For the time being, interstate wars are a rarity:
The “Human Security Brief 2007,” compiled by Canada’s Simon Fraser University, details the continuing overall decline in global conflict that began with globalization’s rapid expansion around the planet in recent years, to include the complete absence of classic state-on-state war since 2003.
There are exceptions, however. I’m not sure what counts as ‘classic’ state-on-state war, but we will still see states using conventional force in straightforward ways against other states.
As we speak, Russia is bombing Georgia and 1500 people are reported dead. It is a fight primarily not over the hearts and minds of people, but over contested territory.
Georgia has responded thus:
Georgia has already called for a mass mobilization of all reservists, and called its 2,000 troops home from Iraq to join the fight.
Rupert Smith suggests that ‘war as we know it’ is at an end. There are indeed some major changes taking place. We may not see large-scale, prolonged major war between states for some time. There might be a greater plurality of forms of conflict overlapping, old weapons used in new ways, a global media creating a mass audience multiplying the effects of violence, and small groups of radicals empowered by the weapons and tools of modernity as never before.
But we still live in a world where powerful states may attack other states if they think vital interests are at stake, if they think it will work, and if they think they can get away with it.
Sunday, 10, August, 2008 at 6:10 pm |
Erm, to clarify a bit, Georgia attacked a russian “peacekeeping” force first, killing upwards of 30 russian service memebers and shelling a city with oldschool artillery where 90% of the citizens are russian passportcarriers. So to say that Russia invaded Georgia is a very simplified image. Say rather that Georgia in a fit of insanity deluded itself into using military force in order to resolve a stalemate. Why, noone I know understands.
Sunday, 10, August, 2008 at 10:35 pm |
Hi fnord,
Absolutely, Georgia arguably initiated the conflict. I’m not claiming Russia invaded to start it. But it has escalated the conflict by bombing deep into Georgia, believing that this will somehow ‘work’ for them.
This isn’t about who is guilty, its about noting that some patterns persist over time.
P
Monday, 11, August, 2008 at 6:40 am |
On that point, absolutely. The “End of History” is a intelectual hype, and state-on-state actions will continue to happen when the odds are in one sides favour. However, the Georgians seem to have wanted this and it is that part I dont understand, because the odds are clearly overwhelmingly against them. Hubris?
I think the Georgia conflict shows that in the multipolar world smaller actors have very little chance of retaining territorial integrity in conflict with a greater power. I could argue that Georgias miscalculation was in the belief that great powers would not choose to respond in a classic military way against provocation. They bought the 4.gen hype, and are paying dearly it seems. (I wonder how they could make such a mistake, with US advisors in country and acess to modern satelite data they must have known about the russian force-presence. Did they calculate that Putin would hold a Olympic truce and not react? it seems like suicide by cop to me…)
Monday, 11, August, 2008 at 7:28 am |
indeed. one reason for the Georgian premier’s miscalculation may have been the false belief that his actions could bring the US/NATO forcefully into the conflict.
And, as you say, he also possibly bet that Russia would respond in a more measured way.
Not a good day at the office for him.
Tuesday, 12, August, 2008 at 9:11 am |
[...] War for a moment to consider the tactical and operational methods employed. As Pat has pointed out interstate warfare is not dead: ‘we still live in a world where powerful states may attack other states if they [...]
Thursday, 14, August, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
[...] Los chicos del King’s College empezaron en su momento, destacando como aquí hemos hecho, la anomalía que supone un conflicto entre estados pero destacan que lo que hemos visto es una combinación de fuerzas convencionales e irregulares en [...]