Lucas Sayre

International Relations

Dr. Philpott

4/03/02

The Perils of Post Cold War Changes in Warfare Scale

 

            Since the end of the Cold War many elements of international relations and international political philosophy have changed. From a realist point of view, the collapse of the bipolar power structure (United States vs. Soviet Union) has resulted in a unipolar power structure that leaves in question the future world balance of power. With the United States arguably as the only superpower, three possibilities of power structure exist. These will be discussed later. In addition to the change in power structure, a change in warfare scale is also occurring. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) does not exist in the relationships between the opposing forces in almost all modern conflicts. In its place, however, is a more ominous threat: terrorism.

            Recently, the United States and the Soviet Union (now Russia) have become tenuous allies. While each nation still has nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) pointed at each other, the tension between the nations has been dramatically decreased. Ideological differences have been largely eliminated with the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, neither the U.S. nor Russia has expansionist policies that could clash resulting in regional conflicts. Such conflicts have always had the possibility of escalating into strategic warfare. The threat of large-scale warfare is further reduced by Russia’s military decline. Large reductions in spending have resulted in a Russian military that is largely in disrepair and unorganized. Hence, the likelihood of Russian aggression against American interests is reduced and with it the threat of conflict.

            As a result of Russia’s decline, the United States is the world’s only remaining superpower. Its economy is larger than any other nation’s, and its military remains large, well trained, and technologically supreme. As stated before, three possibilities exist for the future world balance of power. The first is that it remains unipolar. The United States might continue indefinitely as the only large power. The second possibility is that the power structure returns to bipolarity. Perhaps China, a unified Europe, or even a renewed Russia could rise up to be a superpower. The last possibility is that the power structure would become multipolar. European powers, the Middle East, China, or some other unforeseen power(s) could gain strength to rival that of the United States. From the realist perspective, such a change could be ominous. A multipolar system could result in a renewed security-power dilemma, leading to an arms race and even conflict. Such a case is often attributed to the cause of World War I. Such a dilemma might be negated by a new state of MAD between all the major powers. However, such an increase in the world’s nuclear weapons would not be a positive step forward. The very existence of nuclear weapons is a threat, because of the possibility for accidents, irrationality, or nuclear weapons getting in the wrong hands.

            The future is ultimately impossible to predict, so one must look at the present. Doing so reveals a unipolar system in which the United States is a lone superpower. Yet, an analysis of recent events shows a threat to the U.S.’s power as well as to traditional state warfare in general. This threat is terrorism. Most dramatically, terrorism shifts the scale of warfare from states to rogue groups of terrorists. The terrorist attacks on September 11 are a poignant example of this new reality. Note that the realist perspective seems inadequate to explain the change in international relations this shift of scale might have. Balance of power does not apply to non-state entities, and terrorist groups are motivated largely by ideology not security concerns.

In fact, the liberal perspective is probably not sufficient either. Traditional liberal ideas such as common goals among nations, and institutions such as the United Nations are not equipped to explain or handle the new warfare of terror. Perhaps a new perspective is needed: neoliberalism. Such a perspective would extend a liberal conclusion that states would unify to accomplish the common goal of defeating terrorism. However, such a unified effort is not guaranteed to eliminate terrorism. Indeed, as the strength of different nations, especially the United States, increases, the amount of terrorism might increase as well. To help understand the new dynamic of this warfare scale, the neoliberal perspective could further utilize the Second Image view of international relations. To understand the dynamics of conflict in a world with terrorism scaled warfare, a stress must be placed on the state of domestic affairs and groups.

A domestic analysis is important, because terror groups reside within the territory of nation states. In some cases, the terrorist group not only resides in a state but also is supported to some degree by the state’s government itself. Such states that provide shelter for terrorist groups are said to harbor them. The act of harboring creates a link between the terrorist group and the nation. Such a link makes it easier to target the entire country along with the terrorist group. President George W. Bush has taken advantage of this link by declaring warfare not only against terror but also against states that harbor it. The United State’s upheaval of the Taliban in Afghanistan is a perfect example of this policy in effect. On the other hand, many terrorist groups are not harbored by nations and/or are unable to be controlled by the nation whose territory they reside. The IRA in Ireland and Hamas in Palestinian controlled area are perfect examples. Al Queda is another. Even with the collapse of the Taliban, which harbored them in Afghanistan, the Al Queda network continues to exist in many nations without their control, including the United States. Neoliberalism decrees that every nation take a stance of ridding terrorist groups within its territory. Since terrorists based anywhere can strike almost anywhere else, a worldwide “war against terror” will be necessary to limit the danger that terrorism poses to world peace and security.

While future balance of power changes must not be taken lightly, the threat of terrorism is a problem of the present. A change in the balance of power could create a more dangerous world, but the world has history to help guide its policies in this new world structure. The world does not enjoy the guide of history regarding terrorism, because terrorism is relatively young, especially to the United States. Terrorism is policy of violent action to achieve ideological ends. The ideology of terrorists might involve a certain group of people, a religion, a language, or general cultural differences. This fact brings forth the greatest difficulty yet proposed in fighting terror. A war on terror cannot be allowed to digress into a war on a given ideology. Such would be a threat to freedom itself. Making this distinction is the challenge that faces the world in the years to come.