Technological fetishism & war
Aug 30, 2006
The death of deterrence
By Gabriel Kolko
The United States had a monopoly of nuclear weaponry only a few years before other nations challenged it, but from 1949 until roughly the 1990s, deterrence theory worked – nations knew that if they used the awesome bomb, they were likely to be devastated in the riposte.
Despite such examples of brinkmanship as the Cuban missile crisis and numerous threats of nuclear annihilation against non-nuclear powers, by and large the few nations that possessed the bomb concluded that nuclear war was not worth its horrendous
risks. Today, by contrast, weapons of mass destruction or precision and power are within the capacity of dozens of nations either to produce or purchase. With the multiplicity of weapons now available, deterrence theory is increasingly irrelevant, and the equations of military power that existed in the period after World War II no longer hold.
This process began in Korea after 1950, where the war ended in a standoff despite the nominal vast superiority of the United States’ military power, and the Pentagon discovered that great space combined with guerrilla warfare was more than a match for it in Vietnam, where the US was defeated. Both wars caused the US military and establishment strategists to reflect on the limits of high-tech warfare, and for a time it seemed as if appropriate lessons would be learned and costly errors not repeated.
The conclusion drawn from these major wars should have been that there were decisive limits to US military and political power, and that the United States should drastically tailor its foreign policy and cease intervening anywhere it chose to. In short, it was necessary to accept the fact that it could not guide the world as it wished to. But such a conclusion, justified by experience, was far too radical for either of the United States’ two main political parties to embrace fully, and military contractors never ceased promising the ultimate new weapon. America’s leaders and military establishment in the wake of September 11, 2001, argued that technology would rescue the country from more political failures. But such illusions – fed by the technological fetishism that is the hallmark of their civilization – led to the Iraq debacle.
There has now been a qualitative leap in technology that makes all inherited conventional wisdom, and war as an instrument of political policy, utterly irrelevant, not just to the US but to any other nation that embarks upon it.
Technology is now moving much faster than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences – not to mention traditional strategic theories. Hezbollah has far better and more lethal rockets than it had a few years ago, and US experts believe that the Iranians compelled the group to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer-range cruise missiles it already possesses. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles, and US experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft-carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable. [1]
Even more ominous, the US Army has just released a report that light-water reactors – which 25 nations, from Armenia to Slovenia, already have and are covered by no existing arms-control treaties – can be used to obtain near-weapons-grade plutonium easily and cheaply. [2] Within a few years, many more countries than the present 10 or so – the army study thinks Saudi Arabia and even Egypt most likely – will have nuclear bombs and far more destructive and accurate rockets and missiles.
Weapons-poor fighters will have far more sophisticated guerrilla tactics as well as far more lethal equipment, which deprives the heavily equipped and armed nations of the advantages of their overwhelming firepower, as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. The battle between a few thousand Hezbollah fighters and a massive, ultra-modern Israeli army backed and financed by the US proves this. Among many things, the war in Lebanon is a window of the future. The outcome suggests that either the Israelis cease their policy of destruction and intimidation and accept the political prerequisites of peace with the Arab world, or they too will eventually be devastated by cheaper and more accurate missiles and nuclear weapons in the hands of at least two Arab nations and Iran.
What is now occurring in the Middle East reveals lessons just as relevant in the future to festering problems in East Asia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. Access to nuclear weapons, cheap missiles of greater portability and accuracy, and the inherent limits of all anti-missile systems will set the context for whatever crises arise in North Korea, Iran, Taiwan or Venezuela. Trends that increase the limits of technology in warfare are not only applicable to relations between nations but also to groups within them – ranging from small conspiratorial entities up the scale of size to large guerrilla movements. The events in the Middle East have proved that warfare has changed dramatically everywhere, and US hegemony can now be successfully challenged throughout the globe.
Iranian missile exercise
US power has been dependent to a large extent on the country’s highly mobile navy. But ships are increasingly vulnerable to missiles, and while they are a long way from finished they are more and more circumscribed tactically and, ultimately, strategically. There is a greater balance-of-power militarily, the re-emergence of a kind of deterrence that means all future wars will be increasingly protracted and expensive – and very costly politically to politicians who blunder into wars with illusions they will be short and decisive. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his defense minister, Amir Peretz, are very likely to lose power in Israel, and destroying Lebanon will not save their political futures. This too is a message not likely to be lost on politicians.
To this extent, what is emerging is a new era of more equal rivals. Enforceable universal disarmament of every kind of weapon would be far preferable. But short of this currently unattainable goal, this emergence of a new equivalency is a vital factor leading less to peace in the real meaning of that term than perhaps to greater prudence. Such restraint could be an important factor leading to less war.
We live with 21st-century technology and also with primitive political attitudes, assorted nationalisms, and cults of heroism and irrationality existing across the political spectrum and the power spectrum. The world will destroy itself unless it realistically confronts the new technological equations. Israel now must accept this reality, and if it does not develop the political skills required to make serious compromises, this new equation warrants that it will be liquidated even as it rains destruction on its enemies.
This is the message of the conflicts in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon – to use only the examples in today’s papers. Walls are no longer protection for the Israelis – one shoots over them. Their much-vaunted Merkava tanks have proved highly vulnerable to new weapons that are becoming more and more common and are soon likely to be in Palestinian hands as well. At least 20 of the tanks were seriously damaged or destroyed in the recent conflict with Hezbollah.
Israeli missiles target Beirut
The US war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas – a half-trillion US dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have FULL ARTICLE
DeAnander:
the FULL ARTICLE text is supposed to be a link, no? as viewed by my browser as of tonight, it is not a link…
I suspect it is supposed to be this article from Asia Times…?
30 August 2006, 1:43 ampeggy:
That is an interesting and thought-provoking article. What continues to trouble me, however, is the fact that Israel *could* incapacitate Hezbollah simply by bombing Lebananon completely until all the people in the country were dead. And I am certain there are individuals and even organized parties who advocate just that. The only thing deterring them is the fierce international and domestic opprobrium that would surely fall on their heads if they did so. But how strong a deterrent is that? We know that there are madmen in high office in both Israel and the United States who do not give a damn about international and domestic opprobrium. True believers in Ayn Rand, like the Enron guys described in the article above. If they could somehow keep their own people and the people of the world in the dark about their actions, then they could do what they wanted with impunity. And what prevents them from keeping everyone in the dark is precisely technology, advanced communications technology, in the form of the Internet. To destroy the whole Internet would take a lot of doing. One could, in principle, bomb Google HQ in Mountain View, CA, but I have a feeling that such an act would scarcely make a dent in the total system. It would just make a lot of nice and intelligent people who currently are not especially angry at anybody mad as hornets.
Just thoughts …
2 September 2006, 12:42 ampeggy:
An example of how some people consider genocide a perfectly reasonable option, and how the fear of international opprobrium makes their better educated comrades ask them to tone it down, and how the Internest helps us to know about this
http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=130&id=4346
2 September 2006, 12:51 amDeAnander:
“The Internest” — a typo I know, but I kinda like it. The termite mound of information…
2 September 2006, 10:06 pmMarilyn Farhat:
I think that wars in the 21st century will be fought more along the lines of states with highly developed military technologies versus civilians with more traditional, though sometimes very lethal, means. We are seeing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon and other places.
The current invasion of Lebanon by Israel and the destruction of much of the infrastructure has brought forth a set of moral revisions (where the targeting of civilians is concerned). We are seeing the same logic in different areas of the world, but the Lebanon crisis has brought the discussion into the public arena.
Influential people, such as Alan Dershowitz, have claimed that there are various “degrees” of civlian complicity in war. I was listening to him speak on CNN opposite James Zoghby. Dershowitz’s argument was that since 80% of Lebanese either support or sympathize with Hezbollah in this war, they have become legitimate targets.
I am also hearing justifications for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the grounds that “hundreds of thousands of American lives were saved,” and that many Americans who are now alive would never have been born (a meaningless statement).
There are those who also argue that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and stand in the way of the “War on Terror.”
If we listen carefully to how the war in Lebanon was covered, we hear a lot of language twisting and manipulation. One of my favorite is that Israeli politicians care more about Lebanese children than Hezbollah because Hezbollah “are hiding behind civilians and using civilians as human shields.” So, technically, all the death and destruction in Lebanon is Hezbollah’s fault and doing.
There are two disturbing insinuations to this argument:
1- there is no more recourse for civilians in wartime since all resistance and popular movements exist within population centers. We also have to remember than many of the bombings were carried out on Hezbollah officials were in their own homes while they slept with their families. Many people also focus so much on the repeated rhetoric that they forget to observe that when people defend their homes, they have to defend them from within the cities and villages they are trying to protect and, therefore, have to retaliate from within civilian areas. The anti-aircraft missiles of Europe during WWII were scattered all over the cities that were bombed by both the Allies and the Axis air forces.
2- By labeling all popular resistance movements as “terrorist,” the state powers around the world have basically negated the right of citizens to resist. In that sense, any armed resistance anywhere in the world can be deemed “terrorist” and, therefore, criminal and subject to punishment without regard to international law. This is one of the arguments we inherited post 9-11.
There are more issues involved, but I will stop here.
The people of the world are headed down a slippery slope. Any military/corporate/state entity that is dissatisfied with the way things are going within its intended or actual sphere of control can and will declare war on those citizens whose rights are being violated and who may want to address the injustice imposed on them by vastly more powerful entities.
The following article is a critique of Dershowitz’s view.
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein08122006.html
3 September 2006, 12:56 amComandante Gringo:
I want to point out to the 2nd commentator that if the zionists had actually attempted to systematically slaughter the entire population of Lebanon (and how could they differentiate the shi’a to go only for them, while these would be streaming in a panic — along with everyone else — into Suria?), Suria would have been soon pulled into such a genocidal war — and right after them, Iran. And after that… who knows? Other than there would be a revolution in at least Misr (Egypt), Saudi Arabia and Jordan — and who can see past that scenario?
And so, along the lines of Kolko’s article, MANY, many missiles of all types, with all sorts of “payloads”, would have been raining down on Yisrael… which would’ve given new meaning to their ongoing, arrogant and criminal “Summer Rain” warcrime in Ghaza and the West Bank. And where would this escalating scenario stop at, eh..?
And so here we see the basic logic behind the zionists *trying their level best to get OUT of Lebanon at the earliest opportunity* — their only concern at that point: to save as much face as possible.
If the zionist rulers actually attempt this insane scenario the next time — the other side will CERTAINLY be more prepared to visit missile doom upon the settler state. One would have to be possessed of a deathwish to follow this path to its terminus. And, yes indeed, some of this fascist Right certainly appear to be that.
So: did the 2nd commentator not understand the article? That there are unacceptable consequences — now more than ever — to unbridled bloodlust? There are real limits to even the massive armaments and military might of Pinky and The Brain.
3 September 2006, 3:19 pmneilcaff:
While I quite enjoy a lot of Kolko’s articles I think there is one other big factor that makes fighting guerrilla forces embedded in the civilian population problematic. That is the existence of a large anti-imperialist consciousness around the globe. In fact I think this is the decisive factor not the development of new weapons and tactics (although they are important for sure)
4 September 2006, 5:33 amWars are launched to achieve political ends. Wars are lost when the political costs of the war become greater than what can be gained by continuing them.
This is precisely what happened to Israel (and its master the US). The international outrage by ordinary people made the US more isolated than ever. Don’t forget the deadline for Iran to cease nuclear processing was looming and the US needed all the support it could get. As Seymour Hirsh revealed, the US backed Israel to destroy Hezbollah in order to weaken Iran. Instead as the slaughter of civilians climbed higher Hezbollah (and Iran) got stronger.
Worse the corrupt pro-US Arab dictators could feel the ground shifting beneath their feet as night after night Al-Jazeera beamed the daily horror of Lebanon into Arab homes. For me the decisive moment in the war was in late July when the Saudi foreign minister went to Washington asking the US to use its influence to end the war. This was a complete U turn from the start of the conflict when the Saudi’s blamed Hezbollah for the war. Obviously the House of Saud was feeling the heat form below maybe even in the armed forces, who can say?
Finally the war ignited mass opposition in Britain. Bush’s key ally Tony Blair was becoming even more hated and isolated (which is quite an achievement) for his open support for Israeli aggression. From what I hear from people I know in Lebanon, the pictures of the demo in London of 100,000 on 5th August was a bit of a morale booster.
Combining these three factors with the stiff resistance of Hezbollah made the destruction of Lebanon politically unacceptable for Israel.
The important thing for us as political activists is it demonstrates the power of mass movements in the face of imperial aggression. Sometimes I think on the left there’s a tendency to see armed groups as the be all and end all of anti-imperialism. But there is a limit to what they can achieve too in the absence of perspective that sees a mass political movement that can link up with other like minded groups across the planet as the best way to defeat imperialism and all the rest of the crap that goes with it.
Hopefully we can all move forward from this (temporary) victory over imperialism and achieve this.
peggy:
neilcaff – You have said what I was trying to say, only better. At this moment the best deterrence is political – strong mass opposition to unbridled bombing, compared with strong international (combined states) opposition to same.
4 September 2006, 6:36 pmneilcaff:
Cheers peggy, great minds and all that
5 September 2006, 8:29 amTo expand a bit on the limits of armed groups I think the big effect of Lebanon will be the emergence of mass political opposition groups in Middle Eastern countries and the diminishing influence of purely armed opposition groups.
Terroristic activity is a reflection of a low level of struggle among the general mass of the population. Because of their isolation dissidents will turn to acts of individual terrorism both as a way to confront a repressive regime and in the hope of igniting a general feeling of discontent and a willingness to struggle among people. Unfortunately because of the conspiratorial, secretive nature of these groups they cannot initiate a mass movement. Instead people are relegated to the sidelines as passive observers while the armed groups play out their secret war with the government. This is a complete dead end as events in Algeria, Libya and Egypt in the 90′s tragically showed.
Hamas partly avoided this trap through its social programmes which gave it the means to involve the mass of the population in the struggle for a better life. Again though suicide bombing of civilian areas in Israel was and is another dead end. Since its turn to electoral politics its strength both in the OT’s and against Israel has increased. (I’m not advocating that Hamas should disarm and become an electoral party merely that armed struggle alone against Israel is not viable)
The failures of armed Islamic groups to overthrow the pro-West regimes and the anger aroused by US imperialism in the region have led to Islamic groups moving away from armed struggle towards more mass political work. This recent article in Asia Times Online
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI06Ak02.html
is an interesting study of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Clearly something is stirring in the Middle East, however rather than seeing this as a windfall for Al’Qaeda or other such groups I’ll go out on a limb here and say we will see a period of mass struggle, strikes, boycotts etc, rather than a rerun of what happened in the early 90′s, as new political movements emerge in the ME.
Phew that’s enough crystal ball gazing.