The Political Logic of War: How Leadership and Objectives Shape Military Strategy
Abstract
Purpose. To explain how political leadership shapes the selection and adaptation of fundamental military tactics by examining the cognitive, institutional, and political mechanisms through which political objectives are translated into concrete forms of organized violence.
Method: Comparative analysis, and synthesis.
Findings. The findings show that the selection of fundamental military tactics—annihilation, exhaustion, intimidation, and subversion—is primarily shaped by political objectives rather than by material, structural, or doctrinal factors alone. Political leadership emerges as the central mechanism through which political intent is translated into concrete forms of military force employment. The analysis demonstrates that leaders’ cognitive frameworks, institutional constraints, and regime characteristics influence how political goals are converted into organized violence. The proposed typology of strategic logics indicates that each form of force employment corresponds to a specific configuration of political objectives, opponent characteristics, time horizons, and resource availability. Comparative case analysis—from Napoleon’s campaigns and the Second Punic War to Operation Desert Storm (1991), the Second Karabakh War (2020), and contemporary subversion—confirms that strategic choices reflect not only military necessity but also leaders’ perceptions of authority, risk, and legitimacy. Strategic selection is further shaped by political aim type, opponent profile and centers of gravity, urgency, resource and force-generation capacity, domestic politics and civil–military relations, the external environment, and leadership traits. Overall, the findings confirm that military strategy is a form of political choice, whose effectiveness depends on alignment between political objectives, available capabilities, and the broader decision-making context.
Theoretical implications. This study can be applied to predict and analyze how political leaders translate objectives into military tactics, guiding research and models in strategic studies, civil–military relations, and conflict decision-making.
Practical implications. This study can assist military planners, policymakers, and analysts in anticipating leaders’ strategic choices and tailoring operational, diplomatic, or deterrence measures accordingly.
Value. It bridges the gap between political objectives and military action, offering both a conceptual framework for understanding leadership-driven strategy and practical insights for anticipating and influencing real-world conflict decisions.
Paper type. Theoretical.
Downloads
References
Albino, D. K., Friedman, K., Bar-Yam, Y., & Glenney IV, W. G. (2016). Military strategy in a complex world. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05670
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little, Brown.
Astbury, T. (2024, September 10). 5 steps in the policymaking process. Escribemeetings. https://www.escribemeetings.com/blog/5-steps-policymaking-process/
Barasa, J., & Olanrewaju, A. (2024). The dynamics of transformational leadership: Characteristics and practical uses. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 27(6), 1–11. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-dynamics-of-transformational-leadership-characteristics-and-practical-uses.pdf
Bowdish, R. G. (2013). Military strategy: Theory and concepts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscitheses/1026/
Briggs, C. M. (2023). Subversion: The strategic weaponization of narratives (Review of Subversion, by A. Krieg). Journal of Strategic Security, 18(1). https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol18/iss1/9/
Cherry, K. (2025, September 29). How transformational leadership can inspire others. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-transformational-leadership-2795313
Clausewitz, C. von. (1976). On war (M. Howard & P. Paret, Eds. & Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1832)
Corporate Education Group. (2025). Five-step model to making strategic decisions. https://www.corpedgroup.com/ml/five-steps-to-making-strategic-decisions.asp
Davies, M. J. (2024). The battle of Cannae: The science of Roman defeat. Military History Chronicles, 2(1). https://www.militaryhistorychronicles.org/article/122252-the-battle-of-cannae-the-science-of-roman-defeat.pdf
Janina, D. (2015). The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma. European Journal of International Law, 26(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv005
DiMichele, G. (2023). Napoleon revisited. Joint Force Quarterly, 109, 57–62. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-109/jfq-109.pdf
Dimitriu, G. (2018). Clausewitz and the politics of war: A contemporary theory. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(5), 645–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2018.1529567
Eystein, M. (2022). The centre of gravity concept: Contemporary theories, comparison, and implications. Defence Studies, 22(2), 1–27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358154481
Feaver, P. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
Finney, N. K. (Ed.). (2020). On strategy: A primer. Combat Studies Institute Press. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/on-strategy-a-primer.pdf
Flynn, S. I. (2024). Transformational and transactional leadership. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/transformational-and-transactional-leadership
Guner, E., Iskandarov, K., & Gawliczek, P. (2022). Theories of war in practice: Causes and termination (The Second Karabakh War). Wiedza Obronna. https://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-89aad26d-dfd7-43bb-bd20-7a03a28fee22
Hasanov, A., Tahirov, R., & Iskandarov, K. (2024). The future of warfare: Anticipated changes in military trends. Social Development and Security, 14(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2024.14.5.1
Hickman, K. (2017, March 6). Fabian strategy: Wearing down the enemy. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/fabian-strategy-overview-2361096
Huntington, S. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
Iskandarov, K., & Gawliczek, P. (2021a). Characteristic features of the second Karabakh war. Social Development and Security, 11(3), 30–40. https://paperssds.eu/index.php/JSPSDS/article/view/325
Iskandarov, K., & Gawliczek, P. (2021b). The second Karabakh war as a war of new generation. Social Development and Security, 11(2), 91–99. https://paperssds.eu/index.php/JSPSDS/article/view/309
Iskandarov, K., Gawliczek, P., & Tomasik, J. (2022). Termination of war: Factors affecting the outcome. Civitas et Lex, 35(3), 7–17. https://czasopisma.uwm.edu.pl/index.php/cel/article/view/7736
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Khan, Z. A., Nawaz, A., & Khan, I. (2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 16, 1–7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293885908
Lee, C., & Margulies, M. (2023, August 14). Rethinking civil–military relations for modern strategy. Modern War Institute. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/rethinking-civil-military-relations-for-modern-strategy/
Lee, C. A. (2025). Civil–military relations and democratic backsliding. Parameters, Spring, 1–12. https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/4129407/
Maschmeyer, L. (2024). Subversion in war: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. In Subversion: From covert operations to cyber conflict. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197745854.003.0006
Meiser, J., Cramer, T., & Turner-Brady, R. (2021). What good is military strategy? Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 4(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.65
NATO. (2025). Deterrence and defence. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/deterrence-and-defence
Ofosu-Anim, D. (2022). Political leadership: A new conceptual framework. Open Journal of Leadership, 11, 398–421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2022.114022
Peterson, T. O., & Van Fleet, D. D. (2004). The ongoing legacy of R. L. Katz. Management Decision, 42(10), 1297–1308. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410568980
Posen, B. R. (1984). The sources of military doctrine. Cornell University Press.
Schweller, R. L. (2015). Rising powers and revisionism in emerging international orders (Valdai Paper No. 16). https://valdaiclub.com/files/11391/
Shuster, R. J. (2023). Trying not to lose it: The Allied disaster in France and the Low Countries, 1940. Journal of Advanced Military Studies, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.21140/mcuj.20231401012 https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/JAMS%2014_1_Spring2023_Shuster.pdf
Sołoducho-Pelc, L. (2015). Planning horizon as a key element of a competitive strategy. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 3, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.174
Sullivan, P. L. (2007). War aims and war outcomes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(3), 496–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707300187
Tekin, O. (2024). Status quo, revisionism and reformism. Social and Humanitarian Knowledge, (9), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.34823/SGZ.2024.09.52057
Uyar, M., & Erickson, E. J. (2009). A military history of the Ottomans. Praeger.
Vego, M. (2025). Determining political objectives. Joint Force Quarterly, 116(4), 79–92. https://digitalcommons.ndu.edu/jfq/vol116/iss4/11/
Westermeyer, P. W. (2014). U.S. Marines in the Gulf War, 1990–1991. U.S. Marine Corps History Division.
Ydstebø, P. (2023). Strategy and operations in a war of exhaustion. Scientific Papers of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, 3(79), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.33099/2304-2745/2023-3-79/74-83
Zeerak, A. (2023). Behavioral and contingency theories of leadership. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372175179
Abstract views: 141 PDF Downloads: 95
Copyright (c) 2026 Рашад Тахіров, Khayal Iskandarov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication (Download agreement) with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR, etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process of viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
