Rethinking Cogs

War is a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. Usually a war is a pre-planned activity to begin with by one group or one nation and the group initiates the war by means of violence against the other. The primary feature of this behaviour pattern is a certain state of organized conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities. Such a conflict is always an attempt at altering either the psychological hierarchy or the material hierarchy of domination or equality between two or more groups. In all cases, at least one participant (group) in the

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

John Paul Lederach’s The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace goes could only have been written by someone who had spent many years in the field of conflict management. With its underlying focus of the essence of peacebuilding, it looks far beyond what one may learn in any textbook or seminar. While the first 8 chapters of the text are ripe with areas for further analysis, here I will focus only on theme, found in one chapter, in the interest of brevity. In chapter 2 of The Moral Imagination we are introduced to real life micro-case studies. The cases aim to help the reader understand how people experiencing violent conflict throughout the world have worked to “transcend the cycles of violence that bewitch our community,” building on Lederach’s statement on why the book was written. That being said, we can see that Lederach is operating under the assumption that current day peacebuilding and conflict management is not working as well as it should. It is clear that he thinks there is something more that needs to be involved in current strategies and models. He believes we must move from looking at actors in a conflict as separate involved parties and instead view parties as “a web of relationships which include our enemies.” This requires a shift in thinking for those in thefield of peacebuilding and for those involved in the conflict, but in making this shift, we can look at conflicts as existing within our communities rather than between our

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

Considering the inherently negative connotation of the word “insurgency,” it might come as a surprise to realize we Americans once represented that definition; moreover, when one closely scrutinizes the circumstances surrounding the

In presenting the rationale behind the publication of the third edition to their book, Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, explain how the field of conflict resolution has emerged as a specialization in the post-Cold War era. The authors “argue that it is an integral part of work for development, social justice, and social transformation”. As the fundamental challenges linked with state fragility surface, the development of conflict resolution and the related perspectives gain relevance, and will increasingly become more relevant when responding to changing societies; particularly where social bounds are weak due to a lack of consensus between values and traditions. This evolution in conflict analysis is a reflection of the evolution of classical

Intra- and inter-community tensions and mistrust are currently at their worst. Additionally, there are marked divisions between and within armed groups, which are often the results of lack of leadership, poor organization, manipulations from national and international actors. Addressing these issues should be a major focus before the beginning of inclusive and transparent peace talks. Yet, it appears to me that tactics are more in favor of dividing to get a fragile control of the situation for shorter agenda than uniting and confronting with courage, objectivity and fairness the defies to move towards a possibly more difficult to reach and costly but sustainable

Marshall, (2000), observed that protracted conflict ravages society and its supportive systems. In modern warfare, civilians are caught in the cross fire and invariably suffer the majority of war’s effects, mainly because in civil warfare situations, the entire society is the arena of armed conflict, and

Clausewitz military genius is immutable. Even though his writings are almost two hundred years old, the application of Carl Von Clausewitz’ theories on war are relevant for today and in the future. Technological advancements will present unique challenges, but as long as the true nature of war remains unaffected, his paradoxical trinity will continue to provide visionary insight and value to future leaders attempting to address wars’ most difficult questions. The distinction between absolute vs. real war and his theories on the relationship between war and politics, and the concept of friction remain timeless. What we are really dealing with is another change in the character of war which Clausewitz has helped leaders deal with in the past and will again in the future.

Any discussion relating to future conflict and the implications toward the security of the United States must factor in the complexity of numerous multi-dimensional threats, that undermine global stability. The definition of IW as stated in the Multi-Service Concept for Irregular Warfare follows, “A form of warfare that has as its objective the credibility of and/or the legitimacy of the relevant political authority with the goal of undermining or supporting that authority. Irregular warfare favors indirect approaches, though it may employ the full range of military operations and other capabilities to seek asymmetric advantages, in order to erode and adversary’s power, influence and will.” This definition for irregular warfare (IW) suggests anything other than conventional warfare in broad terms which perpetuates confusion in the relationship between counter-insurgency (COIN) and IW. Some governmental agencies view COIN as an entirely separate entity and not a sub-component of IW, or they view COIN and IW as the same. This confusion complicates efforts to develop a comprehensive strategy to defeat irregular threats. To facilitate understanding of the similarities and inherent differences between COIN and IW, military professionals must recognize first and foremost that COIN occupies a component within IW and is not a separate type of warfare. The definition of IW requires rewording to change the context relating to how the U.S. views and employs IW in order to

The intelligence community (IC) views conflict as the existence of incompatible goals or priorities between two or more actors. The IC analyzes conflicts in which groups or organizations of people cause disruption in a state, region, or throughout the world, both in nonlethal conflicts and armed conflicts. While conflict itself is as old as civilization, the methods for which it is dealt with, or conflict management, change as the causes themselves change. It is of vital importance to determine what the root causes of a conflict are in order for the resolution to be one which ensures the issue does not resurface. Today’s world is constantly evolving and changes seem to occur quickly enough that as conflicts arise, the IC is continually looking for new ways to deal with the “shifting landscape of conflict management.”

Bull defines war as “organized violence carried on by political units against each other” (184). With respect to this broad definition, both he and Waltz posit models of conflict which can effectively be used to analyze the sources of modern violence. The warrior scholars employ the theories of multiple political philosophers including Kant and Rousseau in order to build theories that encapsulate the complex variables which lead to armed engagement. These theories can be extrapolated in order to explain the causes of inter-state war, and to provide explanations of violence in the modern global theatre.

In times of conflict, it is important to note the four phases of conflict. These four phases being, pre-violence or the buildup period. Second, is armed conflict. Third is a ceasefire and lastly, comes the post agreement. The first two phases of conflict are not hard at all to achieve or attain. Certain nations around the world are almost always engaged in some form of conflict with other ethnic groups or secessionist/ revolutionary forces. “For a certain subset of nations, civil war appears to be a chronic condition.” (Quinn, et.al. 2007) The last phases of conflict, ceasefire and post agreement are certainly much harder to attain and sustain than the first two phases. For this short essay, I have chosen the post agreement phase as being the most difficult to attain and uphold. I will discuss the reasons I believe this phase is the hardest to achieve, why or if it’s even important and also briefly compare it to the preceding phases of conflict.

From 1945 to present day, the world has experienced a downward trend in armed conflicts and interstate wars (Gates). Today’s world economies, nuclear weapons, and global institutions have allowed for the merging of cultures and common, making war seem less rational. These developments have also created a shift in International Relations (IR) by fostering cooperation rather than anarchy. Through a rationalist and liberal lens, this work looks to analyze how an emphasis on group formations and identifications has caused a decline in war.

Encounters with non-state armed actors form the backdrop of my research agenda. As a peacekeeper in Kosovo, I witnessed seemingly random acts of violence spark hate-filled reprisals. This behavior made visible the networks of grievances and feuds within villages and peoples’ minds. My soldiers and I understood little about our adversaries who hid among an acquiescent population and whose identities and loyalties seemed to continuously shift. We were almost powerless to stop this kind of violence because of our legal mandate, and because it appeared to be enabled by our presence. Subsequent experiences during counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan immersed me in similar moral hazards. Once again, I faced the turmoil created by