QUESTION: Based on what you read and your own opinion, what is war?

COMMENTS: ACSC uses the following working definition of war:: "War is always a violent clash of social interests in which the use of physical force to determine its outcome clearly distinguishes it from conflict." (Ware Essay)

The main ideas to draw out of this question are: War is made up of societies in conflict, it is violent and its goal is to make your opponent do what you want them to do.

QUESTION: We have a pretty good handle on what war is, but what is peace? Can we really come up with a good definition of this concept?

COMMENTS: Peace was addressed in terms of its relationship to war. Is it the absence of war in which case it is a negative concept or is it the impossibility of war which would make it a positive concept. You can't talk about one without talking about the other and the importance a society places on peace says something about the importance of war. (Ware Essay)

QUESTION: From what we've discussed, it seems war and peace are two sides of the same coin. However, we have not yet discussed conflict. What is conflict and where does it fit in relation to war and peace?

COMMENTS: It would be fair to say that war and peace are two sides of the same coin. You can't talk about one without talking about the other. Moreover, peace is not only the end of war but the beginning as well. Conflict is the necessary precondition of war, but you don't necessarily have to have a war just because you have a conflict. For example we have conflicts over trade with countries, but we are not engaged in a violent clash characteristic of war. Thus, conflict can be for any reason and be present in peace as well as war. Note: Some students may hold that in perfect peace there would be no conflict. This is true. However, in recorded history there has never been such a peace. Or let me say it this way: I challenge you to think of a period of recorded history when there was no conflict. In our discussion we are dealing with a realist approach rather than an idealist. (Ware Essay)

Woven into the fabric of war, conflict, and peace is the concept of military operations other than war or MOOTW. Let's take a few moments to introduce this important area since MOOTW is an area with increasing application to military officers in today's environment.

QUESTION: What is MOOTW and what are its characteristics? (Brainstorm on the white board)

COMMENTS: MOOTW is the use of military capabilities for any purpose other than war. These operations can range from peacetime civil assistance to combat operations. In some instances such as Somalia the military can be involved in relief efforts in one neighborhood and involved in combat operations a few blocks away. MOOTW involves the primacy of political objectives, because political objectives drive MOOTW at every level from strategic to tactical. MOOTW contributes to the attainment of national security objectives by supporting deterrence and crisis response options. MOOTW focus on deterring war, resolving conflict, promoting peace and supporting civil authorities. MOOTW may involve both combat and noncombat operations. (Joint Pub 3-07, pg I1)

QUESTION: How does the application of the military instrument of power differ in war and in MOOTW?

COMMENTS: Clausewitz has described war as an extension of politics. The focus of the military instrument of power in war has typically been on the fielded enemy forces and the enemy's capacity to wage war. The military instrument of national power is applied directly and in most cases violently to achieve political objectives.

In MOOTW the military rarely assumes a leading role as all the instruments of national power are used to achieve political objectives. The military may be used in an indirect role with the major emphasis placed on assuring legitimacy of the actions or psychological impact. In MOOTW the military instrument of national power is used to further diplomatic or informational objectives, usually in support of the department of state. (Joint Pub 3-07, pg I1)

QUESTION: Let's start off with a quick review of terms; what is a nation, state, and nation-state?

COMMENTS: A nation is a social or cultural entity. It is composed of people who share a common: language, history, ethnic background, religion, and/or customs or any combination of the above characteristics. The group of people are usually living within certain frontiers. A nation is a community of individuals who have developed a strong emotional bond or sentiment towards the larger group. It could be said the group has forged a common identity or a sense of "we-ness."

A state is a legal-political entity rather than a social or cultural entity, as is the concept of the nation. A state possesses four primary attributes: territorial integrity, population, sovereignty, and recognition.

A nation-state is a state whose population is composed from a single nation of people or at least one nation is in the vast majority. The population identifies the nation and the state as one and the same. It is conceptually an ideal form of state, with all members of a particular nation having their own state. (Papp)

QUESTION: What is an international governmental organization (IGO) and where does it derive its power?

COMMENTS: IGOs are organized by two or more sovereign states. They meet regularly and normally have a full time staff. Membership in IGOs is voluntary and technically does not challenge state sovereignty. They often act as a forum for communications among states; serve a regulatory function, serve a distribution function; offer potential for collective security and peacekeeping; and at times perform governmental functions. (Papp)

IGOs, although having varying degrees of power, are a function of the state system and derive power from their membership. Thus, although expected to play a greater role in conflict management, the power of the IGO is in its ability to build consensus among its membership. (Papp)

Now that we understand the terms, let's run through three scenarios to examine the complexity of actors. The three scenarios we will use will be Desert Storm, the Bosnian conflict and Somalia. From your own knowledge you should be able to understand the Desert Storm actors, and you have readings to support the Bosnian and Somalian conflicts.

QUESTION: In Desert Storm, who were the state actors?

COMMENTS: There were numerous; United States, Great Britain, France, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Pakistan, Syria on one side. Iraq and Sudan on the other.

QUESTION: How about IGOs?

COMMENTS: The United Nations and the Arab League. Although members of NATO were involved, the Middle East is considered outside of the organization's area of responsibility. The coalition is not an IGO because it was an ad hoc relationship and did not have a governing body. Some may argue that OPEC was an actor involved in Desert Storm. This is truly debatable. OPEC did not send troops or support the deployment of troops. However, OPEC nations agreed to increase the production of oil to make up for the temporary loss of the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil fields.

QUESTION: Lets look at Somalia. Who were the state actors and IGOs involved in that conflict?

COMMENTS: The United States, Pakistan, Great Britain, and Canada to name a few. The key is that they all were operating under the auspices of the United Nations. If the students say Somalia ask them why. A strong case can be made that the state of Somalia at the time did not exhibit the necessary characteristics of a state. It did not have "we-ness." (Somalia reading)

QUESTION: How about the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Who are the state actors and IGOs involved in that conflict? Which ones are probably nation-states?

COMMENTS: Bosnia-Herzegovina (Is not a nation-state and there rests part of the problem.) The state is made up of Ethnic Serbs, Croats and Muslims (who do not share a sense of we-ness); Croatia (NS), Serbia (NS), France (NS), Great Britain (NS), United States (??), Canada (??). United Nations and NATO are the main IGOs. (Bosnian reading)

QUESTION: What are the general categories of non-state actors?

COMMENTS: Ethnic/national liberation movements, trans-national religious movements, trans-national ideological or political movements, and multinational corporations. (Davidson)

QUESTION: Can you think of any others?

COMMENTS: Trans-national criminal groups and terrorist movements might also be included. (Davidson)

QUESTION: How do these non-state actors differ from their state counterparts? How are they alike?

COMMENTS: The key differences between state and non-state actors often comes down to recognition by the world community and internal sovereignty. Many non-state actors exhibit the other attributes of a state actor. For example, most ethnic/nationalist movements lay claim to a certain amount of territory. Often there is a central governing authority. In most cases they have some population that they represent. Some non-state actors are actually better equipped militarily and economically than the corresponding nation-state. (Davidson)

QUESTION: In the second Persian Gulf War, were there any non-state actors?

COMMENTS: On the whole, Desert Storm was fought between states and other entities in the state system. It might be argued that MNC's such as EXXON, Shell, and British Petroleum had influence with their governments but as for being actors to the conflict they were not. On the other hand, the Palestine Liberation Organization actually sent a token force to fight with Iraq against the coalition.

QUESTION: How about in Somalia?

COMMENTS: The answer to this one is not quite clear or easy to pinpoint. The forces fighting against UNISOM were certainly non-state actors. Categorizing is much more difficult. They were not an ethnic movement because most of Somalia is made up of the Somali people. They were not a nationalist movement - in most of the groups, statelessness still had a constituency. Religion and ideology were not big players. Somalia represents a throwback to feudalism and clan warfare. (Somalia reading)

QUESTION: O.K. How about Bosnia...what type of non-state actors are involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

COMMENTS: The key non-state actor in Bosnia is the Bosnian-Serb Army. This force is distinctly separate and apart from the State of Serbia. Each of the three competing ethnic groups have representative ethnic/nationalist movements. The Bosnian Moslems are represented by the state government; the Bosnian Croatians by the Bosnian Croat Army which formed a union with the Bosnian government: and the Bosnian Serbs. Each group has its own army and command structure. (Bosnia reading)

QUESTION: Okay, we have spent quite a bit of time looking at actors in these three conflicts from the state, and non-state points of view. In just reviewing what we have done today, what conclusions might you make?

COMMENTS:

- The type of actors in Desert Storm is significantly different from the ones in the other two conflicts.

- -Trying to draw analogies among the three conflicts is very difficult.

- -What worked or didn't work in one conflict may or may not work in the others.

- Non-state actors have become major players in conflict

- - The threat can no longer be thought of in terms of state actors (the greatest threat during the Cold War was the Soviet Union)

- Trying to determine targets and combatants in conflicts where non-state actors are prevalent is more difficult than in a state on state conflict.

QUESTION: For review, what are the strengths and weaknesses of examining actors like we've done today?

COMMENTS: This approach allows us to put actors into categories so that we can better understand them. Without correctly identifying the actors, we could not understand the motives and objectives of those actors. When involved in war, we need to have a clear understanding of who is the opponent. Failure to identify actors could lead to failure. For example, China and the Soviet Union backed North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. The fact that they were involved changed the focus of the war for the United States. Students may say a weakness is that this is too simplistic a way of examining actors. They may say that there are some actors who don't fit into a nice category, such as a "culture" or a civilization. (Synthesis of all readings)

SUMMARY

Today we've given much thought to the meaning of peace conflict and war. We've discussed how they relate and what makes up a war. Then we covered an introduction to MOOTW, more of which you will see in later courses. We've also covered the way different societies think about war and how the way we think about it may not be the way a potential adversary thinks about it. In this area we noted how some societies value war opposite of the way we do. To try to help this make a little more sense we discussed some of the attitudes leading up to the First World War and saw how their attitude toward conflict and war led them to destruction.

Today, we looked at actors from three different perspectives. First, we looked at state actors. We discussed the differences between a state, nation, and nation-state and then broke out the state actors to three different conflicts. We then looked at non-state actors and saw how since 1945, 2/3rd of the wars fought were civil wars involving non-state actors. These non-state actors can be grouped into such categories as ethnic/liberation movements, trans-national religious movements, trans-national ideological movements, multinational corporations, and criminal organizations. Finally, we looked at the direct participants in conflict.

Conclusion

You now have the basics of war and conflict, that essentially war is what societies do for better or worse. With this as a foundation you should have a better understanding for further study of the actors, motives, objectives, levels, and war resolution. Keep in mind our working definition of war as a point of reference to avoid confusion. Tomorrow, we'll study the various actors to war and conflict and gain a greater appreciation for the many complexities of war.