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://www.countercurrents.org/maitra060109.htm

By Ramtanu Maitra 06 January, 2009

Countercurrents.org

Following the Mumbai massacre (Nov. 26- 29, 2008), many “important” personnel moved through the Indian Subcontinent, ostensibly with the intent of unearthing the ghastly plot that killed at least 200 people and made a mockery of India’s security. During the visits of these “important” personnel, and subsequently, only one person mentioned the thousands of tons of opium (8,200 tons in 2007, and reportedly, 421 tons of heroin) produced year after year in Afghanistan, as a major cause of the growing terrorism in the region.

In reality, the huge amount of opium is allowed to be produced not only to finance terrorists and illegal gun manufacturers, but also to infuse cash into the bankrupt world financial system, through the offshore banks. That voice of reality was heard from Moscow when, in an interview with the Russian government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta, Russia’s federal anti-narcotics service director Viktor Ivanov said: “The gathered inputs testify that regional drug baron Dawood Ibrahim had provided his logistics network for preparing and carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks.” Ivanov said the Mumbai attacks were a “burning example” of how the illegal drug-trafficking network was used for carrying out terrorism. “The super profits of the narco-mafia through Afghan heroin trafficking have become a powerful source of financing organized crime and terrorist networks, destabilizing the political systems, including in Central Asia and Caucasus,” Ivanov said at the fifth India-Russia meeting of the joint working group on combatting international terrorism, in mid-December. The Indian delegation was led by Vivek Katju, Special Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs; the Russian delegation was led by Anatoly Safonov, Special Representative of the President.

US soldiers inspecting Afghan opium fields

The Drug-Led Corruption

While Dawood Ibrahim’s involvement has been tossed about in the media, what Ivanov said never gotthrough to the investigators. Or, is it that the drug angle was deliberately ignored, in order to abort the investigation by resorting to blame games, with the purpose of ending up nowhere? continue reading…

by Ramtanu Maitra

India’s six percent-plus “impressive GDP growth rate” over the years has drawn much praise from the West, and its “success” has been attributed to the “magical impact” of free-market liberalization and globalization. What it really means, is that India’s low-wage-earning labor has begun to replace a section of the high-wage-earning workforce of the West. In the process, India, a nation of 1 billion-plus people stricken with utter poverty, is becoming an economic “powerhouse”—exactly the way China became one, the Indian leaders claim.

However, a visit from one end of India to the other would make one realize that India’s GDP growth is driven by only a fraction of its population. Much of the nation remains a picture of rural poverty and urban squalor. Rising social tension because of growing income disparity between a sea of poor and a decent number of middle class, is either not noticed, or ignored, by a callous and rudderless leadership that dots the entire nation. Notwithstanding the illusions of the elites, there are definite signals that some among the many hundreds of millions of poor may not watch the process with benign and dissociated neglect, but instead, could turn violent.

The poverty in India has been exacerbated by the fact that the investors, who are no longer “led” by the powerful and visionary, now invest in those parts of the country where the investment has the maximum potential—a relative term in the Indian context—to optimize profit. As a result, regional disparities are growing fast, involving hundreds of millions of people. Nearly all foreign investments in India go to its six most urban states, with 22 other less-developed states virtually ignored. This gap between cities and rural areas is keenly felt in the suburbs of India’s cities, particularly New Delhi, the capital.

Poverty Galore

The endless poverty is there for all to see; it is not hidden like it is in China. There is no escaping the fact that a handful of “skilled Indian workers,” tied to Western workplaces through telecommunication, will not be able to pull the hundreds of millions out of the grinding poverty they endure. What is needed is leadership at every level, and the most dangerous aspect of India at the present time is that it does not have any.

Lack of leadership hits one square in the face, starting at the municipal level, all the way up to the highest offices in the North Block and South Block of India’s capital. These powerful people have little real understanding of what it would take to make India a nation that cares for all of its people; indeed, they have little intent to achieve such a goal, in any case. continue reading…

LONDON – Harry Patch, the last British military veteran of World War I, has died at 111, the nursing home where he lived said Saturday.

The Fletcher House care home in Wells, southwest England, said Patch died early Saturday.

Patch had been the last surviving soldier from the British Army to have served in the 1914-18 war. The only other surviving British veteran of the war, former airman Henry Allingham, died a week ago at age 113.

Patch was called up for service in the British army in 1917 when he was working as a teenage apprentice plumber.

A few weeks later, in one of the bloodiest battles of the Great War, at Passchendaele, near the Belgian town of Ypres, he was badly wounded and three of his best friends were killed by a shell explosion.

Patch’s death Saturday severs Britain’s living links with “the war to end all wars,” which killed about 20 million people.

In recent years he and his dwindling band of fellow survivors became poignant symbols of the conflict.

Last year he, Allingham and Bill Stone — the last British naval veteran of the war — attended remembrance ceremonies at the Cenotaph in London to mark the 90th anniversary of the war’s end at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. The three frail men in wheelchairs laid wreaths of red poppies at the base of the stone memorial.

Stone died in January.

At a remembrance ceremony in 2007, Patch said he felt “humbled that I should be representing an entire generation.”

“Today is not for me. It is for the countless millions who did not come home with their lives intact. They are the heroes,” he said. “It is also important we remember those who lost their lives on both sides.”

Patch said he did not speak about the war for 80 years. But he came to believe the casualties were not justified.

“I met someone from the German side and we both shared the same opinion: we fought, we finished and we were friends,” he said in 2007.

“It wasn’t worth it.”

Harry Patch, last British WWI veteran, dies at 111 – Yahoo! News.

Dec 13, 2003

By Ramtanu Maitra

The volley of peace initiatives between New Delhi and Islamabad during October and November has puzzled many political analysts around the world. Two questions are asked most: Are these proposals for real? And why now?

The sequence of events is as follows. The first salvo was actually fired in May, by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee before his three-nation tour of Germany, France and Russia. Vajpayee said that India wanted to start talks with Pakistan “as soon as possible”, but also made it clear that for a meaningful dialogue, cross-border terrorism should end and the terror infrastructure be dismantled.

Then, on October 22, Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha offered a 12-point peace package to Pakistan. One of the proposals was the immediate resumption of sporting contacts, namely, cricket. The others are equally practical: more road, rail and ferry connections between the two nuclear-armed states and a bus route between the two halves of disputed Kashmir; fresh talks on air links; cooperation between coastguard forces to reduce unnecessary arrests of fishermen; and more diplomats in each other’s capitals.

Without responding to this proposal, one way or the other, a week later, Pakistan made a counter-proposal of 13 items. Soft proposals such as the restoration of sporting ties in all fields, including cricket, were endorsed without any hitch. But changes were sought in the case of some confidence-building measures. For instance, on India’s proposal for a Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus link in Kashmir, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz A Khokar told a press conference: “We welcome the start of a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar, but since Kashmir is a disputed territory, checkposts in the area must be manned by UN forces and people of both sides must carry UN documents.”

On November 23, Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, in his address to the nation on completion of the first year of his government, announced a unilateral ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) that divides the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) between India and Pakistan, beginning with the holy Muslim day of Eid (November 26). Formally, India has welcomed this response, but has, at the same time, urged Pakistan to stop cross-border infiltration to make the ceasefire worthwhile. In a statement, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the government of India had earlier proposed a ceasefire along the actual ground position line in Siachen in the high altitude northern section of the LoC.

In addition to the ceasefire along the LoC, Jamali also expressed his willingness to start a bus service between Srinagar – the summer capital of the Indian part of J&K – and Muzaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani part of J&K; to start a ferry service from the Pakistani port of Karachi to the Indian port of Mumbai; to revive air links between the two countries; and to open the Khokhrapar-Munabao railroad route, between the province of Sindh in Pakistan and the Indian state of Rajasthan, which was closed following the 1965 India-Pakistan war. All these proposals, except the ceasefire proposal, were among the 12 peace proposals offered to Pakistan by Sinha on October 22.

Then, on November 24, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf announced that Pakistan would permit the restoration of flights to India and permit Indian airliners to fly over its landmass. Vajpayee reciprocated the gesture on December 1. continue reading…