SASF – Blogs

Post-modern warfare is a new term used to justify the new type of warfare, whereby it is fought with precision weapons with minimal collateral damage and extensively improved types of immediate information (speed of sending info), surveillance and of equipment for locating targets. This new type of warfare has been possible due to the new military technology available, the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) and the information technology.

Now you may ask yourself What is the difference between post-modern warfare and the traditional war? Who is responsible for its development and creation? And most important, other than its lesser implications on collateral damage comparing to traditional warfare, how valid or legal is it for it to be practised on sovereign nation-states?

To answer the two first questions pose no difficulty, while the last question can be found to be very debatable. To start off, post-modern warfare development and the ideas can be traced back a fairly long time ago. The usages of catapult and far distant weapons that can fire their weapons against the army are examples of weapons that shield the people who are firing them from getting killed or hurt. The usage of these weapons was to destroy the enemy with getting the least damage to one self. Although these weapons were not as precise and mobile as todays, lets say airplanes and ships; they were a sort of a foundation for this new age in warfare. Like John Donne a metaphysical poet mentioned sometime during the 1500s giving recognition to the catapult and long-distance artillery saying that we are moving into a new era of warfare which can bring less bloodshed to future wars.

Skipping forward a few hundred years we can see as the technology in the military developed. At the beginning of the 1970s the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which still operates today is observed to developing a technology for the use in military that aims at decreasing casualties or death to people. It seeks to control what ever it is attacking.

This new type of warfare has been made possible thanks to the RMA, the programme created for the sole purpose of returning war to the West to its position as the prolongation of politics by other means. As the two superpowers during the Cold War were competing, the only way they could confront each other was with nuclear weapons which they couldnt use. This created a stalemate and opened up for developing of conventional or non-nuclear weapons that the other side did not have. The advantage of these weapons was that they actually could be used. These weapons could be applied only in certain ways and with some restrictions. They had to be politically and morally approved and accepted by different charters and human rights laws and declarations.

Also, in order for this new type of weaponry to be accepted they need to be more effective and efficient in comparison to the traditional warfare before the post-modern one. The necessity to avoid human losses of the people who are actually firing these weapons was one of the factors to its efficiencies. Retaining these people as far away from the battlefield frontiers to decrease, if not fully eliminate, the risk to them. Decreasing collateral or civilian damage by providing better accuracy or precision on the target is usually second on the priority list. This all means war that has to be fought needed to be as bloodless, risk-free and precise as possible.

The US military is seen as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why its running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the World Police. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the World Police claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they cant solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesnt promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even ever.

Author: Darko Perun
Article Source: EzineArticles.com

http://int-history.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=23

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008

MumbaiMassacre Calls For a Probe of British Role

by Ramtanu Maitra

The Nov 26-29 siege by terrorists of two top Mumbai
hotels and the Nariman House, where a Jewish group
had its residence and office, not only resulted in the
deaths of more than 200 individuals, but made clear
that India, like the United States, is one of the prime
targets of Dope, Inc. The questions remain: Who exactly
were the terrorists? What were their objectives?
And, were any of their objectives attained through this
dastardly act?

New Delhi must realize that if the Mumbai attack is
to be the last big one, it must carry out a thorough investigation.
The Mumbai terror had a very strong British
link as is detailed below. On Dec. 1, the London
Daily Mail reported that seven British Muslims were
involved. That number dwindled to two within a couple
of days. The now-deposed chief minister of the state of
Maharashtra (where Mumbai is located), Vilasrao
Deshmukh, announced that no British Muslims were
involved. In other words, whitewashing is fully in
progress.

But, it is likely that the evidence of British involvement
in this terrorist act has not yet been wiped out.
That is why, in the early morning of Dec. 14, Britain’s
Prime Minister Gordon Brown came pell-mell to Delhi
to urge the Indian Premier Manmohan Singh to allow
British intelligence, MI6, to interrogate the only surviving
Mumbai terrorist, Mohammed Ajmal Amir Qasab. It
is likely that the purpose of the MI6 interrogation is to
direct Qasab to provide details to confuse the investigators
and keep Britain out of it. The speed with which the
British Embassy in Delhi set up the Brown-Singh meeting
indicates that there is much at stake for Britain.

As far as the attack itself is concerned, in addition to
the three structures mentioned above, the terrorists also
fired random shots at the main Mumbai railway station,
Victoria Terminus, Cama Hospital, and the Metro
cinema. They also killed at least two top Mumbai police
officers, including the head of the Anti-Terrorist Squad
(ATS) of the state of Maharashtra, Hemant Karkare.
The operation surely had a strong input from local
allies of the terrorists. From the outset it was evident
that the former Mumbai mafioso, Dawood Ibrahim,
who now lives under Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)
protection in Karachi, allowed his network to
set up the attack. Ibrahim, a gangster who smuggled
gold from Dubai, U.A.E., a British-controlled area, and
later drugs, lives under threat of extradition to India. continue reading…

Ramtanu Maitra Feb 2005

On February 1, Lieutenant General J J Singh took over as India’s new Army chief. He is expected to direct the Indian Army for three years, a tenure that is anticipated to be a period of great significance for the Indian Army. India’s army is in the process of developing and adopting a new generation of military technology, based on precision and speed.

At the same time, cursed with the border situation in its west and the neverending insurgency activities, supported externally by anti-India elements operating from within Bangladesh and Nepal, in the northeast part of India, Singh will have to formulate more effective counterterrorism measures that have increasingly become regular military interventions. It is almost a certainty that Singh will find the Indian army’s counterterrorism operations in need of modernisation and adoption of new tactical measures. An army press release on the adoption of a new counterterrorism doctrine states that it would prioritise “winning hearts and minds” in such situations.

In other words, the army will have to institutionalise an approach, which has to be spread from the top officerlevel to the foot soldiers, calling for less ruthless and more personal relations with the people among whom it operates. It is a difficult task,  particularly in Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern India, where terrorists and secessionists enjoy the support of some of the locals.

On the other hand, the frequency of Indo-Pakistani talks at the official level to build confidence, and the growing opposition within Pakistan to the anti-India campaign of the Pakistani army, may provide some break to the new chief on India’s western borders. With infiltration levels down and talks on with both Pakistan and dissidents in Kashmir, no Indian army chief has perhaps ever had the chance to look at the Jammu and Kashmir situation as positively as the new Army chief. However, such a break for the army chief will be hard to come by in India’s north-eastern sector.

The new doctrine

Interestingly reports indicate that the Indian military has framed a new military doctrine keeping in mind the duration of future wars, which are likely to be short and intense. The doctrine highlights more roles for the special forces, capable of quick movement and swift strikes, rather than having large armies.

Outgoing Army Chief N C Vij pointed out recently that Indian defence forces were being trained to mobilise troops quickly should there be a war in the future. This fits in pretty much with the military-think of today’s Pentagon, which is involved in intense discussions with the Indian military on a strategic alliance, particularly since the events of September 11, 2001.

There is no question that a large number of analysts within the Indian defence establishment have been seduced by this  Pentagon-think. The US Army’s messy handling of the Iraq situation further confirms their belief that slow, conventional warfare is a  loser in the present context of achieving specific objectives.

At the same time, a study by the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) says that some important features of the doctrine are poorly matched to the concept of limited war. The Indo- Asian News Service quoted General Vij as saying, “The new military doctrine envisages training and finetuning of our armed forces to gear up for such eventualities.” continue reading…

China Brief Volume 2, Issue 5 February 28, 2002

By Vijai K. Nair

Beijing is unlikely to be complacent about the denigration of its strategic interests and can be expected to employ all means at its disposal–political, economic and military–to ward of being contained from what it considered its open flank.

Directly and indirectly, America’s war on terrorism challenges China’s strategy to gain influence in the Central and South Asian region. This strategy was born of the need to adopt a generally more assertive foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the fact that activism in Central Asia did not immediately confront the interests of Russia or America. But it remains to be seen which options Beijing will use to reassert its influence there.

Beijing’s long-term national objective is to match and eventually surpass American global power, both politically and economically. It takes into account the asymmetry of capabilities and the need for a graduated approach in a world where American primacy is well established. As early as the mid-1980s, China recognized that the existing environment precluded extending its political influence to its east and north (areas of singular and vital interest to the United States and Russia). This limited it to its western and south-western flanks, where the influence of the premier powers was at best tenuous. continue reading…

Bombs killed nearly 60 people in Iraq on Thursday in the worst violence since U.S. combat troops withdrew from urban areas last week, and American forces released five Iranian officials suspected of aiding Shiite insurgents.

U.S. officials said they believe the Iranians, detained in northern Iraq in January 2007, had facilitated attacks on American-led forces but handed them over to the Iraqi government at its request because they were obliged to do so under a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement.

The U.S. State Department said it was concerned their release could present a security threat to American troops in Iraq.

Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called the release a “good initiative” that could encourage dialogue between Washington and Tehran, which are longtime foes.

Iranian Embassy spokesman Amir Arshadi said Iraq had transferred the Iranians, described by their government as diplomats, to the embassy. Washington believes they are associated with the Quds Force, part of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that they trained Iraqi militants.

The carnage within Iraqi borders Thursday was a sign that insurgents remain intent on destabilizing Iraq as the United States shifts its focus to the war in Afghanistan. Attacks are down sharply from past years of war and militants have been driven from many strongholds, but they routinely inflict casualties in Baghdad and northern Iraq, a cauldron of ethnic and sectarian tension.

The most lethal attack Thursday was in the northern city of Tal Afar, where women sat in the street amid torn and bloodied bodies in the aftermath of suicide bombings, wailing and beating their chests in grief. Several men crouched and wept into their hands. Others rushed the wounded to ambulances; some used a bed sheet as a makeshift stretcher.

In a statement on his Web site, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani condemned the attacks and said the “forces of evil and terrorism” were trying in vain to demoralize Iraqi security forces and the civilian population.

Some 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, but they have a much lower profile and are preparing for a complete pullout by the end of 2011. Iraqi attitudes are mixed, with some rejoicing over the absence of American troops in their streets and a new sense of sovereignty, and others worried that extremists will now have more freedom to operate. continue reading…