FREE ESSAY ON EVALUATION OF CLASSICAL SET PIECE WARS

EVALUATION OF CLASSICAL SET PIECE WARS

evaluation of classical set piece wars
Books related to evaluation of classical set piece wars
Classical set-piece wars between states seem to be a thing of the past, replaced by
Intra-wars, insurgency and counter-insurgency wars of one kind or another. These
developments give us reason to re-think all our theories of war and peace. We need new
theories about violence in world politics. Discuss this claim. 
War has been a major focal point in international relations for the past 300 years. The
moral, legal, humans and strategic nature of war has, and will continue to command
attention of all followers of world affairs. War is a changing phenomena, taking on new
characteristics as its surroundings change, diplomatic practitioners and academic experts
regarded as one that it is fought between states but now this premise is being
challenged. The theories developed by predominately by the realist paradigm are becoming
anachronistic in its conception of war, a changing world means the realist notion of war
is not relevant to emerging situations in the peripheral nations. 
War as an instrument of state policy is a relatively new phenomena, early wars were often
though for more medieval objectives, for example the spread of Christendom. War in Europe
only became largely politically based after the 17th century, and the main purpose of the
exercise of military power shifted to hold the advancement and protection of the state as
its primary concern. Despite its negativity war exists because of its vital role in
politics, the two are inter-linked, war is a continuation of politics by other means. War
is a vehicle of conflict resolution, generally undertaken when diplomatic measures have
been exhausted, war causes an outcome, therefore a rational if not morally defensible
means to a known end. 
History since the thirty years war (1648) has seen a process of state building by the
European powers. Centralising monarchies by the 18th century has slowly gained a monopoly
of force within there own territories and began to establish themselves as sovereign
states. The concept of sovereignty was underpinned by the supreme authority of dynastic
rule, that provided the residing monarch unshakeable authority. War altered with the
advent of napoleon and his imperialistic ideals. War turned from a limited exercise to a
waged campaign of annihilation. Napoleons political ambitions preceded those of the
previous century in its intensity, and the cost in life and money spurred an attempt to
curb wars effects. The Congress of Vienna is the first diplomatic attempt to limit the
effects and causes of war between states, still the great powers continued their nation
building until the first world war. The great war shattered a period of relative peace,
its terrible consequences causing a shift in public opinion against war-fare. Increasing
restraints were imposed upon the use of war as a means of furthering political ambition,
the Kellogg Braind pact of 1928 compelled its signatories to exhaust diplomatic proceduer
before violence. Those who violated the pact were guilty of 'crimes against humanity'.
This demonstrates the appeal of the 'strong state' to developing nations , and that war
between states continued despite attempts to curb it. This culminated eventually in the
'Cold war', the ultimate State versus state stand off, the vast military resources and
the human consequence nuclear weapons made the nations impotent by virtue of the
destructive capability they possessed. This history generally supports the Clausewitzen
definition of war, that it remains a means of serving the state. 
In the second half of this century the use of force remains a distinct possibility in the
interactions of nations. State security remains a priority on governmental agendas, and
even with the emergence of the UN no member relies comprehensively on its forces. 
The great powers of the previous century dominated the development of international
theory, the balance of power theory provided the realist solution to war by mutual
deterrence. These great powers had secure boundaries, a highly developed infrastructure
both social and political yet it was on the virtue of their military resources that they
were perceived as 'Great'. The theory of power runs synonymous with the phenonoma of war.
In the new world order conflict between states Is rare, most war now occurs in the middle
east, south east Asia and central America. Since 1945 the great powers have generally had
to respond to wars in what modern commentaries term a 'weak state'. 
the anarchy within states rather than between states is the fundamental condition that
explains the prevalence of war since 1945. 
A strong state is founded on the inter-relation between its physical attributes i.e. its
territory, population, resources and its underpinning cultural base of affections and
ideology. The paramount criteria that causes the gulf between assorting and a weak state
is legitimacy, having legitimacy is quite simply the division between the states that
succeed and fail. For legitimacy to exist a state must satisfy the following
characteristics; the physical basis including, effective sovereignty, and a international
consensus on territory. Supported by an implicit social contract and a consensus on the
concept of the state. It is exactly the failure to meet these dimensions that lead to the
perils of the weak state, there are several causal factors to why periphery nations have
difficulty achieving legitimacy. It stems from the nations development, many of which
emerged from colonialism. The colonial legacy has very negative consequences for the
developing nation, principally because the social and political institutions left to the
new nation hinders it rather than helps. The political institutions were founded on a
western premise, political participation, accountability and constitutionalism are not
always the suitable basis for development, it is as if the new nation has to set itself
against a western template. The bureaucratic structure was inherently elitist, decisions
made in the capital were often resented in the country. Colonial authorities sustained
cultural elite's to rule over their inferiors, this was exactly the case in Rwanda. 
In a number of instances ..the allocation by the state of differential rights of access
was based on a normative scale according to which groups were seen as superior to others,
and at times these normative evaluations were projected into the collective images which
Africans formed of themselves. 
Colonialism also left organised military and police forces, often used as instruments of
coercion. In a deteriorating state they become a law unto themselves, selling themselves
as mercenaries to wealthy independents. For the few states that do develop most descend
into civil war, rebellion, wars of succession and political corruption, between 1958 and
1985, there has been 65 forcible changes of government in Africa alone. It would be
inaccurate to presume that Europe is spared these problems but the Intra-war in
ex-Yugoslavia shattered this illusion. A feature of the war in Yugoslavia was ethnicity,
ethnic hostilities hidden under the silencing hand of communism were emerging. Experts on
ethnicity such as Ted Gurr suggests that ethnic hatreds and affinities can be products of
the weak state, they are not primordial but arise in particular political, social and
economic conditions. The state can often be seen as exploiting ethnic grievances for
their own political ends. 
Emerging peripheral nations have been unable to cope with the pressure of rapid economic
modernisation and the legacy of colonialism, the tensions that arise cause stress on the
basic foundations of the developing nation leading to a decent into revolutionary
violence. This alternative strategy of war fare is becoming increasingly prolific. the
last major state confrontation could be viewed as the cold war and the nuclear stalemate
that ensued, since the advent of nuclear weapons inter-state war has become obsolete
because of the threat of total annihilation that is posed. The new form of war-fare is
Intra-state war and insurgency.  in the last eight years alone there have been no less
that 164 internationally significant out breaks of revolutionary violence . 
The terms insurgency and revolutionary war-fare are largely inter-changeable, they refer
to a particular variety of revolutionary activity that involves a protracted struggle
using irregular military tactics. Tactics involve psychological and political operations
in addition to conventional military strategies. The goal is generally to form a new
system or political structure from within the state. Insurgency is markedly different to
conventional war, T.E Elliot defines it as an influence, an idea, a thing intangible,
without front or back, drifting like a gas. Conventional war focuses its attention on
military considerations were insurgency is a multifaceted activity in which conflict
takes on many different dimensions. Revolutionary warfare extends the battle front, the
war is fought in a political, cultural, socio-economic and ideology. Military operations
have an intimate relationship with politics, this view espoused by those such as Mao
claims that all conflict must have a distinct political direction to succeed. Like the
NLF in Vietnam and MIN YUEN organisation in Malaya, insurgents see the population as key
to the struggle the battle becomes on for hearts and minds. 
the defeat of the military enemy, the overthrow of the government are secondary tasks,
the primary effort of revolutionary warfare is to mobilise the population, without which
no government can stand for a day. (Mao). 
Revolutionary warfare can been seen to have had varying rates of success. China,
indo-china, Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua were all notable victories whilst failures resided
In Greece, Kenya, Peru and Bolivia. The existence of internal instability and grievances
coupled with favourable terrain and the open availability of arms from outside, means
that revolutionary warfare will continue as a feature of Intra-state war-fare. It is a
potent instrument that can force change. Insurgency is clearly a more tactically sound
method of conducting warfare, for ideological reasons it is alleged that the USA used the
CIA to organise and conduct military insurgencies into target states there is an
allegation that the USA secretly committed US ground forces in Cuba, naturally the USA
deny this. For the past 200 years theories have emerged on warfare; game theory,
deterrence , balance of power theory, all product of the realist paradigm. 'Great Powers
' feature prominently from the balance of power era to the BI-polar cold war, a theme
through out is that lesser powers were relegated to objects of the stronger states
rivalry , subordinating them as less than self directed actors. Modern theory should
concentrate on the major sources of war that will continue to derive less from the
character of relations between states and than what goes on within them. The focus of
international politics must shift from the activities of the great powers to a concern
with what we have traditionally considered peripheral actors, such as the developing
nuclear confrontational stance of India and Pakistan. The nature of war has changed,
technology now presents the west a mobile platform from which to militarily threaten
those collide with our ideals. Air raids continue presently over Kosovo, indicating how
Nato can wield military muscle without the risk of committing troops and bogging down in
a land war, conflict without much risk. As for the prospects for peace, it is now the
UN's duty to sustain and resuscitate weak states to best serve its peace keeping ideals,
Rwanda was a catastrophe that must not be repeated, it must get better. 
Bibliography 
Just and unjust wars, Walzer 1997. 
Contemporary strategy, Baylis, Booth, Williams. 1997. 
Internet sources CNN Rwanda Article, 
World politics kegley and Wittkopf 
International war Melvin Small, J David Singer 1996 
Classical set-piece wars between states seem to be a thing of the past, replaced by
Intra-wars, insurgency and counter-insurgency wars of one kind or another. These
developments give us reason to re-think all our theories of war and peace. We need new
theories about violence in world politics. Discuss this claim. 
War has been a major focal point in international relations for the past 300 years. The
moral, legal, humans and strategic nature of war has, and will continue to command
attention of all followers of world affairs. War is a changing phenomena, taking on new
characteristics as its surroundings change, diplomatic practitioners and academic experts
regarded as one that it is fought between states but now this premise is being
challenged. The theories developed by predominately by the realist paradigm are becoming
anachronistic in its conception of war, a changing world means the realist notion of war
is not relevant to emerging situations in the peripheral nations. 
War as an instrument of state policy is a relatively new phenomena, early wars were often
though for more medieval objectives, for example the spread of Christendom. War in Europe
only became largely politically based after the 17th century, and the main purpose of the
exercise of military power shifted to hold the advancement and protection of the state as
its primary concern. Despite its negativity war exists because of its vital role in
politics, the two are inter-linked, war is a continuation of politics by other means. War
is a vehicle of conflict resolution, generally undertaken when diplomatic measures have
been exhausted, war causes an outcome, therefore a rational if not morally defensible
means to a known end. 
History since the thirty years war (1648) has seen a process of state building by the
European powers. Centralising monarchies by the 18th century has slowly gained a monopoly
of force within there own territories and began to establish themselves as sovereign
states. The concept of sovereignty was underpinned by the supreme authority of dynastic
rule, that provided the residing monarch unshakeable authority. War altered with the
advent of napoleon and his imperialistic ideals. War turned from a limited exercise to a
waged campaign of annihilation. Napoleons political ambitions preceded those of the
previous century in its intensity, and the cost in life and money spurred an attempt to
curb wars effects. The Congress of Vienna is the first diplomatic attempt to limit the
effects and causes of war between states, still the great powers continued their nation
building until the first world war. The great war shattered a period of relative peace,
its terrible consequences causing a shift in public opinion against war-fare. Increasing
restraints were imposed upon the use of war as a means of furthering political ambition,
the Kellogg Braind pact of 1928 compelled its signatories to exhaust diplomatic proceduer
before violence. Those who violated the pact were guilty of 'crimes against humanity'.
This demonstrates the appeal of the 'strong state' to developing nations , and that war
between states continued despite attempts to curb it. This culminated eventually in the
'Cold war', the ultimate State versus state stand off, the vast military resources and
the human consequence nuclear weapons made the nations impotent by virtue of the
destructive capability they possessed. This history generally supports the Clausewitzen
definition of war, that it remains a means of serving the state. 
In the second half of this century the use of force remains a distinct possibility in the
interactions of nations. State security remains a priority on governmental agendas, and
even with the emergence of the UN no member relies comprehensively on its forces. 
The great powers of the previous century dominated the development of international
theory, the balance of power theory provided the realist solution to war by mutual
deterrence. These great powers had secure boundaries, a highly developed infrastructure
both social and political yet it was on the virtue of their military resources that they
were perceived as 'Great'. The theory of power runs synonymous with the phenonoma of war.
In the new world order conflict between states Is rare, most war now occurs in the middle
east, south east Asia and central America. Since 1945 the great powers have generally had
to respond to wars in what modern commentaries term a 'weak state'. 
the anarchy within states rather than between states is the fundamental condition that
explains the prevalence of war since 1945. 
A strong state is founded on the inter-relation between its physical attributes i.e. its
territory, population, resources and its underpinning cultural base of affections and
ideology. The paramount criteria that causes the gulf between assorting and a weak state
is legitimacy, having legitimacy is quite simply the division between the states that
succeed and fail. For legitimacy to exist a state must satisfy the following
characteristics; the physical basis including, effective sovereignty, and a international
consensus on territory. Supported by an implicit social contract and a consensus on the
concept of the state. It is exactly the failure to meet these dimensions that lead to the
perils of the weak state, there are several causal factors to why periphery nations have
difficulty achieving legitimacy. It stems from the nations development, many of which
emerged from colonialism. The colonial legacy has very negative consequences for the
developing nation, principally because the social and political institutions left to the
new nation hinders it rather than helps. The political institutions were founded on a
western premise, political participation, accountability and constitutionalism are not
always the suitable basis for development, it is as if the new nation has to set itself
against a western template. The bureaucratic structure was inherently elitist, decisions
made in the capital were often resented in the country. Colonial authorities sustained
cultural elite's to rule over their inferiors, this was exactly the case in Rwanda. 
In a number of instances ..the allocation by the state of differential rights of access
was based on a normative scale according to which groups were seen as superior to others,
and at times these normative evaluations were projected into the collective images which
Africans formed of themselves. 
Colonialism also left organised military and police forces, often used as instruments of
coercion. In a deteriorating state they become a law unto themselves, selling themselves
as mercenaries to wealthy independents. For the few states that do develop most descend
into civil war, rebellion, wars of succession and political corruption, between 1958 and
1985, there has been 65 forcible changes of government in Africa alone. It would be
inaccurate to presume that Europe is spared these problems but the Intra-war in
ex-Yugoslavia shattered this illusion. A feature of the war in Yugoslavia was ethnicity,
ethnic hostilities hidden under the silencing hand of communism were emerging. Experts on
ethnicity such as Ted Gurr suggests that ethnic hatreds and affinities can be products of
the weak state, they are not primordial but arise in particular political, social and
economic conditions. The state can often be seen as exploiting ethnic grievances for
their own political ends. 
Emerging peripheral nations have been unable to cope with the pressure of rapid economic
modernisation and the legacy of colonialism, the tensions that arise cause stress on the
basic foundations of the developing nation leading to a decent into revolutionary
violence. This alternative strategy of war fare is becoming increasingly prolific. the
last major state confrontation could be viewed as the cold war and the nuclear stalemate
that ensued, since the advent of nuclear weapons inter-state war has become obsolete
because of the threat of total annihilation that is posed. The new form of war-fare is
Intra-state war and insurgency.  in the last eight years alone there have been no less
that 164 internationally significant out breaks of revolutionary violence . 
The terms insurgency and revolutionary war-fare are largely inter-changeable, they refer
to a particular variety of revolutionary activity that involves a protracted struggle
using irregular military tactics. Tactics involve psychological and political operations
in addition to conventional military strategies. The goal is generally to form a new
system or political structure from within the state. Insurgency is markedly different to
conventional war, T.E Elliot defines it as an influence, an idea, a thing intangible,
without front or back, drifting like a gas. Conventional war focuses its attention on
military considerations were insurgency is a multifaceted activity in which conflict
takes on many different dimensions. Revolutionary warfare extends the battle front, the
war is fought in a political, cultural, socio-economic and ideology. Military operations
have an intimate relationship with politics, this view espoused by those such as Mao
claims that all conflict must have a distinct political direction to succeed. Like the
NLF in Vietnam and MIN YUEN organisation in Malaya, insurgents see the population as key
to the struggle the battle becomes on for hearts and minds. 
the defeat of the military enemy, the overthrow of the government are secondary tasks,
the primary effort of revolutionary warfare is to mobilise the population, without which
no government can stand for a day. (Mao). 
Revolutionary warfare can been seen to have had varying rates of success. China,
indo-china, Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua were all notable victories whilst failures resided
In Greece, Kenya, Peru and Bolivia. The existence of internal instability and grievances
coupled with favourable terrain and the open availability of arms from outside, means
that revolutionary warfare will continue as a feature of Intra-state war-fare. It is a
potent instrument that can force change. Insurgency is clearly a more tactically sound
method of conducting warfare, for ideological reasons it is alleged that the USA used the
CIA to organise and conduct military insurgencies into target states there is an
allegation that the USA secretly committed US ground forces in Cuba, naturally the USA
deny this. For the past 200 years theories have emerged on warfare; game theory,
deterrence , balance of power theory, all product of the realist paradigm. 'Great Powers
' feature prominently from the balance of power era to the BI-polar cold war, a theme
through out is that lesser powers were relegated to objects of the stronger states
rivalry , subordinating them as less than self directed actors. Modern theory should
concentrate on the major sources of war that will continue to derive less from the
character of relations between states and than what goes on within them. The focus of
international politics must shift from the activities of the great powers to a concern
with what we have traditionally considered peripheral actors, such as the developing
nuclear confrontational stance of India and Pakistan. The nature of war has changed,
technology now presents the west a mobile platform from which to militarily threaten
those collide with our ideals. Air raids continue presently over Kosovo, indicating how
Nato can wield military muscle without the risk of committing troops and bogging down in
a land war, conflict without much risk. As for the prospects for peace, it is now the
UN's duty to sustain and resuscitate weak states to best serve its peace keeping ideals,
Rwanda was a catastrophe that must not be repeated, it must get better. 
Bibliography 
Just and unjust wars, Walzer 1997. 
Contemporary strategy, Baylis, Booth, Williams. 1997. 
Internet sources CNN Rwanda Article, 
World politics kegley and Wittkopf 
International war Melvin Small, J David Singer 1996 
Books related to evaluation of classical set piece wars
*15* 
Bibliography
Just and unjust wars, Walzer 1997. 
Contemporary strategy, Baylis, Booth, Williams. 1997. 
Internet sources CNN Rwanda Article, 
World politics kegley and Wittkopf 
International war Melvin Small, J David Singer 1996