Source: Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent, BBC Online, November 21
…What has changed? Is it that military force itself is no longer so useful? If so, why? Or is it perhaps that military force is being employed in the wrong circumstances or maybe even in the wrong way?
Two things are worth noting. First, the context of war has changed dramatically from inter-state conflict to wars within broken states. The struggle against the so-called Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria could be a turning point.
Armies are actually very good at taking on other armies – that after all is what they are trained for and understand. But battling against shadowy forces inside a failed country whose languages and culture are poorly understood is quite another matter.
The struggle against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria could be a turning point in a small way in that from the outset Western leaders and military commanders have all insisted that this is not essentially a problem amenable to a military solution. Air power may contain IS. Local forces on the ground may roll it back, but this is a social and political struggle for the future of the Middle East, whose existing state system is in deep crisis.
Second, the end of the Cold War and the apparent dominant moment of the West prompted all sorts of well-meaning ideas about intervention; some spoke of “a responsibility to protect,” a desire to use this pre-eminent military force to good effect.
Along came a related idea – rather than war being a national necessity, a battle for survival, some began to speak of “wars of choice.”
Well, after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the world looks a little different.
Many now might argue that war perhaps should never be a choice, it should go back to being a rare necessity.
Eric Koch’s new book, New Beginnings, was launched on September 20. The book is available from 
I could not agree more. Considering that one of the most effective weapons in the First World War was barbed wire, if it ever comes to another war the hackers will win it, providing of course anybody wins.
Interesting point Elisabeth. At the time they didn’t know they were “industrializing warfare”. And now, we are “?????-ing” warfare. Or rather THEY have done it and we haven’t responded. My worry is that the article above is assuming we are going to get smarter (wiser), whereas powerful nations, under enough threat (real or imagined) tend to bend their rules of engagement and do whatever’s necessary. Things can get a lot worse.
Sorry, I know it’s Thanksgiving.
‘Duck when you can, fight when you must.’
Western democracies are at a disadvantage when dealing with an enemy that has one overriding objective - to destroy the influence and ideas of the western democracies.
The west’s advanced technologies mean their armed forces can hit their opponents with near impunity, but the people of the western democracies revere freedom and demand that other peoples have the right to conduct their lives without being forced to comply with the wishes/views of the west.
The west should explore other options.
Let’s start with Afghanistan, where young western men and women fight and die allegedly so that Afghanis can enjoy western freedoms.
I’ve got news for those Afghanis. Western freedoms were achieved when the people fought the despots. Afghanis should do the same.
The only aid we should give Afghanis is a slim, 10cm long, very sharp knife that a woman can conceal in her dress and use on the first Taliban thug who decides he wants to intimidate her.
Actually what influences Afghanistan behaviour is Turkish soap operas which can be watched in Afghanistan. Afghanistani woman to her husband: “Why don’t you treat me like this?”