| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
084304
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the global war on terror bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new inter-and intra-service struggle emerged within the military, between what we might call the 'transformationists' and the 'neotraditionalists'. The transformationists put their faith in network-centric warfare and precision munitions to resolve the intractable political, civil and religious conflicts of the twenty-first century. The neotraditionalists, in contrast, go back to the future for lessons, to the 'low-intensity conflicts' of Malaya and Vietnam, the 'small wars' that Marines fought in Central America in the interwar period, and even the instructions given to American servicemen deployed to assist the British occupation of Iraq during the Second World War. Lumped together under the rubric of 'irregular warfare', two new watchwords have had emerged from the neotraditionalist camp: 'counter-insurgency' and 'cultural awareness'. As the neotraditionalists reach out to social scientists to assist them in their efforts, a secondary civil war has erupted in the universities over whether academics should become involved in the new war efforts. Based on a week spent embedded with the 1/25th Marines at 29 Palms and extensive interviews with key proponents and critics, this article maps (and reflexively questions the practice of mapping) the future of warfare as it is planned, taught, gamed and operationalized by the US military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
101745
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Scholars from various subfields have recognised a dangerous novelty for ethical thought on war in the combination of a detached, or virtual, technical ability to wage war and the ethical imperatives of human rights norms - deemed 'virtuous war'. This article begins by discussing the contention that the just war tradition acts as the enabling discourse for virtuous war, and the further contention that the wars being enabled are paradoxically unjust. After assessing the validity of the virtuous war claim it is argued that the just war tradition's core ethical commitment not only remains the most sound starting point for thinking about the morality of war, but is a commitment that those in the virtuous war literature suggesting alternate ethical doctrines on war implicitly reject. It is contended, though, that the addition of a third pillar to the just war structure of cause and means criteria - a justice after war or jus post bellum - has arisen due to the virtuous war reality, and is necessary in order for the just war tradition to remain committed to its core ethical principle in a 21st century marked by virtuous war. Lastly, I present a brief sketch of jus post bellum informed by the article's key claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|