There was a time when going to war was an absolute last resort. It didn't, sadly, stop them from happening but it did mean that committing a country to war was a massive deal. An undertaking that meant massive mobilisation of troops and equipment; massive cost in financial terms and in human life on both sides.
It also meant that one would need a compelling argument to commit to war and then an overwhelming force that would not only win militarily, but would hopefully show the opponent that they had no real chance of victory and thereby shorten the conflict, saving lives and forcing the opponent to the negotiating table where proper peace agreements could be forged and future conflicts made less likely to occur. This approach to war afforded to us the most effective means of stopping conflict: deterrent.
Because the leaders knew that if we were so provoked that we would go to war, properly, that we would win it, and then make the changes needed to stop it at source - which would mean taking them and their regimes, out. Permanently.
It seems to me that what we now have - and this situation is proliferating - is technology such as drones and 'fire and forget' missiles made available to us by those nice people at Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems et. al., that allow politicians to wage war at the drop of a hat. This technology means few if any consequences for the lives of 'our' troops, but does not deliver a proper solution to the conflict; does not deter the leaders we are fighting against (who don't really give a toss for the lives of their 'troops') because it does not effect regime change or victory on the ground, instead it delivers pin pricks against the enemy and is then used against us to recruit more fodder for us to target with our technology.
I'm not saying that wars are always unnecessary, I'm no pacifist by any means (see my conclusion). But it seems to me that this technology is making it too easy to engage, and become embroiled in, conflicts that we have no real justification to be involved in and, increasingly, no clear objective position on the desired outcome. 'These horrible people are killing some other horrible people, so why don't we take a few of them out?'
This almost happened in Syria earlier this year. When there was no clear idea as to who the good guys or the bad guys were or what our overall objective was. More here. It also led, in the past few days, to a drone attack on an entirely innocent wedding convoy in Jordan in which 15 people were killed. It's become like playing Space Invaders from some desk in the Pentagon where it is not the countries involved we are trying to help or to target, but some small groups of people within those countries with whom we are in conflict.
Most importantly of all, it is not delivering any kind of solution to the prevailing conflict, just adding an additional - and deadly - and often indiscriminate, element to it.
Sooner or later we will have to go in to these war zones properly and whilst this might seem to be a contradiction in terms, we will have to 'impose' our freedoms upon their citizens and take away their ability to wage petty wars against each other. There is no other long-term solution and a few drone strikes or missile launches from offshore platforms are not helping at the moment.
Technology cannot be 'un-invented'. Nuclear war had attached to it the ultimate deterrent of complete annihilation. But drones do not. This makes the former much less likely to become reality, but the latter much more likely to be used.
How long will it be before the bad guys get drones to use?
At the moment we're fiddling while Damascus and many other places burn. We are, in my opinion, putting off the inevitable. We need to find a true solution to conflict, particularly in the Middle East. It seems to me that negotiation doesn't work against some people particularly when they feel that they have nothing left to lose and when their 'religion' (as delivered to them by those in power) tells them that they will receive their reward in heaven for waging a holy war.
You can't win against these people with a few drone-delivered pin pricks. You have to achieve a proper solution which means a fundamental change to their societies and the way they are governed. It also means delivering prosperity, purpose, opportunity and freedom to their ordinary citizens. A tall order, but the alternative is a never ending cycle of war, conflict and then aid. We're almost certainly spending more on this than it would cost to bring these countries and peoples into the first world in terms of business, industry, prosperity and opportunity.
In my opinion it is time for us to stop fucking about (technical term) and to look towards a proper solution for the good of the whole world. More on the same subject, related to Syria, and thinking the unthinkable, here.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment