New War Analysis
When looking at the two different articles by two different authors, they on the surface seem to look completely different with on explaining the variables and impacts of war on the economy, social world and the political world as in the Newman text. And the Fleming piece focusing more on the process which makes ‘New Wars’ and such. However, when you delve deeper into the text you can identify a number of similarities in what they are trying to say and a number of differences too. These include the similarities in the economics of war and the social outcomes of war.
When looking at the economic advantage and reason behind the new wars debate both articles come to a fairly conclusive rationale about the role of the economy in war. Within Civil …show more content…
Newman took a different angle to the social factors of new wars looking more at the actors of wars and how they varied in new wars. Newman looked at the protagonists of war such as ‘terror groups’ and public and private actors and their contribution to the cause, nature and impacts of war (Newman, pp.174). Whereas in the other article Fleming looked more towards the people in war and concepts of people in war. Fleming mentions the ‘Trinity of War’ this is essentially a triangular shape between the people, commander and the government. But, with the breakdown of the state or the government in its authority has led to the dissolution of Clausewitz’s model (Fleming, pp.217). And rise towards mobs and militia who cannot effectively work in War and has also according to Fleming means war has lost its political purpose and will now be driven by religion, culture or ethics, all of which are dangerous as it shows a rise in ideological war within the new wars thesis. But while the two article differ on their approach to the approach of the social in war, both articles agree that in new wars civilians are the primary targets of war and there has been an increase in genocides as in Rwanda, refugees as in the current Syrian refugee crisis and rise in civilian over military deaths in the last half century. This is …show more content…
He introduces the idea that new wars are in the ‘4th generation of warfare’ (Fleming, pp.215). There have been three other generations of war starting after Westphalia until the end of the first world war. Each generation introducing new factors such as the first generation being on clear cut wars, then the second being mass firepower at the beginning of the Great War and then the third being speed of attack also within the Great War. However, the new generation of war involves politics, economics, social, and military factors according to Fleming, in his Clausewitz heavy article.
In conclusion, both articles have points within them that are similar to the other, however they both take different approaches to the idea of the new war debate. In spite of this they both identify that the civilian casualty list has increased in new wars in comparison to the old wars. And both have suggested that economics and social factors are more important in new wars debate over the political purpose of
When looking at the economic advantage and reason behind the new wars debate both articles come to a fairly conclusive rationale about the role of the economy in war. Within Civil …show more content…
Newman took a different angle to the social factors of new wars looking more at the actors of wars and how they varied in new wars. Newman looked at the protagonists of war such as ‘terror groups’ and public and private actors and their contribution to the cause, nature and impacts of war (Newman, pp.174). Whereas in the other article Fleming looked more towards the people in war and concepts of people in war. Fleming mentions the ‘Trinity of War’ this is essentially a triangular shape between the people, commander and the government. But, with the breakdown of the state or the government in its authority has led to the dissolution of Clausewitz’s model (Fleming, pp.217). And rise towards mobs and militia who cannot effectively work in War and has also according to Fleming means war has lost its political purpose and will now be driven by religion, culture or ethics, all of which are dangerous as it shows a rise in ideological war within the new wars thesis. But while the two article differ on their approach to the approach of the social in war, both articles agree that in new wars civilians are the primary targets of war and there has been an increase in genocides as in Rwanda, refugees as in the current Syrian refugee crisis and rise in civilian over military deaths in the last half century. This is …show more content…
He introduces the idea that new wars are in the ‘4th generation of warfare’ (Fleming, pp.215). There have been three other generations of war starting after Westphalia until the end of the first world war. Each generation introducing new factors such as the first generation being on clear cut wars, then the second being mass firepower at the beginning of the Great War and then the third being speed of attack also within the Great War. However, the new generation of war involves politics, economics, social, and military factors according to Fleming, in his Clausewitz heavy article.
In conclusion, both articles have points within them that are similar to the other, however they both take different approaches to the idea of the new war debate. In spite of this they both identify that the civilian casualty list has increased in new wars in comparison to the old wars. And both have suggested that economics and social factors are more important in new wars debate over the political purpose of