Simple Definition of War
The historical context of the term war has left an indelible impression on the minds of strategic leaders and the public. This imprint limits the ability to view war as anything other than an armed conflict between nations. This article seeks to open the opening through which strategic leaders view the concept of war by reviewing traditional definitions of war, analyzing the context in which wars are fought today, and then offering a new, more comprehensive definition of the term. This new definition encompasses the complex characteristics and nuances of wars fought in a global society, a broader interpretation of who makes war and how wars can be fought and won in the future. As this new definition points out, the constant is Clausewitz`s theory of the primary desire of a conflicting nation to “compel our enemy to do our will.” [12] What has changed is both the orientation and the extent of the means within the nation that can be used to carry out this action. While Clausewitz advocated in a limited way (and Kautilya more forcefully) the use of wartime diplomacy, this concept takes a more dramatic approach by including all means available to a state or non-state actor. It also departs from the traditional definition of war as “armed conflict” by suggesting that war is not an act of armed aggression, but the constant desire and actions of nation-states and non-state actors to impose their will. The rationale for this approach is explained by examining each of the key elements of the definition separately. Many would argue that the world changed with the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States; This was certainly the case for the majority of the American public. Terrorism was no longer something that took place at bus stops in Israel or in nightclubs in Berlin. The world of terrorism has become tangible to America. It has become ingrained in the minds of Americans that war can and will be fought between state and non-state actors.
This distinction is significant in the context of the traditional perception that war between nation-states (or city-states) was already fought during the Peloponnesian War). It also challenges the belief that war is governed by some form of decency or the rule of law, in which belligerents agree to engage by exploiting specific restrictions and exclusions; Whether the fighters have respected this agreement is another matter. From the battles of the Clausewitz era to the formal rule of law and the Geneva Conventions according to which nation-states function today, there has been some restraint. Terrorism and violent aggression perpetrated by non-State actors require strategic leaders to rethink these traditional characteristics of war and the definition of war itself. War is no longer limited to “conflicts between states or nations” or only to political communities, as the global war on terror has demonstrated. [4] As Joseph Nye illustrated, “in today`s global information age. More and more things are happening outside the control of even the most powerful states. [5] In 2006, “161 billion gigabytes of digital information were created and captured,” about “3 million times more information in a book ever written.” [6] This connectivity has driven globalization at the level of individuals and small groups; empowering non-state actors to think, act and position themselves globally; In some cases, without ever leaving their homes because of technology. [7] Therefore, in the face of this dramatic increase in globalization over the past two decades, the way we participate in this competition of will must expand. [1] “Merriam-Webster Dictionary,” Definition of War, accessed September 17, 2012, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war?show=0&t=1347910895. If anyone finds the redefinition of warfare interesting, and I personally believe that there is much behind it that is certainly worth considering, they could examine Unrestricted Warfare by Colonel Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the Chinese PLA (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999), which in many ways, can redefine war in the same way.
A version of their fonts is available on the Internet at www.cryptome.org/cuw.htm and in PDF format at www.terrorism.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf. Although it is available in commercial form and overpriced, it is available for free on the Internet. The reviews on Amazon are interesting. One definition currently incorporated into the Joint Australian Doctrine is that “war is an attempt to redistribute political power through the use of destructive force”. This definition could be embellished in several ways: to accommodate the negative objective (“prevent the redistribution of political power”) or to recognize that the use of force may be latent rather than real, but is nevertheless reasonably appropriate to the objective. In their favor, the definition is broad – it covers all actions that could superficially be characterized as war – supports the view of war as an extension of politics (strongly Clausewitzian) and distinguishes war from political or other competition by recognizing the role of destructive violence. As the proposed definition implies, there is no “end” to the specter of war. Therefore, the answer to the question “How does the war end?” would be.
This is not the case; However, this response would be unsatisfactory at best. A more succinct question would be: “How does an armed conflict end?” In this case, the resulting response is when respect for the national will has been sufficiently respected. The concept encourages nation-states and non-state actors to clearly define the targets of armed conflict and the actions/events that must take place to end armed hostility. It may be a little naïve, but it is possible to achieve tangible benefits by adopting this approach. Internally, this promotes the “single vote” theory by clarifying the objectives of all entities. Externally, it offers the opposition a clear path to peace, while allowing for change through negotiation, the course of fighting, escalation and de-escalation of hostilities. Lieutenant-Colonel Long rightly points out that we need a new definition of war. If the military no longer develops according to our nation`s actual military needs and budgetary problems, then the current administration will subtly do so for them. Doesn`t the U.S. military see the Obama administration reducing military personnel – especially ground troops – and focusing on deploying SF and SOG in small units to combat a counterterrorism effort commensurate with the number of real terrorists that exist in the world? This administration subtly but surely ends the era of large-scale piece/nation building efforts, having written off its value in the same way the Nixon administration did over time with our pacification and conventional efforts in Vietnam – while allowing the fighting to end until the end. Changes in the structure and mission of the forces never seem to be noticed in advance by the military.
The great Jason Fritz addressed the topics of this article here: tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/2012/12/our-definition-of-war-is-prett. “Personally, I would prefer that we don`t define war – but try to capture all the different ways in which war is defined by others. It might allow us to understand things better – to understand them. That, IMO, is the goal – not to make a definition that fits what we want. ” written by Grant Martin I think there is a potential here to confuse “war” and “competition”. What distinguishes “war” from the normal trade of nations? Why are we trying to limit the war to “nations” – does this mean that we cannot fight wars against the Taliban or al-Qaeda, or that civil war was not? I also have reservations about restricting the use of force, by definition, to a last resort. This is based on a number of assumptions about the nature of the strategy that are likely to be untenable.
