UNIT-1

Sources and Trends of War

INTRODUCTION

The origin of the word ‘conflict’ can be traced back to the Latin word
configure, which
means to strike together. Originally, it had a physical rather moral
connotation. The most
widely used meaning, therefore, has been a fight—verbal or physical
—between two or
more persons or groups. However, in course of time, the meaning and
scope of the term
conflict has evolved to incorporate many other dimensions, reflecting
sociological,
psychological, economic, political aspects of human life. Therefore,
in Social Sciences and
International Relations literature, ‘conflict’, has been treated as a very
complex concept
with divergent definitions and perspectives.
The meaning and nature of conflict is context centric. The history of
International
Relations suggests that the character and intensity of conflict is
determined by political,
social, economic and strategic equilibrium both at the level of
international system and
within a state. Conflicts that take place in contemporary international
system are different from wars that took place in early 20th century
primarily in Europe. Therefore, the meaning and pattern of conflict
keeps changing over a period of time.

EVOLUTION
In international relations literature, the realist paradigm, for long,
dominated our understanding on conflict and security. The realist
view point on international conflicts is based on two major
assumptions. First, states are prime actors in international system and
international conflicts are conditioned by state’s quest for security
against external threats. Secondly, these threats are primarily military
in nature and require the building up of military
capability because conflicts are integral part of international system.
According to this school of thought, sources of conflict are in the
international system and inter-state relationship. This understanding
grew out of the realist demarcation between domestic order and
international anarchy where war is an ever present possibility. Given
the
absence of an international authority to ensure compliance, states rely
on their own
capabilities to ensure security. The self-help system results in what
realists call a ‘security dilemma’ which results in arms race that
threaten overall security of the system (Kenneth
Waltz, 1979, pp. 102-04). This realist worldview was heavily
influenced by the existence
of nuclear weapons, great power rivalry and the balance of power.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the inter-state armed conflict was,
for long, viewed as
a dominant form of international conflict. The international law
regulating international
armed conflicts also made clear distinction between ‘international’
and ‘non-international’
conflicts. International armed conflicts, commonly referred to as
‘war’ was understood as
an armed conflict between two states and ‘non-international’
conflicts, i.e., civil war, as
an armed conflict between a state and an internally located insurgent
movement that had
taken up arms. Internal armed conflicts or civil wars were seen as
domestic concerns,
outside the purview of international legal regimes because states were
unwilling to allow
international regulations in what they considered internal political
issues.
This dichotomy between international and non-international armed
conflicts in international
humanitarian law has been widely criticized. The intensity and
brutality of the Spanish Civil
War and the Second World War demonstrated to states that they
needed to update the
laws of war to include non-international armed conflicts also.
DEFINITION
Scholars working on international conflicts and wars were conscious
of the fact that in
changing international environment, any attempt to confine meaning
of international conflicts
to armed conflicts between two states or group of states would not
capture the essence
of the concept both in terms of evolving nature of conflict or its
impact on regional or
international security architecture.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SIPRI), a “major
armed conflict” is defined as the use of armed force between the
military forces of
two or more governments and at least one organised armed group,
resulting in the
battle-related death of at least 1000 people in any single calendar year
and in which
the incompatibility concerns control of government and/or territory.
According to Quincy Wright, war is manifested by the physical
struggle of armies to
occupy the same space, each seeking to annihilate, disarm, or capture
the other; by
the political struggle of nations to achieve policies against the
resistance of others; by
the ideological struggle of people to preserve or extend ways of life
and value
systems; and by the legal struggle of states to acquire titles, to
vindicate claims, to
prevent violence, or to punish offenders by recognised procedures of
regulated
violence.
THE GENERATION OF WAR MODEL
One of the prominent perspectives to understand the changing pattern
of international
conflict is generation of warfare model. The theory was described by
US military
strategists, William S. Lind, Colonel Keith Nightingale, Captain John
F. Schmitt (USMC),
Joseph W. Sutton (USA), and Lieutenant Colonel Gary I. Wilson
(USMCR) (US Marine
Corps Gazette, 1989). The key point in the argument for generation of
war is that
changes in warfare are not driven by technology alone, but by the
political, economic,
social and technical scale of the society. According to this theory we
are now moving
into fourth and fifth generation of warfare. Key elements of this
theory are given below:

a) The First Generation of Warfare: It refers to battles fought with

massive
manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers
governed by states.
It can be traced back to creation of modern nation states after the
Treaty of
Westphalia, which firmly established the sovereignty of modern
nation states, with
exclusive rights of governments to maintain their own military.
Prominent examples were English Civil War (1642-1651),
Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) and American
Civil War (1861-1865).

b) The Second Generation of Warfare: In this generation, massed

firepower replaced
mass manpower. This tactics was used after the invention of breech-
loading rifled
musket meant for longer range, greater accuracy and faster rates of
fires. The
prominent examples were the First World War (1914-1918) and
Second World War (1939 to 1945).

c) The Third Generation of Warfare: It marked a shift from an

industrial to
mechanical era to make to mechanised warfare dominant. However,
the response
was at the level of ideas, employed first by Germans in the First
World War to
counter the superior firepower of its adversaries. The focus in this
generation of
warfare was on using speed and surprise to bypass the enemy’s line
and collapse
their forces from the rear.

d) The Fourth Generation of Warfare: This form of warfare is

characterised by a
blurring of lines between politics, combatants and civilians. It
signifies the nation
state’s loss of their near monopoly on combat forces, returning to
modes of conflict
common in pre-modern times. This is the form of warfare in which
one of the major
participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor.
Historical Forces and their Impact
Steven Pinker, in his book “Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has
Declined”
(2011) has argued that levels of violence around the world have
declined. Based on the
analysis of level of violence in different phases of history of
humankind, Pinker argues that
overall trend has been downwards both in terms of conflicts and
resultant violence.
Pinker identifies five key trends in historical evolution of human
civilisation. They are as
follows: (Quoted in Human Security Report, 2013)

i) Pacification Process: The transition was over thousands of years

from hunter-gatherers,
horticultural, and other early human societies to the first agricultural
civilisations and then nation-states. These transitions have been
associated with
dramatic decreases in death rates from both war and homicides.

ii) Civilising Process: From the late Middle Ages to the twentieth
century accompanied
the growth and consolidation of the nation-state system in Europe.
During this period,
Europe became more urban, more cosmopolitan, commercial, and
secular. Often
highly repressive, the Civilising Process was associated with declines
in homicide
rates that ranged from tenfold to more than fiftyfold.

iii) Humanitarian Revolution: that started in the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries
was associated with the decline and eventual abolition of slavery, with
the slow
elimination of judicial and other forms of torture and a long-term
reduction in all
manner of other cruel and inhuman practices.
iv) Long Peace: The post- World War II world witnessed the
disappearance of great power
wars and the considerable reduction in the number of international
conflicts.
The unprecedented destruction caused by the World War II also
strengthened the
international norms against war. By the early 1970s, wars of
liberation from colonial
rule were mostly over and the idea of new colonial conquests became
unacceptable
in international community.
v) New Peace: The end of the Cold War removed a major source of
international
conflict. The period also witnessed emergence of global security
governance, reduction
in intra-state conflict, greater impetus to globalisation, expansion of
democracy around
the world, expansion of mass media and greater incentives for
cooperation among nations.

PATTERNS OF CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL

CONFLICTS

Even a cursory glance at the pattern of contemporary international

conflicts reveals
that we are moving into an era where large scale international
conflicts or wars are
becoming increasingly irrelevant. The utility of war as a rational
instrument of state policy
to gain political objective is being seriously questioned . Territorial
disputes do exist and they can be cause of inter-state armed conflicts.
For example, India and Pakistan have long standing dispute over
Jammu and Kashmir. India and China also
have dispute over demarcation of borders. However, the inter-state
conflicts in contemporary
international order are not resorted for the reasons that generated such
conflicts in the
past.
In the post-World War II international order, there have been a
number of developments
both at ideological and structural level that have strengthened global
norms against war.
There have been concerted efforts by the UN and other international
agencies toward
prevention and management of conflicts. In addition, the imperatives
of globalisation and
resultant interdependence, expansion of mass media, information
technology, emphasis on
trade and development have created an environment where armed
conflicts and wars are
not encouraged. There is a growing realisation that economic
development, trade and
commerce, greater democratisation and empowerment of common
people have created
incentives and structures where peaceful resolutions of conflicts are
encouraged.
Additionally, the evolving and expanding global security governance,
despite all its limitations, has been effective in driving down the
number of armed conflicts in contemporary international order.

In such a situation, internal conflicts of various types occur: low

intensity conflict,
insurgency, terrorism, revolutionary war, protracted war, proxy war
etc. These are far
more common than inter-state war that fits the condition of modern
age .
For external powers, involvement in such conflicts is emerging as the
most preferred strategy. While they can be initiated at modest cost,
the defending nation has to spend many times more to defend itself
and counter it. Plural democracies, multi-cultural and multi-lingual
societies are more prone to such conflicts because these differences
can be used as the most
potent factors to be exploited to hurt a country, to break its unity,
fragment it, create
insurgency, terrorism and other social turbulences.
According to Reydams, L., “….by a constant switching of friends and
foes and by a
breakdown of institutional authorities (such as the military and the
police) responsible for
ordering and having recourse to the use of force”. In this context, acts
of war and criminality become indistinguishable and the war drags on
with no prospect of peace
accord to end it. Such wars, which had already multiplied in the 1980s
and 1990s, look
set – along with guerrilla-terrorist wars – to determine the course of
violence in the
twenty-first century in many parts of the world.
Another shift in the pattern of international conflicts has been in terms
of regions affected
by them. While the first part of the century was dominated by warfare
between rich
states, most of the contemporary conflicts take place overwhelmingly
in the world’s
underdeveloped and poorest countries. These parts of the world
witnessed 98% of all
international conflicts since 1945.
Regions most affected by various forms of armed conflicts are parts
of
West Asia, Africa, and South and Central Asia. Most of these areas
are populous and
characterised by poor levels of economic development, weak states,
inability of institutions
of governance to address conflicts in society both in terms of conflict
prevention, management and resolution, ethnic polarisation and
religious extremism.

HYBRID WARFARE
One aspect of modern wars seems to distinguish them from conflicts
of earlier era, that
is, their complex combination of international and internal elements.
Modern conflicts are
rarely categorised as being purely ‘international’ or purely ‘non-
international’ in character,
but rather a mixture of internal and international conflicts taking place
in a globalised
context, involving both state and non-state actors. In some cases, the
state is battling
rebels who wish to take control of the state or secede from it, in others
there is conflict
over control of natural resources, or is fuelled by extremist ideologies
or ethnic conflicts.
The ongoing conflicts in West Asia, Afghanistan, South Asia and
Sub-Saharan Africa are
examples of mixed/hybrid warfare. In reality, the modern conflict is
often a mixture of all
these: territoriality, religious ideologies, economic interests, criminal
activities, proxy war,
foreign intervention, conflict over resources and ethnic polarisation.
One aspect that is
common in all these conflicts are, however, that the enemies and
battlefields are not
defined, objectives are often not clear and keep changing and civilian
populations become
easy target.
A classic example of hybrid warfare is ongoing conflict in Syria,
which witnessed a
mixture of internal and international conflict since 2011, in which the
Bashar Assad’s
regime, with support from Russia, Iran supported Hizbullah fighting
against a
range of opposition groups, including Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat-al-
Nusra and Islamic State
of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), both of which have also been target of air
strike by US led
coalition forces. This conflict is a classic example of a mixture of
opposition against
repressive regime, religious extremism, geo-strategic interest of
global and regional powers
such as US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey that have fuelled
and sustained the
conflict.
The conventional military capability of states remains important. But
the hybrid conflicts demand additional requirements from
conventional armed forces in terms of their capabilities
to deal with such conflicts.
 1. They are often found lacking in softer skills like cultural
awareness, training, language skills, psychological operations,
human intelligence and their interface with local population.
2. Other aspects of conventional capability such as air power and
missile capabilities play a significant role in conventional
conflict.
3. However, to remain relevant and sustainable for contemporary
conflict a radical re-assessment in areas of strategy, tactics and
intensity becomes necessary.
4. Focus, therefore, should be to minimize collateral damage and
enable the provision of intimate close air support to ground
forces.
5. Similarly, the maritime capability of states involved in such
conflicts in terms of sea denial and sea control remains essential
elements to enforce deterrence on the potential adversary.
Operational manoeuvre from the seas and coercive diplomacy
will also form important components of capability development.
6. Information technology and network-centricity have
transformed methodologies of warfare. Their impact, however,
needs to be pragmatically assessed against realistic battlefield
scenarios.
7. Aerospace capability is a potent dimension of land warfare, with
a vast applicability in all forms of conflict.
8. Insurgent and terrorist activities have added complex politico-
military dynamics to the nature of conflict. The contemporary
nature of conflict mandates realistic transformation in the
conventional force structure, deployment methodologies,
support structures and emerging technologies, to be able to face
the multi-spectrum challenges that would emerge in the future.

Sub-Conventional Conflicts and Non-State Actors

In contemporary conflicts, the non-state actors are increasingly
becoming lethal, with
access to technology and equipment that previously only conventional
state forces could
afford to. Almost all contemporary conflicts such as in Syria, where
great powers are
involved primarily to serve their political interest, Lebanon war
(2006), Russia-Georgia
conflict (2008), Sri Lanka conflict (2009) and India-Pakistan conflict
over Jammu and
Kashmir (since 1990s), operation enduring freedom in Afghanistan
clearly indicate growing
importance of non-state actors.
In almost all the theatres of conflict, the non-state actors have cross
border linkage in
terms of support structures, sources of finance, state support, arms
procurement and safe
haven. In many of the countries, internal conflicts are often
exacerbated and sustained
through these cross-border linkages. For example, India has faced a
number of internal
armed conflicts right since its independence. Cross-border terrorism
in Jammu and
Kashmir and other parts of India, multiple insurgencies in the North
eastern region often
fuelled by demands for secession and ethnic fault lines, Maoist
movements in parts of
Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Telangana, Maharashtra and other
parts of India. Though
internal factors remain important, many of these movements have
grown and are sustained
due to their cross-border linkage .
Sub-conventional wars are fought for winning the political loyalty of
the people and are
people-centric. These wars are always protracted and political
outcomes are determined
by the staying power, reflected in political will and the ability to
achieve the desired
strategic effect by application of all means. Technology has
empowered the individuals and
today, even a single terrorist/guerrilla can cause severe damage to
adversaries through cyber, financial and kinetic attacks, which earlier
only large organisations and states could
do. The dynamics of deterrence and escalatory control are more
relevant against nation
states. Against non-state actors, these capabilities have little effect.
However, several
diplomatic, informational, military and socio-economic measures can
be effectively used in
a complementary and comprehensive approach to enforce restraint on
the activities of
non-state actors.
Religious Extremism and Terrorism
Religious extremism and terrorism has emerged as one of the key
patterns of international
conflicts. In June 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
announced the establishment
of ‘caliphate’ led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. For the last few years,
the group has steadily
expanded its presence in Iraq and Syria, filling up the vacuum created
by internal
instability in the region. The conflict in Syria is linked to that taking
place in the Sunni
heartland of Iraq, where the ISIS was able to capture a large swathe of
territory with
resources. The growth of ISIS in Iraq and Syria resulted in
unprecedented brutality
resulting in more than 18,000 death and two million internally
displaced persons. (Armed
Conflict Survey, 2015).
With US-led coalition air strikes since August 2014 and subsequently
by Russia and ground attacks by Iran-supported Shia militia, the ISIS
suffered significant
damage. But, the ISIS continues to control significant territory and
resources. The group
has been able to exploit information technology and social media very
effectively to put
across its views and radicalise a section of youth not only in the
region but also in
European countries and South Asia.
One of the key features in the rise of ISIS is a trend
towards localisation. According to Alia Brahimi, the Al Qaeda
emerged partly due to the
globalisation of a local conflict in Afghanistan. Religious extremism
has also played a
substantial role in other parts of West Asia such as Libya, Egypt and
Yemen.
The growth of ISIS in Iraq and Syria has brought to the fore not only
the threat from
religious extremism and radical mobilisation but also the use of these
elements by state
actors to further their own geo-strategic interests. In West Asia, for
example, religious
extremism was encouraged in the aftermath of US campaign against
Iraq, interests of Iran
to secure a strategic space in the region and political interests of Saudi
Arabia, Turkey
and Russia. The Taliban consolidated their position in Afghanistan
and emerged as a threat
to regional and international security. The terrorist attack in the US
was a direct impact
of growth of religious extremism supported by the great powers.
CONCLUSION
The meaning, scope and character of international conflicts have
evolved over the years
to incorporate changes in social, political, economic and technological
fields at the level
of international system and their constituent units. In the literature of
international relations,
the concept has been treated as a very complex subject with divergent
definitions and
perspectives. Historically, inter-state armed conflict or War between
or among states has
been considered as dominant form of international conflict. However,
in contemporary
international system, the pattern of conflict is changing. They are
different from wars that
took place in early 20th century primarily in Europe in terms of
tactics employed,
weapons used, the objectives to be achieved and nature of parties
involved in conflicts.
Over a period of time, our understanding of conflicts has expanded to
include sub nationalities,
terrorists, insurgents, religious extremism and ethnic interests. This
reflects
evolution from the first generation of warfare to the fourth generation
of warfare. Even a cursory glance at the pattern of contemporary
international conflicts would reveal that we
are moving into an era where large scale international conflicts or
wars are becoming
increasingly irrelevant. On the other hand, internal conflicts of various
types occur: low
intensity conflict, insurgency, terrorism, revolutionary war, protracted
war, proxy war etc.
These are far more common than inter-state war.