SECURITY: WAR & TERRORISM Victor Finkel

CONCEPTS

Just War Theory “Jus ad bellum” - Right to go to War – Just Cause – Last Resort – Declared by Legitimate Authority – Right Intention – Reasonable Chance of Success – End Proportional to Means “Jus in bello” – Right conduct within War – Discrimination Who are legitimate targets of war? – Proportionality How much force is appropriate? – Responsibility Maintaining responsibility amongst soldiers “Jus post bellum” – Compensation – Rehabilitation – Punishment Standing in International Law? Significance of International Law?

Golden Arches Peace Theory No two countries with McDonalds in them will go to war -Level of Economic Developmnet; Middle Class to support McDonald’s Network -Symbol of economic interdependence Statistically speaking seemed to work pretty well! Fails: NATO/Serbia (2005) India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998) Israel/Lebanon (2006) Georgia/Russia (2008)

Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.” \ Nations are unwilling to risk the employment generated by globalizastion, and don’t fight. Use to argue why economic ties are a positive; e.g. in sanctions debates Examples: India/Pakistan Nuclear Standoff Taiwan/China ?

Democratic Peace Theory Democracies almost never fight with each other – lack of any real wars between real democracies in 20 th C -Normative Reasons -Structural Reasons Argue that promoting democracy has broader benefits to protecting the security of existing democratic nations ?democratic crusade? 1)Other explanations; e.g. political similarity 2)Just a matter of time – e.g. Iran (is this true democracy though?) 3)Promoting democracy can backfire – increase conflict

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Non- Proliferation More Nukes = More Safety! Presumes: – Bipolar world – Rational Actors – Perfect Detection – Perfect Lines of Communication – Clear operating protocols How closely does this reflect reality? Are you willing to gamble on a mistake?

War vs Insurgency War “Conventional Warfare” US etc have massive technological superiority in this type of conflict The initial campaign in Iraq 2003 was over in four weeks, 6 weeks after George Bush declared ‘victory’ Libyan air defences destroyed within days by Tomohawk missile attacks Insurgency “Guerilla Warfare” Iraq didn’t finish till 2010; even then not really. 10 times as many died in insurgency as in initial war

Terrorism Key questions when considering counter- terrorism policies – What is the root cause of the terrorism? – Will this tactic work given the particular structure of the terrorist organisation? – Will this just make things worse? Hearts and Minds of the people – terrorists do not live in a vacuum. They get support. How, Why?

TORTURE Once ultimate taboo, torture seems to be back in fashion. Used extensively in “War on Terror” in Guantanamo, Egypt (Extraordinary Rendition) etc Key Questions – What does torture include? – Who could it be used on? – Does it work? – Where & how will it be used? Slippery slope? – Are there other ways to have gained this information?

PIRACY Piracy rampant off coast of Somalia; near Suez canal – 97 attacks so far this year. Use small boats. Risk/Reward Equation; need to hit both sides of each Options – Naval Deployment – Arming Merchant Ships – Land Resolution; Invasion? Case Study: Straights of Malacca – 40 attacks in 2004, only 2 in 2008 – Military: Air patrols, information sharing – Civil: End of conflict in Aceh, restoration of economy

Sovereignty In Favour Sovereign Right to govern necessary to prevent meddling by other countries Sovereignty must be respected if nations are to be able to work together in International Frameworks To maintain the good parts of the NORM, we must accept the bad (restrictions) Against Sovereignty is an artifact of history Should not be respected in cases where – Clear Humanitarian Crisis – Does not represent the Will of the People – All other methods have been tried – ?

Multi-Lateralism vs Unilateralism Unilateral vs. multilateral war: big issue in recent years – is it legitimate for and should countries intervene internationally on their own? Is there a certain mandate and legitimacy that comes with collective intervention? Application in debates: aside from the obvious example of Iraq II, which was latterly unilateral, it often arises where it’s claimed that “we can’t wait for things to get any worse”. Consider issues of precedent, slippery slope, role of the UN etc.

Debating about Invasions / Assassinations etc AFF Establish Imperative – Identify a tipping point (why we can’t wait) – Last Resort (all other options have been tried) Provide clear mechanism – Outline a military strategy that will work Initial conflict Continuing conflict (insurgency?) – Include amnesty option for combatants / suggest won’t fight Show path to a better future – Reconstruction efforts? – Who will take power afterwards? Creates important positive precedents NEG Throw mess around – War is never clean or simple Civilians & Soldiers will die – Responsibility on our hands Show how will mobilise opposition EVEN IF invasion works – Show most likely scenario will be at best sub-optimal and most likely even worse than to start Undermines precedents of international law

Chain of Command "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

Amnesties How do you deal with the old guard who will opposed change? Consider “Golden Parachutes” of sorts.

Collective Security Do we need to have our own armed forces?

Soft Power vs Hard Power Carrot vs Stick! Try both

Rational vs Irrational Actors

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY In particular looking at ‘game changers’

Combat Drones Avoids risking life of soldier – good or bad? – Decision making – Deployment Duration – War Cost Operator driven vs fully automated?

Satellite Weapons Bad Idea Space is a tricky place to keep clean

Bunker Busters Bombs such as GBU-28; over 6 m over hardened concrete no worries Nuclear versions – Earth Penetrating Weapons; up to 50 m Not really going to get inside a mountain… but you might collapse some tunnels

Stealth U.S. Stealth Bombers – F-117 – B-2 – (F-22) Anti-Stealth Missile Systems – Russian S-300 and S-400 Missile System have limited anti-stealth capability – Potential sale to Iran stopped by latest round of sanctions

Anti-Ballistic Missiles Types – Standard SM-3 (US) – Patriot Missile (broadly) Efficacy – Limited to shorter range missiles, single warheads – i.e. might stop Iran or NK but won’t stop Russia Controversy – Undermines MAD by weakening probability of enemy hit – implication is arms race again

TOPICS That international institutions should use force to restrict the sale of small arms to African nations That gun ownership should be restricted to law enforcement agencies That we should rely on mutual assured destruction rather than on nuclear non-proliferation That the UN should hire mercenaries for military operations That we would create separate units for gays in the military That we would hold soldiers accountable for war crimes committed while following orders TTHW Invade Zimbabwe