The dynamics of war termination and strategic competition have evolved over time, shifting from the limited aims of the 18th century to the decisive objectives of the 19th and 20th centuries, and into the contemporary era of protracted competition and hybrid conflict. In this modern environment, traditional metrics of "winning" or "losing" are increasingly challenged, particularly in the context of Support to Resistance and Resilience (SRR). Winning might now look like sustaining the status quo or gaining amorphous, incremental wins in terms of resilience, influence, or trust. As such, there is an evolving need to understand how contemporary conditions—and the application of "strategic patience"—affect how leaders seek to terminate conflicts and the conditions under which they will be successful.
This topic seeks empirical and explanatory models to understand the progress and outcomes of the war termination process and long-term strategic campaigning. It assumes that belligerents’ choices are informed by the structure of interaction, the intensity of the conflict, and the cultures of the belligerents. Preference will be shown for proposals utilizing multidisciplinary teams to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the social, cultural, economic, and political contexts of these problems at the micro-, meso-, and macro-scales.
Specific foci of this theoretical and empirical investigation should include:
- Conflict Effects, Preferences, and Strategic Patience: Are strategic competition and SRR necessarily a zero-sum game, and what role should "strategic patience" play in long-term conflicts? How can we understand the varied costs associated with war (e.g., general economic costs, societal harm), how do they change, and what drives belligerents to negotiate rather than sustain the conflict? How can the military inculcate a culture that recognizes incremental progress and considers metrics of success beyond a single operational cycle?
- Strategy, Negotiation, and Timelines: How does military strategy—the application of the means of destruction—interact with political strategy and the war termination process? What is the interaction between the negotiating process and an ongoing conflict, and how do interests change as a conflict's end approaches? In applying a campaigning perspective to resistance and resilience, how can military forces ensure that realistic timelines for success are shared with partners and allies?
- Conflict Structure, Exit Ramps, and the Causes of War: Are there incentives when a war is started, or within political and military strategies, that complicate war termination and discourage long-term thinking? How do the stakes of a war influence which “exit ramps” or termination strategies are feasible? Furthermore, how do multi-level conflicts, the types of belligerents (state vs. non-state), and intra-elite dynamics affect the war termination process at each level?
- Historical Case Studies and Benchmarks: Are there historical examples that might help our understanding of competition, SRR, and conflict termination over the longer term? How might benchmarks for resistance and resilience be developed and reassessed over time via a campaign? For example, the Russian war in Ukraine has shown that external support takes time; how did Ukraine build that support and sustain it? Ultimately, what lessons for winning, losing, and setting the conditions for war termination can be derived from the Ukrainian experience for the United States, its allies, partners, and adversaries?
- De Luca-Johnson M.D., LCDR Javier N., "Violent Ceasefires: Adverse Effects of Frozen Conflict on Population Health," AFGC thesis, 2025.
- Specifically answering the prompt's call to understand the varied costs, such as societal harm, associated with war and the dynamics of how conflicts end. De Luca answers this by exploring the phenomenon of "frozen conflicts"—where an initial war ends but the core incompatible issues remain unresolved—and demonstrating how this specific type of war termination leads to profound, long-term societal harm. Using the Israel-Palestine conflict as a case study, the research illustrates that failing to achieve a stable peace severely degrades a population's health and economic development, as the constant threat of violence damages physical infrastructure and diverts resources away from essential governance. By quantifying the stark disparities in life expectancy, maternal mortality, and healthcare capacity between Israel and Palestine, De Luca provides military and political leaders with a concrete understanding of the severe human costs incurred when armed hostilities are terminated without resolving the underlying core issues.
- Jodice, Adam P., "Libya 10 Years Later: Why States Fail Following Civil War," SAASS thesis, 2021, 89 pgs.
- Stump, Maj. Paul, "From Total War to Precision Strikes: Evolving Patterns of Risk Perceptions in US Conflict," SAASS thesis, 2025.
- Stump demonstrates that the presence of clear time horizons and definitive political end-states drastically alters a leader's willingness to accept risk to end a conflict. For example, Nixon embraced aggressive operational risks during Operation LINEBACKER II to force a negotiated peace and terminate the Vietnam War on a specific political timeline. Conversely, Clinton's politically constrained, risk-averse strategy in Kosovo extended a conflict expected to last days into an eleven-week campaign. Stump concludes that relying heavily on negative political aims—which restrain military force to avoid risk—routinely complicates war termination and leads to protracted struggles.