-russian-electronic-warfare
[52] New America. “The Future of War is Electromagnetic.” https://www.newamerica.org/future-frontlines/blogs/the-future-of-war-is-electromagnetic/
[53] CLAWS. “Russia-Ukraine War: Lessons from an Electronic Warfare (EW) Perspective.” https://claws.co.in/russia-ukraine-war-lessons-from-an-electronic-warfare-ew-perspective/
[54] RF Global Net. “What The U.S. Military Is Learning About Jamming From The War In Ukraine.” https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/what-the-u-s-military-is-learning-about-jamming-from-the-war-in-ukraine-0001
[55] Pacific Forum. “China’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Capabilities in the South China Sea.” https://pacforum.org/publications/issues-insights-issues-and-insights-volume-25-wp-2-attaining-all-domain-control-chinas-anti-access-area-denial-a2-ad-capabilities-in-the-south-china-sea/
[56] Beyond the Horizon. “DF-21D (East Wind) — The World’s First ASBM.” https://behorizon.org/df-21d-east-wind-the-worlds-first-asbm/
[57] The National Interest. “China’s Test of Aircraft Carrier-Killer Missiles (DF-21D and DF-26B), Explained.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-test-aircraft-carrier-killer-missiles-df-21d-and-df-26b-explained-167917
[58] The National Interest. “DF-21D and DF-26B: China’s Missiles Built to Sink Navy Aircraft Carriers.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/df-21d-and-df-26b-chinas-missiles-built-sink-navy-aircraft-carriers-207308
[59] The National Interest. “China’s Test of Aircraft Carrier-Killer Missiles (DF-21D and DF-26B), Explained.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-test-aircraft-carrier-killer-missiles-df-21d-and-df-26b-explained-167917
[60] USNI News. “Chinese Forces Fielding Intercontinental Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles Capable of Reaching U.S. West Coast, Pentagon Says.” https://news.usni.org/2025/12/26/chinese-forces-fielding-intercontinental-anti-ship-ballistic-missiles-capable-of-reaching-u-s-west-coast-pentagon-says
[61] U.S. Army Mad Scientist Laboratory. “Challenging Reality: Chinese Cognitive Warfare and the Fight to Hack Your Brain.” https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/547-challenging-reality-chinese-cognitive-warfare-and-the-fight-to-hack-your-brain/
[62] U.S. Army Mad Scientist Laboratory. “Challenging Reality: Chinese Cognitive Warfare and the Fight to Hack Your Brain.” https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/547-challenging-reality-chinese-cognitive-warfare-and-the-fight-to-hack-your-brain/
[63] The Heritage Foundation. “The Best Defense Strategy for America? Elbridge Colby on The Strategy of Denial.” https://www.heritage.org/defense/event/the-best-defense-strategy-america-elbridge-colby-the-strategy-denial
[64] Encyclopedia of World Problems. “Cognitive warfare.” https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/cognitive-warfare
[65] Taylor & Francis Online. “Strategic Theory and Practice: A Critical Analysis of the Planning Process for the Long War on Terror.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13523260902760298
[66] E-International Relations. “Is Clausewitzian Thought Really Timeless as Some Have Claimed?” https://www.e-ir.info/2012/01/24/is-clausewitzian-thought-really-timeless-as-some-have-claimed-discuss-with-reference-to-the-war-on-terror/