In 1994, military historian Martin Van Creveld presented his hypothesis about the future of modern military conflicts. He argued that these conflicts primarily would involve non-state actors or state actors employing unconventional means and methods. Thirty years later, his hypothesis appears more relevant than ever. He claims that his theory of maneuver warfare should be able to explain success against this type of adversary.
This thesis aims to test whether Van Creveld's theory of maneuver warfare can lead to success when a conventional actor faces an unconventional opponent. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the current research regarding maneuver warfare and increase understanding of whether his theory can be applied against an unconventional adversary.
The theory has been applied on the U.S. lead coalition during Operation Anaconda and Operation Phantom Fury, from early 2000s. The result of the thesis implies that Van Creveld's theory of maneuver warfare can explain the outcome of both operations and should therefore be considered as valid. However, several circumstances are identified that should be considered in modern military conflicts in the future.