정치지도자의 군사개입과 전쟁 승리의 함수관계 - 6ㆍ25전쟁 사례를 중심으로 -

Abstract

This study is started with two questions. One is wheter the political leaders should engage on the military affairs in war time or not. Another is which levels of war might be reasonable if what they do is proper. I built a hypothesis, the political leaders' engagement on the military affairs is a requisite for the victory of war, via literature reviews. For demonstrating this, the political leaders' engagement on the military affairs is defined as they participate in execution of war. And I defined the victory of war as what leaders achive the goals they wished. Moreover, it is very important to be aware of four mediating variables such as continued supporting of civil, supplementation of profession, communication, and flexibility of political objects for analying relationship between political leaders' engagement on the military affairs and the victory of war. Iattempted to demonstrat the validity on Unequal Dialogue stated by Corhen with applying this framework to a new example, Korean War. After result, Mao Zedong and Eisenhower won the victory with engaging on the military affairs, but Stalin was defeated because he did not engage on it in war time. With this, I found that the political leaders' engagement on military affairs in war time is a requisite. And I drew a conclusion that it is the most reasonable for political leaders to engage on the military affairs up to strategics level of war about the question, which level might be reasonable if they should engage on the military affairs among strategics,the art of operations, and tactics.