ANDREW RADIN, ALYSSA DEMUS, ALEXANDRA T. EVANS
A Vocabulary of
Escalation
A Primer on the Escalation Literature for
Military Planners
M
anaging escalation is a critical challenge for planning and executing U.S. military activi-
ties. Escalation, meaning an increase in the intensity or scope of military activity, is
sometimes essential to achieve U.S. objectives, while in other circumstances, it may
lead to unintended and undesired adversary responses. Although the ultimate decision
authority lies with U.S. political leaders, U.S. military planners play an important role in developing
options and providing advice and so will need to evaluate and articulate the risk, cost, and benefits
of escalation.
However, U.S. Army, other service, and joint planning doctrine and manuals provide little
specific guidance on escalation (see the box on the next page for a summary of escalation in cur-
rent doctrine). By contrast, escalation has been explored in depth in the academic literature on
international relations. Although much of the literature is focused on national decisions, many
of the concepts are applicable to military planning and decisionmaking at the tactical and opera-
tional levels.
In this report, we distill major findings from this literature to provide military planners and
other practitioners with a vocabulary to anticipate, categorize, assess, and communicate the poten-
tial consequences of military actions. It intends to help military officers considering different
courses of action (COAs) for a cam-
paign, developing decisions support
tools, or advising commanders on
political-military implications. It is
organized around prominent schools
of thought in the literature that offer
differing perspectives on escalation.
Because this report was written
for practitioners rather than aca-
demics, it differs from a traditional
academic literature review. Whereas
KEY FINDINGS
■ Academic theories of escalation offer ways to think about when,
why, and how escalation may unfold.
■ The theories are often incomplete, are difficult to apply, and sug-
gest contradictory implications for practitioners.
■ However, these theories offer additional considerations for military
officers to incorporate when they develop potential courses of
action or advise on military options.
Research Report
