Saturday, November 04, 2006

During our discussion on the Balkans Bill Caughlin pointed out the criminal nature of the conflict, both in strategy and execution.

To re-quote John Mueller from Bill‘s post:
“the violence that erupted there in the early 1990s derived not from a paroxysm of civilizational angst nor from a frenzy of nationalism, whether ancient or newly inspired. Rather, it principally came from the actions of recently empowered and unpoliced thugs. Politicians may have started the wars… [But they] found it necessary to recruit fanatics, criminals, and hooligans for the job’. [John Mueller, The Remnants of War (2004), p. 88].

Bill further noted that Mueller described the perpetrators as “predatory thugs and criminals … who were chiefly motivated by a quest for fun and profit.”

The same day I read the following from the current Economist regarding Iraq:
“reports suggest that the ’army’ has splintered into groups as small as a few dozen individuals who frequently behave more like street gangs than religious zealots: kidnapping for profit, taking over petrol stations, murdering anyone who transgresses their puritan moral code, and generally using the movements reputation for pious militancy to give themselves legitimacy.”(32)

The above is a description of Sadr’s Mahdi army. This criminal aspect to the current conflict in Iraq is by no means limited to the Mahdi army though. It is evident in other Shia militias like the Badr Brigades, the Sunni insurgency/militias and al Qaeda. Zarqawi himself was a notorious thug long before religion provided a theme for his violence.

Perhaps criminality is a standard aspect of modern conflict. That is not to suggest that it is new. Historical examples of criminality in warfare abound. However, it seems now to have re-emerged as a fundamental part of many post Cold War conflicts, perhaps as a result of the apparent de-institutionalization of warfare.

The next logical questions then are: what does this change and what is the most effective way to deal with it? Should militaries become a mix of warrior and police? I’m not sure., any thoughts?

Sean

1 Comments:

At 5:22 AM, Blogger David J. Betz said...

Excellent question Sean. For my part I am quite convinced that they must. In fact, viewing warfare as something distinct from 'nation-building' has proved a debilitating mistake--as we have seen in the case of post-'war' operatiosn in Iraq. The question in my mind si whether the two jobs can actuallly be done by the same force or whether there is a need for some functional bifurcation of the force. I'm leaning toward bifurcation, having just finished an article on this. But I suspect thsi is very much at odds with the views of most.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home