Van Creveld- Transformation of War Flashcards
Other reasons for war, other than politics
Economics: Economic factors, such as access to resources, trade routes, and markets, have often been a cause of conflict. Countries may go to war to secure resources like oil, minerals, or arable land, or to gain access to new markets for their goods and services.
Religion: Religion has played a significant role in many wars throughout history, with religious differences being used as a justification for conflict. Religious wars can arise between different sects of the same religion, as well as between different religions.
Ethnicity: Ethnic conflicts can arise when different ethnic groups within a country or region compete for power, resources, or recognition. These conflicts can be fueled by historical grievances, cultural differences, and perceptions of discrimination or marginalization.
Territory: Territorial disputes over land, water, or strategic locations can also lead to war. Countries may fight to defend their borders, to claim territory that they believe is rightfully theirs, or to expand their influence.
Honor and prestige: Wars can also be fought for reasons of national honor or prestige. Countries may go to war to defend their reputation or to prove their military might to their rivals.
War strategy
According to Van Creveld, war strategy can be defined as the art of combining/ integrating military means and political ends in order to achieve victory in a conflict. He stresses the need for a nuanced and flexible approach that takes into account the complex and dynamic nature of war.
~understanding the political context of a conflict and aligning military objectives with broader political goals. He argues that war strategy should be guided by a clear understanding of the political aims of the war, and that military operations should be designed to further those aims.
~importance of flexibility and adaptability in war strategy. He suggests that military leaders should be prepared to adjust their strategy in response to changing circumstances on the battlefield or in the political environment.
Obstacles to the use of force
Terrain: The physical features of the battlefield can present significant challenges to military operations. Mountains, forests, and other types of difficult terrain can make it difficult for troops to maneuver and can limit the effectiveness of certain types of weapons and tactics.
Weather: Adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain, snow, or extreme heat, can also pose challenges to military operations. Weather conditions can affect troop morale, disrupt supply lines, and limit the effectiveness of certain types of weapons and equipment.
Technology: Military technology can be a double-edged sword. While advances in technology have given militaries new capabilities, such as precision-guided munitions and unmanned aerial vehicles, these same technologies can also be vulnerable to cyber attacks and other forms of disruption.
Morale: The morale of troops can be a critical factor in determining the outcome of a conflict. Low morale can lead to desertion, surrender, or other forms of non-compliance, while high morale can give troops the confidence and determination they need to achieve their objectives.
Politics: Politics can also be a significant obstacle to the use of force. Domestic opposition to a war, international pressure, and the need to balance military objectives with political considerations can all limit the ability of a military to achieve its goals through force alone.
Elements of war
Human beings: War involves human beings, both as combatants and as civilians caught in the crossfire. The actions and decisions of individuals can have a profound impact on the course and outcome of a conflict.
Politics: Politics is an essential component of war, as conflicts are often rooted in political disputes or driven by political objectives. The political context of a conflict can shape the goals and strategies of military operations.
Violence: Violence is a defining characteristic of war, as armed forces use lethal force to achieve their objectives. Violence can take many forms, from conventional military operations to guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and other forms of asymmetric warfare.
Uncertainty: Uncertainty is inherent in war, as commanders must make decisions based on imperfect information and unpredictable events can quickly change the course of a conflict. The fog of war can make it difficult to assess the enemy’s strength and intentions, and to accurately predict the outcomes of military operations.
Chance: Chance events, such as weather, terrain, and the actions of non-combatants, can have a significant impact on the course of a conflict. Military leaders must be prepared to adapt to changing circumstances and seize opportunities as they arise.
Technology: Technology can be a key factor in military operations, providing armies with new capabilities and changing the nature of warfare. However, technology can also be vulnerable to disruption and can create new risks and vulnerabilities.
Logistics: Logistics is the art of moving personnel, supplies, and equipment to support military operations. Logistics is a critical component of war, as armies require a steady supply of food, water, ammunition, and other essential resources to sustain themselves.
The role of state in wars (comparing new wars with the ones before)
The role of the state in wars has changed significantly in recent decades, as the nature of warfare has evolved. In traditional wars, which he refers to as “old wars,” states played a central role in organizing and directing military operations. States were responsible for mobilizing and equipping armies, and for determining the objectives and strategies of military campaigns.
In contrast, in what van Creveld calls “new wars,” non-state actors, such as insurgent groups and militias, have played an increasingly important role in armed conflicts. These groups often operate outside the control of the state and may have different objectives than the state itself. The state may still be involved in these conflicts, but its role is often more limited and less central than in traditional wars.
Van Creveld argues that this shift in the role of the state has significant implications for military strategy. In old wars, states could rely on a relatively stable and predictable set of military and political factors, and could develop long-term strategies to achieve their objectives. In new wars, however, the involvement of non-state actors and the complexity of the political and social context can make it difficult for states to develop effective strategies.
Van Creveld also notes that the involvement of non-state actors in new wars can make it more difficult for states to achieve their objectives through military force alone. Insurgent groups and militias may be more resilient and adaptable than traditional armies, and may be able to use tactics such as guerrilla warfare to frustrate state efforts to achieve victory.
He emphasizes the need for military leaders to develop new strategies that take into account the evolving nature of armed conflict and the changing role of the state.
Restraints of war in general
oral restraints: Moral considerations have always played a role in war, as combatants and civilians alike are subject to moral norms and ethical principles. However, van Creveld argues that moral restraints have become more significant in modern times, as public opinion and international law have placed greater emphasis on the protection of civilian populations and the avoidance of unnecessary harm.
Legal restraints: International law has established a framework of rules and norms that govern the conduct of warfare, and violators can be subject to prosecution for war crimes. These legal restraints have become more significant in recent decades, as international organizations such as the International Criminal Court have gained greater authority to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
Technological restraints: Advances in technology have created new restraints on warfare, as weapons of mass destruction and other high-tech military capabilities have raised the stakes of armed conflict. The potential for catastrophic consequences has led to increased efforts to control the spread of dangerous technologies and to limit the use of certain types of weapons.
Economic restraints: War is expensive, and the economic costs of armed conflict can be significant. In modern times, economic factors such as the availability of resources and the impact of war on trade and investment have become more significant in shaping the conduct of warfare.
Political restraints: Political considerations have always played a role in war, as conflicts are often rooted in political disputes or driven by political objectives. However, van Creveld argues that political restraints have become more significant in modern times, as the global balance of power has shifted and international alliances and agreements have created new constraints on state behavior.
Convention about limitation of war (the ones in the end of 19th century)
In “The Transformation of War,” Van Creveld does dedicate a section to “The War Convention,” in which he discusses the limitations on war that emerged at the end of the 19th century. He notes that during this time, many countries began to adopt codes of conduct and norms for the conduct of warfare, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
Van Creveld argues that the emergence of these conventions reflected a growing recognition of the need to limit the scope and intensity of warfare in order to mitigate the suffering of combatants and non-combatants alike. These conventions established rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of civilians and non-combatants, and the regulation of certain weapons and tactics, such as poison gas and dum-dum bullets.
However, Van Creveld also notes that these conventions had limited effectiveness in actually limiting the conduct of warfare. Many countries simply ignored or circumvented the rules established by the conventions, and the conventions themselves did not prevent the outbreak of major conflicts such as World War I.
Overall, Van Creveld’s analysis of the “War Convention” underscores the challenges and limitations of regulating the conduct of warfare through legal and ethical frameworks. While such frameworks are important in establishing norms and guidelines for warfare, they are ultimately only as effective as the willingness of actors to abide by them.
discusses the development of the “just war” tradition, which he refers to as “The War Convention.” The just war tradition is a set of ethical principles that govern the conduct of war and provide guidelines for when it is morally justifiable to engage in armed conflict. The tradition dates back to ancient Greece and Rome, and was later refined by Christian theologians and philosophers in the Middle Ages.
Van Creveld notes that the just war tradition has been influential in shaping the moral and ethical norms surrounding warfare, and has played a role in establishing the rules of international humanitarian law. However, he also suggests that the tradition is not always applicable to modern warfare, as the nature of armed conflict has changed in significant ways since the tradition was first developed.
In particular, van Creveld argues that the rise of non-state actors and the use of new technologies in warfare have created new challenges for the just war tradition. He notes that non-state actors such as terrorist organizations and guerrilla groups are not bound by the same legal and moral obligations as state militaries, and are therefore able to engage in tactics that are prohibited by the just war tradition.
Van Creveld also suggests that the increasing use of high-tech weaponry, such as drones and cyber weapons, raises questions about the applicability of the just war tradition. He notes that these technologies make it possible to engage in forms of warfare that are less visible and less constrained by traditional ethical norms, and suggests that new ethical frameworks may be needed to address these challenges.
Overall, van Creveld’s discussion of “The War Convention” highlights the ongoing debates and challenges surrounding the ethical and moral dimensions of armed conflict, and the need for continued reflection and refinement of the principles that govern warfare.
Jus ad bellum & Jus in bello
In “The Transformation of War,” Van Creveld discusses the concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, which are two branches of international law related to the conduct of warfare.
Jus ad bellum refers to the rules governing the right to go to war, and includes considerations such as just cause, proportionality, and the exhaustion of peaceful means. Essentially, it addresses the question of whether or not it is morally and legally justifiable for a country or group to use military force.
Jus in bello, on the other hand, refers to the rules governing the conduct of war itself. This includes rules related to the treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of civilians and non-combatants, and the regulation of certain weapons and tactics.
Van Creveld notes that while both jus ad bellum and jus in bello are important in establishing legal and ethical norms for warfare, they are not always effective in preventing violations of the laws of war. This is in part because state and non-state actors may prioritize their own strategic interests over ethical or legal considerations.
Overall, Van Creveld’s discussion of jus ad bellum and jus in bello underscores the challenges and limitations of regulating the conduct of warfare through legal and ethical frameworks. While these frameworks are important in establishing norms and guidelines for warfare, they are ultimately only as effective as the willingness of actors to abide by them.
