Warfare
Forever Wars
“The war is not meant to be won; it is meant to be continuous.” George Orwell
An Orwellian normal of the 21st century is the existence of a state of persistent conflict, with clear endings becoming increasingly rare. Ceasefires are somewhat considered to be synonymous with victory. What caused the confusion? Or is it engineered? With the frequency of new wars with alarming frequency and old ones refusing to be extinguished, the perpetual state of conflict has somehow made the world accustomed to a new normal where the ‘forever wars’ seem to continue.
Be it Gaza or Ukraine, or Syria or Sudan, is the world somehow adapting to a new version of peace?
In this piece, SouthAsia Magazine speaks to Dr. Alec Worsnop, Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP) and a Research Fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), to discuss how the nature of war endings has transformed from the decisive conclusions of historical conflicts to today’s ambiguous stalemates.
To understand what constitutes a decisive conclusion to a conflict, Dr. Worsnop states that “conflict termination that has a clear end will be when one side capitulates and kind of gives up power. We can also have peace agreements – those are a lot muddier, and they always have been, but in general, the thing that sets apart a lot of kinds of insurgencies, or guerrilla warfare, is rarely do you have this one big event where there’s a battlefield defeat, and there’s a clear winner or loser. Instead, it’s much messier.”
Sharing an example of Afghanistan, Dr. Worsnop mentions that the United States could have continued to hold back the Taliban militarily, probably indefinitely, but would that define the U.S.’s victory and Afghanistan’s defeat? “It was about the United States’ political will and its ability to build a host nation that would come in a kind of strong host nation force. So, in terms of these smaller conflicts, the idea of victory or defeat is a lot less clear,” he says while highlighting an exception that went down in the history books recently. “What just happened in Syria is an exception to what we often see happening; we saw this enormous change of kind of military power very quickly when the Assad regime was removed. While this might be a clear defeat for Assad, it’s in no way clear who the victor is and what the long-term prospects are.”
From clear victories to ambiguous stalemates
Speaking of the key factors contributing to the shift from clear victories to ambiguous stalemates in modern warfare, Dr. Worsnop from UMCP discusses the works of international relations scholars Andrew Mack and Dr. Ivan Arreguín-Toft, identifying the asymmetric problem. “We have this clear asymmetric problem where the kind of thing on the line for these big interventions is the political commitment or will of the intervening forces, not their military will,” he states, mentioning the work of Mack, Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict.
Dr. Worsnop discusses Jacqueline (Jill) Hazelton’s work from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, which challenges the notion of ‘hearts and minds’. “The second piece, which many have referred to recently, is the ease with which external actors—particularly Western ones, as we saw in Syria—can use technologies like unmanned drones and other tools to sustain low levels of conflict without significant on-the-ground involvement. Research highlights the increasing reliance on special operations forces to carry out specific military missions. While these actions may not contribute to a long-term victory, they do have the effect of prolonging the conflict.”
Dr. Worsnop highlights another factor scholars often point to: the general weakening of states in many regions. He explains that one of the key assumptions underlying conflict analysis is that states are usually much stronger than insurgent or guerrilla forces. However, this is often not the case in the conflicts being discussed. “Often, the state is just another actor at the table. This was certainly true of Afghanistan during the civil war in the 1990s, where the state wasn’t a hegemon much stronger than everyone else—it was simply another player,” he notes while discussing why many wars today seem to drag on without conclusive ends. “They taper off, but the violence doesn’t stop.”
Tech and Unconventional Warfare: Reshaping Conflict Resolution?
Are things any different on the battlefield regarding technological advancements and unconventional warfare? “I think unconventional warfare now looks very similar to how it looked after World War II. I don’t think things have changed very much on the battlefield.”
Talking about the many parallels and complementarities between conflicts of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and those ongoing now, Dr. Worsnop shares that there’s nothing fundamentally unique about modern technology in this regard, “In fact, there are ways in which technology makes it harder for some insurgent groups to operate, and similarly, some people would say that on the state side, advanced military technology can also present challenges.” Referring to Lyall and Wilson’s argument in their article, Rage Against the Machines, Dr Worsnop shares that very highly technically developed armies are very bad at fighting insurgencies because of their reliance on really fancy gizmos which limits direct engagement with local populations, reducing their capacity to gather critical information.
“In my opinion, one of the bigger dynamics is that drones and the reliance on special operations forces make it easier to stay involved in some of these places,” he says while reiterating that he doesn’t believe that this fundamentally changes the nature of these wars, but it makes it possible for them to persist for much longer. It also gives Western policymakers, in particular, the impression that they have more options to remain engaged in the conflict at low levels – options they may not have had in the past.
Discussing his research, Dr. Worsnop adds, “It’s not harder to fight now than it was before, and arguably, it is a bit easier. However, my research emphasizes the fundamentals of successful unconventional warfare, which focus heavily on organization-building and treating insurgent groups as legitimate military actors.”
Can conflicts end?
Dr. Worsnop believes that the international community, particularly Western actors, has not been particularly successful in finding ways to reduce the long-term prospects for conflict, nor are there clear strategies in place to do so. In his view, the costs of these low-level conflicts are quite high and often overlooked by the policy community.
This raises the question of whether international organizations like the United Nations are still relevant in brokering the end of conflicts. Are they effective mediators in a fractured world? “Political science and economics research would suggest not really. While there have been particular cases where they’ve been successful, in general, the argument is that in complex and difficult conflicts, international actors like the UN struggle to be effective mediators because they don’t have enough skin in the game – they don’t care enough or have enough commitment to what is going on,” Dr. Worsnop explains.
Dr. Worsnop further shared the analysis of Barbara F. Walter, a renowned expert on civil wars, violent extremism, and domestic terrorism, who argues that the only way to end conflicts effectively is through the intervention of a strong external actor with the political will to adopt a clear, non-neutral stance. While some studies highlight the effectiveness of peacekeeping in specific contexts where it is well-suited, there is limited evidence to suggest that it can resolve the types of conflicts under discussion.
Contemporary negotiation frameworks and complexities of modern warfare
Are contemporary negotiation frameworks equipped to deal with the complexities of modern warfare? Dr. Worsnop draws an analogy to Syria. “At one point, almost 300 rebel groups were active in Syria. Finding solutions involving so many different actors is, in many ways, a fool’s errand. You’re right that creating a negotiation framework for these types of conflicts is incredibly difficult. What I’d add is that over the past 20 years, many of these conflict zones have been shaped by the fact that a lot of the actors are designated as terrorist groups by the United States and other Western powers. I think this has made negotiations significantly more challenging.”
However, this was not only the case in Syria; it was also an impediment in Afghanistan and Iraq. “The way these groups are labelled and treated by the international community fundamentally changes the negotiation dynamics. Rarely do we see two states negotiating after the end of a conflict anymore. Instead, it’s often a case where one of the primary actors has been labelled a terrorist organization for years, and then they come to power. Negotiating with them in such a context becomes incredibly difficult, and frameworks that assume peacebuilding can happen between equal armed actors often fail in these situations.”
AI and its role in managing war outcomes
Dr. Worsnop expressed his concerns about the role of emerging technologies in AI or big data and their role in predicting or managing war outcomes. “I’d be just as concerned that they might do the opposite—that is, enable armed groups or other actors to weaponize information more effectively and appeal to specific subsets of followers. I believe that’s just as much of a risk. While they might contribute positively and help find solutions, it’s equally likely that they’ll become powerful tools for those seeking to create more discord and confusion. We saw a clear example of this in Syria, where social media was used to spread false images and misinformation. It was highly effective in confusing the international response to what was happening on the ground. AI only makes that kind of manipulation even easier than it was before.»
Reimagining peace?
Does the world need to reimagine the concept of peace in an international sphere where traditional conclusions are no longer there? ’I think the challenge is effectively communicating the costs of war to different audiences, particularly in countries like the United States. One way to frame this is through efforts like the Afghanistan War Commission, which, at least on paper, aims to make the costs of conflict clear—especially for U.S. service members. A significant focus is demonstrating the toll on those who served,” shares Dr. Worsnop.
Highlighting the dangers in an increasingly fragmented news landscape and the dynamics of social media, Dr. Worsnop believes it has become harder to communicate the true costs of conflict and easier to sow confusion about what’s happening. “I think there’s an urgent need, particularly in Western countries that intervene in conflicts, to convey the long-term implications of low-level conflicts more clearly. These may not seem particularly costly in the short term, but their effects accumulate over time, creating exponential and far-reaching impacts on the communities involved. Much of my current research focuses on helping policymakers in the U.S. understand the tangible costs of conflict and finding better ways to communicate these realities. This ties into the broader idea you’re referring to: part of achieving peace is making it clear that war is never costless—not even limited wars. Quite the opposite, in fact.” .
Based in Karachi, the writer is a communications professional and a UN Volunteer. She can be reached at mariaamkahn@gmail.com
A Force for Peace and Stability
American Strategic Discrimination
Cooperation and Confrontation
8th LRBT Golf Tournament Tees Off to Raise Funds
PTCL Injects PKR 4 Billion Capital in U Bank
Don’t play with fire on water issue: Lawmakers
HBL Reinforces Commitment to Sustainability with 2023 Impact Report
Britain’s Princess Kate is in remission from cancer
China’s Himalayan mega dam deepens India’s water worries
World Bank calls on Pakistan to ‘do more’
NAPA bids farewell to outgoing CEO
Bangladesh top court acquits ex-PM Khaleda Zia in corruption case
Taliban free 2 Americans in prisoner swap with US
Nestlé inaugurates biomass boiler
Living Legend Award presented to Dr. Tipu Sultan
Leave a Reply