|
|
|
Subject:
The Continuities and Discontinuities of Warfare
Jonzey
4/26/2007 11:38:05 AM
|
The Continuities and Discontinuities of Warfare: A Comparative Analysis
By Terrance Jones
To be meaningful, deterrence must take place in a specific context: who deters whom, from what actions, by what threats and counteractions, in what situations, in the face of what counterthreats and counter-counteractions?
Threats
Theoretically, in the current age of proliferation there is a wide assortment of threat variables which need to be addressed in a strategic sense if we wish to decisively deter aggression in the near future.
Example
Terror based Nation State Ascension Strategy
This strategy is based on the premise that terrorist groups can use their political wings to galvanize support from the civilian population, therefore, providing themselves with an opportunity to take the reins of their nation. While this approach has the look of a non violent approach, it could not occur without the support of the insurgency wing of a particular terrorist group. Hamas and Hezbollah are two examples of terrorist groups who have used their influence to implement a nation state ascension strategy that allows them the use of conventional and asymmetrical means of action regarding their regional and global interests. These interests include acquiring nuclear weapons technology, as that is the only way that fundamentalist and secular Islamic nations can keep pace with Pakistan who has set the precedent of becoming the first Islamic nation to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran, who has significantly funded and supported Hezbollah over the years is working at a feverish pace to become the second Islamic nation to develop a nuclear weapons capability so that they can potentially sway the balance of power in their favor in the Middle East. This is possible and highly probable should Iran realize success in their nuclear weapons program now that Pakistan is assisting America in the war on terror. An Iran with nuclear weapons would place them in a position of power in regards to strategic influence in the Middle East and abroad.
Proxy War Provocation Strategy
Today?s proliferative environment is heavily influenced by proxy war provocations, as this is the age of proliferation. Regional powers have become more powerful because of this fact and they will become more active in various theatres of action due to the strategic support they receive from their proxy war benefactors. Iran, who has forged strong strategic alliances with both China and Russia, is a clear example of a proxy war subordinate who has become more powerful in the current age of proliferation due to their ties to nations with globally viable nuclear arsenals.
Flashpoint Intervention Initiatives
Nations like Russia and China have opted to forego overt aggression in its foreign policy initiatives in favor of implementing an expansionist agenda that will only be disrupted by flashpoint intervention factors. In this scenario, proxy war subordinates are used to stretch the defenses of China and Russia?s enemies while also forcing these enemies into costly preparatory warfare postures. North Korea is a prime example of this strategy, as China publicly denounces North Korea?s aggressive nuclear weapons display in regards to testing, it is a well known fact that China will not sit idly by and watch America and or coalition forces attack North Korea. Therefore, flashpoint intervention initiatives have provided nations like North Korea with a strategic buffer zone in which they can implement proxy war provocations as a proxy war subordinate with the reassurance that flashpoint intervention factors will ensure that their allies will support them and or deter a military exchange from occurring. This particular example has worked for over five decades with no end in sight. China and Russia?s recent alliances with terrorist nations like Iran has only increased the difficulty of deterring nations like Iran, North Korea and their proxy war benefactors.
Deterrence in Theory
Theoretically, deterrence initiatives have been developed with a penchant for avoiding armed conflict. While this should always be attempted, we must also remain cognizant of the fact that there are certain eras and scenarios where armed conflict can not be avoided. The current age of proliferation that operates in continuity with the current spread of global terrorism is one such era where conflict must be decisively pursued in order to preserve the peace abroad. Such an initiative would clearly be a paradigm shift that is sorely needed in today?s volatile global climate.
Example
It has been verified that Iran is capable of developing a nuclear weapons capability within a 1 to 3 year timeframe. Iran continues to exhibit irresponsible inclinations in regards to international relations with other nations:
Iran refuses to acknowledge Israel?s right to exist.
Iran continues to train and equip insurgents operating in Iraq.
Iran attempts to form a Shia triumvirate with Iraq and Syria
Deterrence through Counterthreats/Counteractions
America takes the lead in bring Iran?s case before the United Nations. To avoid the mistakes that were made previously before the current war in Iraq, America should encourage several leading nations to make the case for preemptive action against Iran. Upon achieving this, Iran should be given a short window in which to dismantle their nuclear weapons program. During this time, Iran should be given a chance to choose a peaceful and diplomatic end to this scenario, however, this end must include the dismantling of their nuclear weapons program. A show of force must be implemented in regards to moving military contingents into the region surrounding Iran. This show of force will be necessary, as Iran has never been seriously challenged in accordance with their rogue actions.
The emphasis on deterrence in the nuclear age has led to a decline in the study and formulation of appropriate strategies and tactics for using the special qualities of nuclear weapons in guaranteeing the security of the U.S. When the atom bomb was first invented, many people felt that military strategy and tactics had virtually become obsolete since the inevitable result of a nuclear war would be world destruction, and that destruction would occur no matter what tactics were used.
Example
?When the atom bomb was first invented, many people felt that military strategy and tactics had virtually become obsolete since the inevitable result of a nuclear war would be world destruction, and that destruction would occur no matter what tactics were used. ?
Clearly, there is no guarantee that a nuclear strike will lead to total destruction, as we have examples to the contrary that suggest strategic and tactical use of conventional weapons may very well prove to be a precursor to how nations will react to a nuclear strike. Spain left NATO upon being attacked (by bombings) by Al Qaeda, therefore, proving that strategic and tactical operations govern all facets of warfare. A nuclear strike can either spark flashpoint intervention factors or facilitate a swift concession depending on the strategic and tactical resolve of a given nation state. A nuclear strike against a NATO country gives that country the immediate support of 25 nations if the attacked country is willing to engage an aggressor nation. However, the nation that has been attacked will have to analyze the situation and determine whether or not it can afford to retaliate or if it must concede because of social and or economic factors that may reduce its standing within its region and around the world. These variables are very much a part of that nation?s strategy and tactics. Therefore, strategy and tactics are not obsolete when speaking of nuclear engagements between opposing nations and because of this fact, total destruction is not likely, as it would take more risks than many nations are willing to take in regards to casualties and the aforementioned social and economic variables. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
