239048080

Word Count: 1776

Has war changed in the 21st century?

Introduction

Clausewitz defined war as ‘an act of violence intended to compel our

opponent to fulfill our will’ (Clausewitz, 1997) implying that war was for the state
interest. State interest, thus, became the justification for war or jus ad bellum (Kaldor,
2012); it is a policy instrument, meaning that war is the continuation of the state’s
politics. The state would resort to war with another state (and will be justified to do so
regardless of the moral value) if it is necessary to achieve their interest (Heywood,
2014). Once they determine that, state then exclusively involve the state-controlled
and registered armies with uniform and weapons, as Van Creveld (2009) argued, to
distinguish them from the civilians. By design, the distinction makes it easier to
calculate the costs of warfare, highly sparing the civilians. To develop this
advancement in the army, states involved in war usually on the same level of
economic development, hence, the war is symmetrical to the military capacity of
each party (Heywood, 2014).
The Clausewitzian perspective on war underscores its obsolescence,
particularly in relation to the Napoleonic era, and its lack of relevance to
contemporary conflicts and warfare. Contemporary economic and political realities
may diminish the effectiveness of war, and the reliability of assessing the costs and
benefits of war has become much less certain. This phenomenon is evident in the
wars of the twentieth century: World War I saw the fervent patriotism of young men
volunteering for their country, overshadowing the grim realities of war with an
illusionary sense of national pride. In contrast, World War II was characterized as a
battle against evil, a fight against the Nazis regardless of the staggering human toll it
exacted (Kaldor, 2012). Critics of Clausewitz often point to shifts in the nature of war
as evidence that the Clausewitzian model is no longer suitable for understanding
modern conflicts. This resulted in Kaldor and other scholars proposing the idea that a
specific form of conflict with new characteristics, labeled as "new war" (as opposed
to Clauswitzian “old war”), has become increasingly prevalent, especially in the post-
Cold War era.
239048080

This essay will illustrate the concept of "new war" by examining the common
features observed in wars during the twenty-first century.

Discussion

The post-Cold War era has been characterized by a decline in traditional

interstate conflicts and a rise in civil wars, with notable exceptions like the Iran-Iraq
war (1980-1988) and the Russian war with Georgia. The nature of warfare
underwent significant changes, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, driven by
national liberation movements in places such as Algeria, Vietnam, and Palestine.
This period saw the emergence of a new style of warfare, potentially even redefining
the concept of war itself (Gilbert, 2003). In the 1990s, following the dissolution of the
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, 'new' wars unfolded in Bosnia, the Caucasus
(especially Chechnya), as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan, often perceived as part of
the broader 'war on terror.'
As noted earlier in the Introduction, traditional or "old wars" exhibit common
features. Firstly, these wars were primarily interstate conflicts, aligning with the
notion that "war is the continuation of politics." Secondly, the involved forces were
identifiable by distinct combatants with clear uniforms and hierarchical structures.
Thirdly, the wars were symmetrical, implying that the participating parties were
economically comparable. Lastly, the costs of war were quantifiable and largely
spared civilians. Nevertheless, in the twenty-first century, a noticeable change in the
nature of war has become increasingly apparent, displaying characteristics that are
nearly the "opposite" of those seen in old wars.
1. The emergence popularity of non-state actors
In her book New and Old Wars, Kaldor (2012) contended that warfare
involves two primary entities: states and non-state actors. Unlike the early twentieth
century, where wars, such as World War I and World War II, were predominantly
fought among states, the dynamics have shifted in the twenty-first century. There is a
noticeable increase in conflicts involving state and non-state actors, as well as
conflicts solely between non-state actors. It is crucial to acknowledge, however, that
this does not negate the occurrence of interstate wars, as seen in the 2021 Russia
and Ukraine conflict. The central argument revolves around the growing prominence
of non-state actors in contemporary warfare.
239048080

The initial non-state actor of significance for examination is the rebel groups or
insurgent belligerents. In the aftermath of colonialism in the post-colonial era, a
legacy of ethnic or tribal conflicts, economic underdevelopment, and fragile state
authority persisted, leading to the rise of "quasi states" or "failed states" (Heywood,
2014). These states struggled to uphold domestic order and personal security,
creating an ideal environment for rebel groups to flourish due to the government's
lack of control over its own territory. In Afghanistan, the predominant insurgent
faction consists of the Taliban. Initially concentrated in the South and Southeast
regions, their influence is progressively expanding across the Northern areas. Not
only Taliban, jihadists globally have significantly broadened the scope of operations
and the chances for training and experience in Afghanistan (Kaldor, 2012),
capitalizing on the government's limited control over its territory, particularly following
the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 as the aftermath of 9/11. Another category
of non-state actors includes peacekeeping forces operating under the authority of the
UN Security Council or engaging in humanitarian intervention, as exemplified in
Kosovo (NATO, 2023), Sierra Leone (UNSC RES, 1999a), and East Timor (UNSC
RES, 1999b). The concept of humanitarian intervention is particularly intriguing,
representing a growing rationale for modern warfare that deviates from the
conventional perspective of war in the Clausewitzian era (Heywood, 2014).
2. Identity politics

The term 'identity politics' refers to movements that organize around ethnic,
racial, or religious identity with the aim of asserting control over state power (Kaldor
and Kumar, 1993). Identity politics frequently takes on a more radical form and
transforms into fundamentalism, characterized by a strict adherence to doctrine. For
instance, certain factions of militant Islam aspire to establish pure Islamic states by
converting non-Muslims rather than excluding them (Kaldor and Vashee, 1997). As
Kaldor (2012) proposed, the emergence of new identity politics is rooted in two
interconnected sources related to globalization. It responds to the perceived
powerlessness and diminishing legitimacy of established political classes, fostering
politics from higher authorities that exploit and strengthen prevailing biases, as in the
case of Yugoslavia. Concurrently, it stems from the insecurity linked to globalization,
sanctioned by novel and opaque economic activities within marginalized societal
segments. According to (Verdery, 1993; Hayden, 1992) Nationality, especially in the
239048080

former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, served as the primary legitimate framework for
pursuing political, economic, and cultural interests. The significance lay in the
constitutional acknowledgment and protection of national differences in these
regions.

3. Wars are asymmetrical

Contemporary conflicts frequently exhibit an asymmetrical nature, involving

advanced industrial and militarily sophisticated states facing adversaries perceived
as 'third-rate.' This pattern is evident in U.S.-led wars in Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, and
Afghanistan, as well as in the Russian conflict with Chechnya. Asymmetrical wars
lack assured and inevitable outcomes. In such scenarios, guerrilla warfare has
proven effective in overcoming better-resourced enemies with superior firepower.
This approach is often complemented by the use of terrorist tactics, turning the
conflict into a form of popular resistance or insurgency. The primary objective in
asymmetrical warfare is not necessarily the military defeat of the enemy, given its
challenges, but rather to demoralize the adversary and undermine its political will
(Heywood, 2014), as observed in conflicts such as Vietnam, Israel, Iraq, and
Afghanistan.

4. Blurred distinction between combatants and civilians

Since the Thirty Years' War (1618 - 1648), a discernible divide has existed
between combatants and civilians, a boundary that was relatively easy to uphold
when warfare primarily unfolded on the battlefield and involved strictly military
personnel. However, the landscape of modern wars has altered this dynamic,
significantly impacting civilian populations. Modern conflicts often comprise a series
of small-scale engagements rather than conventional major battles, evolving into
what is termed 'war amongst the people' (Smith 2006). The blurring of distinctions
has arisen as civilian populations increasingly become targets of military action,
aiming to induce economic and social upheaval while undermining the enemy's
resolve for war. Consequently, this often leads to refugee crises (Kaldor, 2012),
which is further supported by the UNHCR’s report on the growth of refugee crisis and
numbers of people involved (2022). Heywood (2014) argued that the changing
nature of armies and security forces, characterized by irregular armies and the use
239048080

of mercenaries (as seen in the case of the USA employing private mercenaries like
Blackwater in Iraq), further contributes to the dissolution of the traditional line
between combatants and civilians.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the nature of war has undergone significant transformations in

the 21st century, challenging the traditional Clausewitzian model. The evolution is
marked by the rise of non-state actors, including insurgent groups, jihadists, and
peacekeeping forces, reshaping the dynamics of conflicts. Identity politics, rooted in
globalization, has become a powerful force, emphasizing ethnic, racial, or religious
identity in the pursuit of state power. Asymmetrical warfare, often involving
technologically advanced states against seemingly less powerful adversaries, has
become prevalent, with guerrilla tactics and terrorist strategies shifting the focus from
military defeat to demoralizing the enemy and undermining political will. The
distinction between combatants and civilians has blurred, causing significant impacts
on civilian populations, evident in refugee crises. The changing nature of armies,
including irregular forces and the use of mercenaries, further contributes to the
dissolution of traditional boundaries between combatants and non-combatants.
These shifts reflect a departure from the Clausewitzian paradigm, highlighting the
complexity and multifaceted nature of contemporary conflicts in the twenty-first
century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clausewitz, C. (1997), On War, Ware: Wordsworth Editions.

Gilbert, P. (2003) New Terror, New Wars. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hayden, R. (1992), ‘Constitutional nationalism in the formerly Yugoslav republics’,

Slavic Review, 51/4.

Heywood, A. (2014), Global Politics, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kaldor, M. (2012), New and Old War, Cambridge: Polity Press.

239048080

Kaldor, M., Kumar, M. (1993) ‘New forms of conflict’, Conflicts in Europe: Towards a
New Political Approach, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Publication Series 7, Prague.

Kaldor, M., Vashee, B. (1997), ‘Conflicts involving Islam’, Restructuring the Global
Military Sector, Vol. 1: New Wars, London: Cassell/Pinter.

NATO, 2023, NATO’s role in Kosovo,

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48818 (Accessed 6 January, 2024).

Smith, R. (2006) The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World.
Harmondsworth: Penguin

UNHCR, 2022, Global Trends Report: Forced Displacement in 2022,

https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2022 (Accessed, 1 January 2024).

UNSC RES, 1999a, S/RES/1270 (1999)

UNSC RES, 1999b, S/RES/1272 (1999)

Van Creveld, M. (2009) Transformation of War. Collier Macmillan Canada.

Verdery, K. (1993) ‘Nationalism and national sentiment in post-socialist Rumania’,

Slavic Review, 52/2.