| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The unravelling of the security environment associated with the Cold War has spawned an active and energising debate, in military and academic circles, about the extent to which the nature and character of war has changed. This study will consider the arguments posed by three of the most influential commentators, in the West at least; Martin Van Creveld, Mary Kaldor and General Sir Rupert Smith. Their contributions are all the more interesting as they have markedly different theoretical approaches. Critiquing their respective arguments and juxtaposing them with historical precedent and contending academic theory, it will be possible to assess the veracity of their respective claims. This is a non trivial debate, particularly given the constrained fiscal situation currently afflicting Western governments. Indeed, if true, the profound changes in the nature of war proposed by the literature will have important ramifications for future decisions in the West regarding military policy and procurement. The study will seek to demonstrate that whilst the debate is valid and commendable, it suffers from a tendency to emphasise change over continuity. Attempts to posit neat and tidy paradigmatic visions of the future are likely to be dashed by an enduring complexity associated with our strategic experience.
|