needed

Needed: New Thinking About War
By Daniel G. Jennings
If we are going to win the war in Iraq and the larger War Against Terror, all of us military and civilian alike are going to have to change our thinking about war and how it is fought.
A new way of thinking about war is needed because war itself has changed. What we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan is what America’s most astute thinker on military matters, William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation, would call a Fourth Generation War. A better term would be Postmodern War, that is a war completely different from the ones fought in the modern era of the 17th through 20th centuries.
Postmodern War is different from Modern War in the most basic ways. First because it is not a war between nations, although nations are often involved in the fighting. Instead many groups besides the nation and the formal military wage Postmodern War for example terrorist groups, guerrillas, religious organizations, political parties, tribes and criminal gangs. Most of the wars being fought in the world today are civil wars often involving guerrillas or terrorists.
In Iraq there is no formal or organized enemy instead bands of fighters come together attack and disperse back into the population. There is no unified command or organized opposition. Instead there are several different factions of enemies attacking the US each pursuing its own agenda. Some aim to establish local power or authority, some are fighting for religious reasons, others to prove their manhood or machismo. Some are simply fighting because they enjoy fighting.
In Modern War we were almost always facing a unified enemy with a unified command and an obvious agenda. In Vietnam for example, it was clear that the enemy were Communists intent on forcing their Communist ideology on the country and that they followed the orders of their leadership in Hanoi. In Iraq there is no enemy leadership, and no ideology beyond professions of Islam, instead there are a few shadowy figures whose capture wouldn’t stop or even hinder the insurgency. Nor is there anybody or anything the United States can negotiate a peaceful settlement with. In Vietnam we knew where the Communist leaders were and how to talk to them.
What this means is that the traditional military and diplomatic solutions that worked in Modern War are essentially useless in Postmodern War. Neither a negotiated diplomatic settlement or a military victory is possible because there is no enemy organization to negotiate with or destroy.
The motives in war have changed, in Modern War fighters whether they be soldiers or guerrillas usually fought for one unified cause to liberate the nation or create a new system of government. In Postmodern War there are different classes of fighters pursuing different agendas, there are mercenaries fighting for money, warriors fighting for personal honor, religious fanatics fighting for the faith, nationalists for the nation and many others.
Unlike the soldiers and guerrillas in Modern Wars who almost fought to impose some sort of order on the battlefield and the nation. The Communists for example fought to set up Communist governments. The Postmodern fighters often want chaos and disorder and fight for it. Criminals and warlords want lawlessness because they profit from it, religious fanatics may not care about what happens in the temporal world, mercenaries may want to prolong the war and their paychecks, local tribal leaders may want to preserve their power. In other words we are facing enemies who have little or no interest in peace.
For our military, Postmodern War represents a completely new situation that requires new ways of thinking, operating and fighting. In Modern War the basic goal of the soldier was simple and obvious: to kill the enemy or more precisely to kill enough enemy soldiers to convince the enemy to quit the war. Admiral William “Bull” Halsey stated it best during World War II when he said his mission was to kill Japanese. The enemy was also easy to spot in Modern War he was the guy across the line or over the hill wearing a slightly different uniform. Even in Vietnam, the grunt knew his mission was to kill the Communists.
In Postmodern War, the mission is far more complex, the soldier’s role is more like a policeman’s. In Iraq the soldier has to track down and fight the enemy, while restoring order, respect the local population, help set up a government, win the trust of the people and much more.
This requires a different way of thinking, instead of simply killing or destroying the enemy the soldier has to think in nontraditional ways. For example soldiers may have to restrain themselves from returning fire even if they or their comrades are injured because their gunfire may kill or injure civilians whose help they may need. Soldiers can’t resort to artillery or air attacks because that might destroy people’s property. Many of the weapons and tactics our military has relied upon for generations are now useless.
Of course it easier for soldiers on the frontlines to see this new reality they live in it everyday. For those of us on the Home Front it is harder, our image of war has been shaped by generations of movies, books, television, documentaries, comic books and war stories from veterans that give us a very different view of war. We still think of war as soldiers going out to destroy the enemy. We are still thinking in terms of World War II and Vietnam even though those comparisons are about as applicable to the Iraq conflict as the Peloponnesian War.
A typical example of these misapprehensions are the anti-war protestors who claim the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for their nation’s independence from American occupation. Since the insurgents are fighting for a wide variety of reasons this is a gross and perhaps dangerous simplification. American withdrawal will not end the war it will make it worse by taking away the only thing providing stability and order and Iraq.
Another example are the critics who believe that greatly increasing the number of American or foreign troops in Iraq will end the conflict. This might work in the short run, the insurgent will simply hide his gun while the Americans are around and dig it out as soon as they leave. Or it might have no effect, the simple presence of foreign troops does not guarantee order. In Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Congo and other countries destructive wars continued despite the presence of UN Peacekeepers.
In many cases the troops are useless they are simply not trained and equipped to deal with Postmodern War. Their heavy weapons give them the firepower to kill everybody and destroy everything but they lack the ability to restore order or track down the enemy.
What this means of course is that much of our military might be useless. Our Navy designed to wage a large scale fleet action has little effect on the ground in Iraq, our Air Force can’t do much either, much of our army’s weaponry is useless, you can’t win the Iraqi people’s support by driving M-1 tanks through their streets or buzzing their cities with helicopters. Infantrymen trained to fight other infantrymen find themselves unable to do anything but ride around in Hummers.
Therefore our political leaders and military commanders will have to change their thinking about war. Unfortunately, those who are sitting in comfortable offices in Washington will have a harder time realizing what Postmodern War is and coming to grips with it than those in the field. It may not be until the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan reach the Pentagon they we actually change our thinking about war.