a_majoor said:
Although we might like to think that force isn't the best answer, it would seem that many people out there do not share your views. A lot of money is being spent to modernize military forces throughout the world (China is only the best known and most obvious example), since they know that force is the final arbitrator. Just ask the Carthaginians. The Jihadis don't try to talk to the people they capture and make them see things their way, they just behead the unfortunate victims. For the most part, we can talk to the locals and make them see things our way by both word and example; the Jihadis are only going to change their minds with some help from high velocity metal.
I think force is becoming increasingly inappropriate for an increasing number of issues. It used to be that if you had some economic woe that could be solved by beating the other state's head in, go ahead (assuming you had the ability). Now we'd view that as insane, not solely because of the likelihood that you'll lose more economically than you'll gain but also from a moral standpoint. The western world, at least, seems to be turning increasingly intolerant of force as a means of problem resolution. I think this has to do with both economics and with "morality". Military adventurism is exhorbitantly expensive and very rarely does it earn the aggressor more than he puts in. In other words, it's becoming more and more a losing bet (in my opinion). The US has damaged itself far more economically than it stands to regain - a point often used to counter the "oil-grab" contention, though such a counter-punch assumes that the oil-grab was meant to profit the state as opposed to other actors.
As for Jihadis, their end may be political but I don't think they ever intended to achieve it through the persuasive conversion of Ukrainian helicopter pilots or KBR truck drivers. I think AQ's approach is quite effective - slap the enemy in the face and provoke them into overreacting, which will alienate many potential supporters. It's textbook insurgency/guerilla tactics, just taken to the international level. It's the clerics who do the politicking, the Jihadis busy cutting heads off are the "grunts" so to speak, from what I can see. It seems the terrorism we're seeing is one analagous to the state, to some degree - the religious wing handles the politics while the "jihadi" wing covers the force - similar to the civilian political authority and the military. The big difference is in the fact that there's (generally, to my knowledge) no direct, formal link between the two - a characteristic which allows the civilian to operate without having to answer for the military. Plausible deniability and all that.
Well, it is nice to go with what you know....
I have been doing lots of reading, and attended seminars and spoken to various people with first hand experience, and can report the institution is changing. The announcements coming from General Hillier and the changes he is driving will kick us out of the cold war ruts we have driven across the institutional landscape. The American Army is rapidly relearning lessons from the Indian wars (1870s-1890s), the Philippines, the "Banana Wars" and the other small wars that created and defined the American Military from the founding of the Republic until the 1940's.
That's good to hear, though I'm somewhat skeptical as to how likely these changes are too occur within the next 50 years. It seems the USMC never completely forgot what it learned (or at least not as much as the Army) and I'd expect it to be more rapidly adaptable than the Army.
This is a long, hard process, and it is illustrative to see how large corporations have undergone huge traumas in reorganizing from "top down" heirarchies to more streamlined "flat" organizations. We have more incentive to get it right, our mistakes do not result in shareholder loss but in the spilling of blood and treasure, so a slow and steady approach is what is needed here.
Ah, but how slow is too slow and how fast is too fast?? Boy am I mysterious. 8)
Infanteer said:
As Art said, force will always be the most base and effective form of interaction between human societies. You bring the Al Qa'ida attacks on the US economy as an example - but this was accomplished by pure, naked force as opposed to cunning manipulation of international markets or a cyber-attack.
Of course they used force - they don't have the capability to effectively influence without it. Developed states are another thing altogether. I disagree that force will always be the most effective form of interation or that it always has been. It's already grossly inefficient - a gargantuan waste of resources, both material and personnel. This wasn't anything new in Sun Tzu's time, either, which is why force was always the least desirable option to him. Aside from moral objectionability, which is subjective and useless unless you're talking about a soceity's morals and the effect they may have (as opposed to arguing on a moral basis), it's just not quantitatively efficient. That's why economists deplore war from the self-interest standpoint - it's manifestly self-punitive if one takes the long view. I'm not saying this is ALWAYS the case - WWII being an example wherein force was absolutely necessary and in the Allies' own best interests.
I think your example just serves to further prove that there is no chance of force becoming less effective and self-punitive anytime soon. If you want proof, compare the number of conflicts in the 20/21 century to any century before (also look at casualties - civ and combatant). As well, do the same comparison between the Cold War and the post-Cold War world - we're in a growth industry here.
The 20th century was also one characterized by the break-up of the Empires and the resultant conflicts around nationalism - it's an outlier. The higher casualties are a result of the combination of technology, population density, population size, and the targetting of civilians in wartime. I believe that only serves to prove my point - wars are becoming substantially more expensive and less tolerable, both in fiscal/material expense and casualties. Wars were all fine and good when two armies met on a field with bows, pikemen, and cavalry but when they start infesting cities, destroying industry, and using expensive inputs, their cost outweighs their benefit. The willingness of people and states to engage in wars is not a function of its efficiency. As I know you know, humans are not always rational creatures.
I tend to side with the "4GW" crowd with the notion that force is becoming monopolized at smaller and smaller levels. As it devolves to these smaller levels, other less concrete phenomenon will become prevalent. Kaplan highlights the environment, while Ignatieff looks to a more base level of nationalism (blood and belonging). Faith, ethno-nationalism, and Ralph Peters' "Warrior Societies" are all spilling out as the Triad (with its notions of economy and military capacity) becomes weaker. Economics play a role in their decision making, but not in the conventional matter we are used to. What profit was sought by the various Yugoslavian factions by tearing their industrialized country to pieces or by Ansar al-Sunnah by touching off a civil war after their "country" had a parasite dictator knocked off the block?
As I said, people aren't often rational. If you look at the Western world, though, we're becoming decreasingly likely to tolerate force as a means of achieving petty political ends. Vietnam was a good example, as is Iraq. Economically, both are astounding failures and neither attracted widespread support. Yugoslavia only held together as long as it did because of Tito. The ongoing conflicts in Africa are another example of how artificially conglomerated peoples tend to break apart when the unifying controller is gone. Eventually, I think things will sort themselves out to the point that the fractioning will reach an equilibrium, either through national independence, negotiated co-existence, or emigration. The West managed it, and I think others will too. This is only going to increase as everyone tries to get their part of the neoliberal economic pie and democratizes. There's something to be said for democratic peace theory, though I don't think it's perfect. Add to that the increasing salience of complex interdependence, international institutions, and economic regionalisation and I think we're going to see a substantial decrease in the number of major conflicts.
