The New War

[castille]

You know, it wasn't half a century ago that war was envisioned as a massive slaughter with both sides throwing millions of troops into the bloodbath. From the ruins of Stalingrad, where Soviet soldiers "fought for every room, basement, and cellar", and in Moscow where millions of German troops flung themselves at the fortresses outside the city.

But today, war seems to be changing. We saw the nuclear phase, when the US and Russians nearly killed each other over Russia putting nukes on Cuba, or the US having nukes in Turkey.

After 9-11, one thing is clear: the next war might not be fought with 20 million soldiers, or 10,000 nuclear missiles, or even special forces troops. It could very well be fought with security agents, electronic survelliance, and ten men with bombs wrapped around their bodies, walking into a shopping mall.

There won't be terror bombings of Tokyo or Hannover, or cruise missiles fired all across the globe. Rather, it will be about a contest of wills; for the governments and people of the world, it is the ability to detect and destroy individual terrorist cells. For the terrorists, it will be wreaking havoc and destruction against their percieved enemies.


In a sense this war will be harder to understand. Terrorism is like fine sand; it slips through your fingers, and is impossible to trace. Blowing up Iraq prevents terrorists from using Iraq for their bases, but they can easily use London as their base. How can governments detect terrorists, who are able to pose as civilians, attack civilians without warning, and have no qualms about dying?

Its odd how war has evolved so much.


In the days of Hittites, war was fought with chariots and archers.
In the time of Sparta and Athens, war was fought with closely-packed phalanxes with bronze swords.
In the time of Castille and Aragon's rise to power, war was fought with pikes and muskets.
In World War I, war was fought with machine guns and artillery.
In the German paratrooper attacks against Belgian fortresses during 1940, dive bombers, tanks, submachine guns, and rapid-moving forces established a new phase of conflict.
In the Cold War, war was fought with special forces and intelligence units and the fear of the Red Button.
In the 1991 war against Iraq, war was fought with rapid-moving units, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and special forces.


And the war of 2004? Will it be fought by men in suits in offices, analysing data and carrying out intelligence operations? Will the ten men strapped tight with bombs walk into the shopping mall, and bring war to a new level?

[Impenitent]

of course they will... just ask Israel...

and talking and diplomacy and bribery have no effect on these opponents either... they want us dead. period.

evolution of war? not really, just a different theater with different combatants...

how to fight back? imposing democracy after decimating the middle east... but some want to talk and make peace... all you need is one... one bomber that is...

war may have changed, better and different weapons, but humans haven't...

[Samildanach]

And you dont need just humans to walk into a shopping mall to all you need is several small remote control gliders with a small explosive payload to make life difficult. Walk down to any model shop and u should be able to buy one. Or order them online. The fact is if people really want u dead there is nothing you can do about it.

[drdaco]

War, back in the days, was much more crude and much more bloody. I would venture to say that we've come a long way since the days of Troy. Chariots seem harmless compared to Ricin for example, but the game has changed. We no longer have battles that lasts years with thousands of casualties every day. Today's battles are often short, with very low causualties compared to centuries before.

The war for land is as old as history itself, and Jihadists views are no different than those of Hitler: they want more. It really boils down to this...more. More land, more control, more of what's "rightfully mine."

I often wonder "what if we did give them their land? What then?" To put it vulgarly: what the hell are they going to do now? See, what Jihadists don't realise is that they are loosing the very culture they are so desperatly trying to "protect." The ideals of Islam that they hold so dear is getting squashed over the idealism of the practice of Jihad. When a war lasts longer then it takes for a generation to grow to adulthood, these now adults have grown up bitter, terrified, powerless and vengeful. How does society reverse those that have been groomed to fight back? Do they not realize the "what if we win scenario?" Because they'll never really win, we'll never go away. But back to the question of "what if they did win their land back?" I hope the Maddrassas are also groming those children to learn how to govern a civil Islamic Society, teaching them about economy, about nutrition and all the other knowledge necessary to run they country they are so fervously trying to obtain. In my humble opnion, if they did win, it would be chaos from within. Skilless, hungry and poverty strichen people unhappy with their "visionary leaders" the lacked the vision for post-victory.

So my point is the whole idea of Jihad, as being run by Islamic extremists, is fruitless. Because you'll lose wether you win or lose. You are robbing your people of a future and robbing them of the manpower to help themselves out of poverty. This is only alianating the rest of the world, because with your violence you'll get no sympathy from the rest of us.

So what if you did win? You'd think the world would jump to your aid?

How does this tie in with my first paragraph? Because the danger of war today is not only with weapons such as Ricin and Nukes. We should feer groomed generations of angry oppressed tunnel-vision individuals that know very damn well we don't care and so they are willilng to do anything to make sure we notice them: even killing millions of people.

They scare me, not nukes. And it's the same vision masterminds of wars past used, with much more harmless weapons.