Distinction Between The New War And The Old War Policies Sample Assignment
Standing on the podium of the 21st century, the conception of war has refurnished its structure and has taken a hybrid form where the modern and the primitive war conception juxtapose. Crothers (2002) seemed to have been eloquent in his approach in stating that though the outer circumference of war has changed potentially, the core remains the same as it was in the days of Alexander, the Great. Still these days, to appease the appetite of the political, regional, religious and social disparities people feel aggressive to shed blood in the battle front. Biddle (2006) has been more critical in this aspect in stating that the modern warfare is nothing but the experimental place for practicing the new weapons and technology. In a war the motive of a nation although stands more blatant than that of self-interest. Comparing with the battle of old days, however, modern wars appear to be different in using immense ammunition and technologies. The main aim of the war is to decorate the groups with intense frugality so that the defeat can be severe. Violence and causality of the war have increased in a large aspect. This very essay is going to conceive and portray the brutality of the war and how far has it differed itself from the old aged war.
Primarily to manage the geo-political goals, the classical Clausewitzean theory incites, the political and economic interests are the underpinning facts for the commencement of the war (Barnhart, 2006). In the current days, the political turmoil has rocked that the sand dunes of Iran and Somalia where although the religious reasons are stated to be the main factors, but political reasons are not so less intrinsic. On the other hand, attack of America in Iraq and Afghanistan apparently seems to be to uproot the terrorism, but economical causes are also the underpinning factors. The war economy has changed a lot which includes in the implementation of the counter-prudence of world economic structure.
Echevarria (2007) is of this view that after the commencement of World War II, there was an immense change in the emerged out in the modern warfare. At the same time, the strategy of the warfare has also gone through a drastic change enabling the countries to suffer viciously. Intensity of the international conflict has also increased which crumples with the conventional battle strategy. Malesovic (2010) is of this view that if a country fails to sustain the physical control over a territory, it loses its intensity. Loosening of the legitimacy over any area infuses more vitality that engages the countries to entertain the war. Credland (2010) has pointed out that the war of the past days used to happen to conquer the states and to collect more taxes from those extended and newly conquered areas; the statistics of which although remains same these days, save the intrinsic prodigality of the modern militia. At the same time, in many countries the defence has been privatized which has enabled that the regular army and force to control over an area. It is seen that the gradual decline of the regular armed forces is responsible of muddling up with the war strategies. At the same time, a gradual change in the post war scenario has labelled an intrinsic dilemma that seems to have a unique contradiction with the warfare.
Richards (2014) appears to have critically divided the modern war strategy in two substantial parts: pre World War II strategy and post World War II strategy. According to him, the strategies used before World War II was quite primitive. The warmongers and the world militia got the biggest opportunity in the battlefront of Second World War where they could have exercised new technologies. During the days of Cold War, according to Richards (2014), the war politics has also gone through the severe changes. At the same time the brutality of the war has also increased. In the current world the main war, most of the countries have combined with to fight against is terrorism, inflicted upon by the different international terrorist groups such as Mujahidin, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Lashkar-e-Taiba and several others (Leitenberg, 2006). It seems almost all the countries of the world are suffering the severe attacks from terrorism, being patronized generally by the Middle East Asian Islamic countries. Post 9/11, America seems to have attained a sophisticated indictment to eradicate the root of terrorism from the world which had guided them to engage in war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Although, Propper et al. (2010) have pointed controversially that the approach of America although was galvanized by the apparent fact to remove terrorism and bring peace to these countries, however, with the underpinning current to conquer the oil world and to exercise the modern weaponry. They are also of this opinion that America, being the largest exporter of arms and ammunition among the several countries of the world; it is natural that their approach to the expansion of the war materials selling has become the main motto. Even the EU countries are also having the same underpinning strategy but their approach is not so much brutal as of USA. Moreover, to stand a step forward than the international politics than Russia and China, the approach of America seems to be more intrinsic in nature. Oliver (2008) has been critical in stating that America is the primary country in the world who expends maximum for retaining a full grown militia. At the same time, the international politics is also responsible of engaging the countries in manipulating the war in a large aspect. In the time of Alexander, though the war used to fought in view of conquering the kingdom, the definition of the war and the strategies although seems to have gone through the drastic changes but the causes that manipulates the war to be remains the same.
The pages of History have witnessed uncountable wars and revolutions from the distant past, cause of which is either for the acquisition of the territory or to captor over that the enemies. Badham (2007) is of this view that the revolutionary zeal in the war approach has not ever changed throughout the years. Mobility of the army and militia is the most convergent fact in respect of enabling the revolutionary statistics. It may be presented as a dictum that has added more mobility in the warzone. In contrast to the modern war which better be called as a war of nerves, having more passivity, the battles of the past used to be more congenial to the basic fidelity. The Neapolitan warfare and statistics that had once been mentioned most strategical seems not to be so much viable in this current world scenario. Standing in contrast with swords, arrows, shield, javelin, the usage of technically revolutionized tanks, missiles, grenades, automated guns in the modern battlefield has changed the definition of the war. At the same time, a serious change in the socio-political range of battle is also responsible of enhancing the causality. Political seriousness and the economical dilemma of the modern war have helped the strongest to win the battle. Berdal (2011) has, however, been very much cupid in stating that political and economical mobilization although seem to be the main reason of the cause of the war, terseness of the war has changed the game plan. Dependency on the army has increased a lot that improvised the drudgery of the war conspicuously. The violence in the war field is the result of the criminal complexity. Scanlan (2005) has compared war with massacre which cares for no any creed, colour or caste. In linking the comparison between the wars conceived by the ancient Pharaohs, Battle of Waterloo and the war of Iraq. Scanlan (2005) has pointed out that the outer cover of the war, although seems to have changed but still the motto remains the same and unchanged. The sorority of blood that used to spill through the warfront, still these days the war the wars are responsible of taking away of the lives brutally. Quavering of solidarity, democracy, human rights never stand true if the frontier smashes its identity. Reciprocity of the war has not changed and still in the veins of the war fields run the venomous bloods that are enough to smash a lot of lives away. Hoffman (2007) may be quoted by saying that the brutality and violence of the war has barely reduced and the proximity of the warfront is literally getting indomitable approach with appropriate indignity. According to him, although the act of battle is called to be a glorious approach that includes more patriotism, in no way, warring glorifies one’s life. Rather, it can better be mentioned as mass butchery. In the days of past, the warmongers used to glorifies the war, and still these days the modern politicians of different countries glorifies that the war. Even it is said that dying in the battlefront includes more intensity which literally had been missing in the earlier days and these days of war as well. Chiding of extravaganza of political craving makes the war more vicious (Bbc.co.uk, 2014).
Changes in the military statistics have become one of the most consolidated factors that enables in formidability of modern warfront. Harvey (2012) has commented that reinforcement and rejuvenation in the artillery and cavalry has entitled the battle more seriously than that of the days of past when the battle seemed to have been encountered under the legion of elementary growth. From the ages of Romans and Greeks the structure of the war seems to have been legitimate under the coating of soldiery supremacy. In the modern warfront the propagation, however, the presence of Machiavellian theory of war stands not in congenial factors rather in the propulsion of the economic sustenance (Molossia.org, 2014). The non-humanitarian approach of the warfront in a large aspect evolves to dissipate the insurgence which is very much congenial to intrude more liabilities. War, both practiced in the past and being practised in the present days is having the globalized effect which really helps in maintaining the sophistication. With the globalization, troubles have increased in a large aspect which helps in insisting more battles. Local and regional economic growth has also been a matter of immense concern that indulges in maintaining the flow of the world economy. More to be added in this aspect, it seems not to be so much conditional if the assistance of the different government stands to be more intrinsically.
Some of the critics like Biddle (2006), Oliver (2008) are of this view that social legitimacy and political clumsiness are the most intrinsic factors that engross more conditionality which is more powerful in attaining the warfare approach. The economic exchange in the war is in a large aspect seems to have been emblematized with the genuine military ethics. Relation of the political and the economical causes seem to have entwined together to remove the malignancy from the warfront. Disintegration and economic disintegration are the most common factors that enable more counter effect in the war. The modern warfare is stated to be a predator which not only envisages the social conditions, at the same time, the modern war reciprocates and embellishes the unprecedented war related problems. In the past days, the winners of the war conquer the defeated persons. History stands notary the winning side of the war enslaves the people of the defeated side. But in the modern warfare, several people become refugee. It is to be stated that in the current world scenario, refugee problem becomes one of the most vital reason of the birth of terrorism (Oliver, 2008). Especially in the Asian countries, people taken refuge in the other neighbouring countries is a blatant and gallant problem.
From the Freudian point of view approach of battle and the possible problems that emerge from the war has devastated the war politics. Though it is sure that the war takes place mostly for the economic purpose but it is sure that erosion of the economic structure has made the war more count a drastic scenario. In example, Strachan (2006) has mentioned war victim Palestine which is not only suffering from the political refugee conflict of Gaza and West Bank with Israel, at the same time, the economic erosion for the country has submerged the country into deep pathos. Apart from that the territory conflict of Kashmir between India and Pakistan is also an example of guerrilla warfare a burning international problem (The Economist, 2014). Both the countries are going through a huge crunch of political and economic topsy-turvy. In the recent days, the political conflict between the Russians and the Pro-Russian activists living in Ukraine are also facing a huge turmoil that infuses more mayhem. It is very much provident that the problems erupted in different corners of the world are in a large aspect casts its intricate diplomacy in clustering the social and economical propagation. Richards (2014) is of this view that no corner of the world is living in peace; the eased out bait of the modern war has changed that the characteristics of the war. The vicinity of the war has changed its ethic qualities and made it more scurrilous and vicious than that of the war of the previous days. The war of the distant past that was limited to a certain point of elevation, but in the current day, it seems to be getting escalated in gradually to a distinct level. It is forecasted that in the coming days the war will be more contiguous and more technologies will be implemented for doing the massacre. Away from the social conflict, approach of the war is more etymological and ego centric which is becoming the reason of the generation of more conflict. Echevarria (2007) is of this view that war is not at all the solution, rather it encourages more problems. Precisely, a national conflict can turns to the nature of war which may not have been so much bold in its approach and may be resolved amicably, become the reason of the war.
Finally, at the end, fascination of crossing the barbed wires is innate for a human being that leads to all the territorial conflicts. The approach was consolidated and practiced by the ancient people, the people of this current world and will also be practised in future. Dismantling the ruler and enthroning the new one is exercised from the distant time. The possible conditionality of the war field, although might have changed, but the effect and impact of war has not ever changed. Social and economic facts juxtaposes with each other that emblematized the necessary aspects. All through the essay, the essayist has mentioned the different aspects of modern and old time of war; possible distinctions and similarities have also been delineated. But it is certain that manifestation of the modern war is more vicarious in comparison with the war of the past which although seemed to be not so generic in its approaches. More the human being develops and craves for its own necessities, more the battles will be fought. Warfront may change, causes may differ, and consequences may vary but the vicinity of the war will remain intact all through the ages.
Berdal, M. (2011) The ‘new wars’ thesis revisited. In: Strachan, H and Scheipers, S The Changing Character of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Echevarria, A. (2007) Clausewitz and contemporary war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, F. (2007) Conflict in the 21st century; The rise of hybrid wars. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
Leitenberg, M. (2006) Deaths in war and conflicts in the 20th century. Cornell University Peace Studies Program Occasional Paper 29, 3rd edition.
Malesovic, S. (2010) The sociology of war and violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Badham, P. (2007). The Contemporary Relevance of the Just War Tradition in Christianity. Modern Believing, 48(2), pp.25-33.
Barnhart, M. (2006). Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940 -1945. (Modern War Studies.). AM HIST REV, 111(4), pp.1210-1211.
Biddle, S. (2006). Allies, Airpower, and Modern Warfare: The Afghan Model in Afghanistan and Iraq. International Security, 30(3), pp.161-176.
Credland, A. (2010). The Crossbow and the Bow in Modern Warfare. Arms & Armour, 7(1), pp.53-103.
Crothers, L. (2002). The Cultural Foundations of the Modern Militia Movement. New Political Science, 24(2), pp.221-234.
Harvey, A. (2012). Was the American Civil War the First Modern War?. History, 97(326), pp.272-280.
Oliver, K. (2008). Women: The Secret Weapon of Modern Warfare?. Hypatia, 23(2), pp.1-16.
Propper, B., Gifford, S., Calhoon, J. and McNeil, J. (2010). Wartime Thoracic Injury: Perspectives in Modern Warfare. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 89(4), pp.1032-1036.
Richards, J. (2014). Forced, coerced and voluntary recruitment into rebel and militia groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 52(02), pp.301-326.
Scanlan, G. (2005). The war on terror â€ future trends. Journal of Financial Crime, 12(2), pp.104-111.
Strachan, H. (2006). Training, Morale and Modern War. Journal of Contemporary History, 41(2), pp.211-227.
Bbc.co.uk, (2014). BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Vietcong and American tactics. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/vietnam/thewarinvietnamrev2.shtml [Accessed 2 Dec. 2014].
Molossia.org, (2014). Military Strategy and Tactics. [online] Available at: http://www.molossia.org/milacademy/strategy.html [Accessed 2 Dec. 2014].
The Economist, (2014). How to do better. [online] Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/5300181 [Accessed 2 Dec. 2014].