Article Review: Herfried Münkler (2003) ‘The wars of the 21st century’
This article review will critically analyze the aims, objective and findings within Herfried Münkler (2003) ‘The wars of the 21st century’. Primarily looking at the positives and negatives of the main arguments Münkler highlights as the prominent features of the twenty-first century and how such wars, constitute as ‘new wars’. The author explores three key features: asymmetry, demilitarization and the return of privatization and commercialization since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The first section of this article review will outline Münkler’s article and summaries the key areas of which he focuses on. The second section of this article review will focus on identifying …show more content…
However, key theorists such as Mary Kaldor and Martin van Creveld have criticized Clausewitz theory as being outdated and irrelative. Kaldor remarks Clausewitz theory as being stated centric, and thus not following the developments seen within ‘new war’. Kaldor argues that the shift in the main actors within war to include: warlords, criminals, and terrorists is a key feature of ‘new wars’ opposing Clausewitz state centric notion (Kaldor, 2012. p.15). In addition, Crevald has commented the presence of slow, low-intensity wars have dismissed Clausewitz further (van Creveld, 1991. p.410). This is because typically ‘post heroic’ states opt for targeting decisive military targets in order to end a war as quickly as possible with few deaths and low economic impact. Whereas non-state actors opt for slow war due to it being far more successful against stronger enemies. Mao suggests this as the ‘long war of endurance’, relies on increasing the cost of acceleration and ultimately lead to the war becoming unaffordable (Münkler, 2003. p.9). On the other, Münkler identifies commentators, such as the above, have not given Clausewitz the attention it deserves, reducing his key theories without consideration for Clausewitz chameleon analogy of war. Defining war as a chameleon suggests that Clausewitz understands the malleability of war and isn’t reduced to the …show more content…
Attributing ‘new wars’ to be determined by asymmetry as the most important feature provides suitable parameters of war which constitutes a ‘new war’ as the environment of war shifts as Clausewitz identifies but also the actors. As concluded, the lines of war are becoming much more blurred than in previous centuries due to close alliances between mercenaries and bandits. In addition, Münkler recognizes that similarities can be drawn from wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He has brought together key elements from the wider literature of Political Violence and Terror referencing key theorists and attributing varied theories to Asymmetry with a wide range of aspects: technology, economics, motivations and ideology. Asymmetry provides an umbrella theme of ‘new war’. However, weakness within ‘new war’ theory describe by Newman remain present throughout Münkler article. Also, Kaldor and Creveld presents Clausewitz as reductionary and
This article review will critically analyze the aims, objective and findings within Herfried Münkler (2003) ‘The wars of the 21st century’. Primarily looking at the positives and negatives of the main arguments Münkler highlights as the prominent features of the twenty-first century and how such wars, constitute as ‘new wars’. The author explores three key features: asymmetry, demilitarization and the return of privatization and commercialization since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The first section of this article review will outline Münkler’s article and summaries the key areas of which he focuses on. The second section of this article review will focus on identifying …show more content…
However, key theorists such as Mary Kaldor and Martin van Creveld have criticized Clausewitz theory as being outdated and irrelative. Kaldor remarks Clausewitz theory as being stated centric, and thus not following the developments seen within ‘new war’. Kaldor argues that the shift in the main actors within war to include: warlords, criminals, and terrorists is a key feature of ‘new wars’ opposing Clausewitz state centric notion (Kaldor, 2012. p.15). In addition, Crevald has commented the presence of slow, low-intensity wars have dismissed Clausewitz further (van Creveld, 1991. p.410). This is because typically ‘post heroic’ states opt for targeting decisive military targets in order to end a war as quickly as possible with few deaths and low economic impact. Whereas non-state actors opt for slow war due to it being far more successful against stronger enemies. Mao suggests this as the ‘long war of endurance’, relies on increasing the cost of acceleration and ultimately lead to the war becoming unaffordable (Münkler, 2003. p.9). On the other, Münkler identifies commentators, such as the above, have not given Clausewitz the attention it deserves, reducing his key theories without consideration for Clausewitz chameleon analogy of war. Defining war as a chameleon suggests that Clausewitz understands the malleability of war and isn’t reduced to the …show more content…
Attributing ‘new wars’ to be determined by asymmetry as the most important feature provides suitable parameters of war which constitutes a ‘new war’ as the environment of war shifts as Clausewitz identifies but also the actors. As concluded, the lines of war are becoming much more blurred than in previous centuries due to close alliances between mercenaries and bandits. In addition, Münkler recognizes that similarities can be drawn from wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He has brought together key elements from the wider literature of Political Violence and Terror referencing key theorists and attributing varied theories to Asymmetry with a wide range of aspects: technology, economics, motivations and ideology. Asymmetry provides an umbrella theme of ‘new war’. However, weakness within ‘new war’ theory describe by Newman remain present throughout Münkler article. Also, Kaldor and Creveld presents Clausewitz as reductionary and