When the idea of fighting is not to win

This thread relates to a book I am currently reading, Useful Enemies by David Keen. I will try to convey most of the points in a few paragraphs.

The main premise is that in traditional wars the idea is to win, however in many modern wars, not ending the conflict is desirable. I can probably do this best by conveying a few examples, please note that I have read thousands of books, and this is one of the better ones.

Some examples, The Ugandan Army was fighting the LRA, but they did not seem able to win, despite outnumbering them about 10:1 and having heavy weapons. The assertion is that the Army and LRA often chose not to fight eachother. Now at first this may seem daft, however when you think about it there is a lot of logic in it. For starters wars are dangerous, much safer to just attack civilians, kinda reminds me of Joseph Heller in Catch 22, when he is on his bombing runs, and gets upset when people he has never met are trying to kill him,

Next you can make a lot of profit from being an officer in a war in some countries, example Ugandan troops were doing illegal logging in South Sudan, mining operations in the DRC (democratic republic of the Congo). It has been suggested that as up to 40 percent of officers in the uganadan army may have HIV and the state is no longer paying for their medication, that they need to get additional funds to get the tablets to stay alive.

Other ways of making money is to say you have more troops in your company than you actually have, and pocket their wages. Money can be had from conscripts not wishing to pay bribes. Even today their was an article in the Age, it looks like some in the Ugandan Army are making money by killing elephants for their ivory, (shooting them from planes)

Ivory for guns: elephants a casualty of war

Other examples, in the Vietnam war many of the south vietnamese were not keen on fighing the viet cong (well it was dangerous,,, so I guess that makes sense), sometimes they would fire their artillery at nothing, and then sell the brass shell casings to make money, sometimes they would steal petrol and sell it.

Sometimes the Afghan army has not been overly keen fighting the Taliban, better to keep the war going and keep the money rolling in

In Sierra Leonne the two sides often went to great lenghts to avoid fighting eachother. The government in the south profited by skimming off aid, the rebels in the North profited by running diamond mines. Eventually they decided to work together and within a day they were doing combined drills, the troops seemed a lot more nervous about local militia that protect their local area, than they were parading with their supposed enemy.

Eritrea has an army of over 350,000 troops, seems a huge number for such a small nation. The army diverseifies into agriculture etc. The army increased massively in numbers after their 2001-2002 conflict with Ethiopia. (I cant follow the logic in increasing the size of an army when their is peace as opposed to war, except perhaps to say it allows for more money to flow to the generals)

When the Sri Lankan army defeated the Tamil Tigers, the size of the army actually increased (hard to follow the logic in this), perhaps the officers can skim off money through non official means.

The revolutionary guards in Iran apparently have 62 ports in where they make a lot of money smuggling goods in from China, thus appeasement would affect their profitability. Hence the revolutionary guards have another incentive to take a harder line.

It was asserted that when Boris Yeltsin reduced the size of his army there was a quid quo pro where the generals would not start a coup as long as they were allowed to steal. Given the massive corruption that bedevils modern russia, this assertion cannot be discounted entirely.

Also if a government has an opposition group, they can threaten them, however it there is a war they the oppostion can then be deemed to be illegal rebels, allowing all sorts of oppressive measures to stay in power and make more money. Apparently this tactic was used in Guatemala where the rebels were actually very few in number, but deeming them a continual threat (not winning the war) means that military aid continues to flow.

It was asserted that in regard to the UIC (Union of Islamic Courts) in Somalia which was very popular with the local populace (it gave law and order and replaced the warlords that had been in power for years), pressure was placed by Ethiopia to have the US deem them a terrorist organistation. Then the US backed Ethiopia invading, putting in a transitional government where the Ethiopian military can make a fortune through massive corruption. Now as to the question if the UIC was a terrorsit organisastion of not (actually I dont know) their may have been six individual terrorists living in Somalia a the time (perhaps I need to look into this more). Apparently the actions of the corrupt Ethiopian backed regime in Somalia and air strikes from the US are actually increasing radicalisation of Somali youth.

On a personal level, I am still puzzled why the international community has not recognised Somaliland which is in the north of Somalia and has been stable for many years.

There are more examples.

People dispalced by fighting after the ceasefire in teh DRC actually increased. In this was it is reported that 5.8 million people died.

However to sum up the premise of the book is that continual war in some conflicts is a very good way of making money, a peace deal would mean that opportunites to make profit would diminish.

So,,, something to think about,, why do these wars seem to go one for a long time,,, it may be that the military leaders of the government dont want them to end,, more profitable to keep the war going, keep on taking the bribes, keep on getting rich.
 

SpartanSG

New Member
It seems you have a habit of starting thought-provoking threads.

Eritrea has an army of over 350,000 troops, seems a huge number for such a small nation. The army diverseifies into agriculture etc. The army increased massively in numbers after their 2001-2002 conflict with Ethiopia. (I cant follow the logic in increasing the size of an army when their is peace as opposed to war, except perhaps to say it allows for more money to flow to the generals)

When the Sri Lankan army defeated the Tamil Tigers, the size of the army actually increased (hard to follow the logic in this), perhaps the officers can skim off money through non official means.
There has been an academic debate about Defence vs Development for many years. The current wisdom and experience is that development comes first. With development, it is possible for countries to spend more on defence.

However, theoretically, it has been argued by academics that it is possible for defence to spur development. The concept is that with spending on defence:

1. A country creates employment (expanding manpower in the military).

2. By using the military to build infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc), it is possible to develop the country (some militaries still do this, examples are agriculture).

3. By developing local industries to support the military, it is possible to develop the economy (e.g., manufacturer of small arms or other low tech hardware for a start).

This is why in some countries, the military run a lot of things in the economy. Unfortunately, in reality, with such a path, corruption/cronyism typical leads to stagnant development. Hence, I don't think there has been a successful example where spending on defence has led to significant development.

So,,, something to think about,, why do these wars seem to go one for a long time,,, it may be that the military leaders of the government dont want them to end,, more profitable to keep the war going, keep on taking the bribes, keep on getting rich.
When a country is at war, the government (or junta) has a lot more powers to run the country (because it is in a state of war). This is desirable for those in power (just look at how many wars Saddam Hussein's Iraq fought) as it allows them to consolidate their power and suppress dissent. It is also profitable for arms suppliers (and the middlemen).

There may also be a political dimension to it. An example of this is Hamas (non-state entity) fighting Israel. Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) is another example.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Hi

I did not know that thought provoking threads was against the rules. There seem plently of posts about this tank has x mm of armour here and y mm of armour there, my view that a very modest amount of discussion about what the war is about in the first place is reasonable

I will be breif,

A small correction, the Age article seems to imply that it was Ugandan military helicopters shooting elephants for ivory, not planes. From a purely economic view it seems exceptionally profitable, where one trip could net tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in ivory, profitable yes,,, not exactly highly ethical.


Eritrea has a population of 6 million people, a per capita income of 450 dollars per year, yet they have a peacetime army of 350,000 (350 thousand in the book, 250 thousand by Wikipedia). To scale it up the Australian army would be more that 800 thousand soldiers, which is twenty five times the size it is currently is.

So I am totally puzzled as to why a country at peace has one person in twenty in the army, what are they all doing? Does anyone know whats going on here?


I think the USSR was spending 25% of GDP on defence before it imploded. True it was mainly the decrepit way their economy was run that was the reason the economy collapsed, however spending so much on defence did not help.

I am personally very worried about Somalia. Please do not get me wrong, I do not support terrorists and was very happy when OBL was killed. However I do not see a Sharia government as by definition bad ( the Saudi Arabian government is not ideal, but it is not totally woeful either). It may need to have a careful eye kept on it, (a sharia government is Somalia) however if as best I can tell it was very popular with the locals and not non-corrupt, surely that is preferable to having warlords, civil war and or an external invasion which is corrupt and increases hostility in the local populace.

Paul Sheehan in his excellent book about Vietnam 'a bright shining lie' , the main character in the book, John Vann, (who was fighting the viet-cong and north vietnamese), said that if he has Vietnamese he would have joined the VC (this from someone who was fighting them). Thus an oppressive government can be counter productive.

I know this is drifting a little into politics which I apologies for.

However I would argue that in terms of military operations, if the government if corrupt and does not care for its populace it makes it harder to actually win the war. I would assert that the massive corruption in Afghanistan has not assisted the local populace seeing the government in a nice light. Hence they are possibly that much more likely to join an opposition force, in this case the Taliban, and hence the war becomes that much harder to win, and more NATO soldiers die. My brother was a soldier (a major in the army) , would not be thrilled if he was sent overseas and got shot.

At times it almost seems that some conflicts are between 2 groups of armed criminals, one group gets in power and calls themself the government, the other group calls themselves the opposition. It is hard to have much sympathy for a government that is filled with crooks that make millions of dollars, or tens of billions of dollars if we look at Mubarak, Suharto and Putin.

Your response was appreciated, well written in my humble opinion.

I doubt that they two or so threads that I have started are very well liked (perhaps not politically correct,,,,, perhaps a small minority in this forum see ever more tanks,,, more planes,, more warships as always a good thing) however I would like to think that the 2 threads that I have started provide a lot of information that gives something to think about for those that may be so inclined.
 

SpartanSG

New Member
Hi

I did not know that thought provoking threads was against the rules.
It most definitely is not. Its just that like what you said, such threads are not "sexy".

A small correction, the Age article seems to imply that it was Ugandan military helicopters shooting elephants for ivory, not planes. From a purely economic view it seems exceptionally profitable, where one trip could net tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in ivory, profitable yes,,, not exactly highly ethical.


Eritrea has a population of 6 million people, a per capita income of 450 dollars per year, yet they have a peacetime army of 350,000 (350 thousand in the book, 250 thousand by Wikipedia). To scale it up the Australian army would be more that 800 thousand soldiers, which is twenty five times the size it is currently is.

So I am totally puzzled as to why a country at peace has one person in twenty in the army, what are they all doing? Does anyone know whats going on here?
I'm not too familiar with the Eritrean military, but Wiki says that they maintain a large military due to military stalemate with their rival Ethiopia:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_Defence_Forces"]Eritrean Defence Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

There are 2 examples that may be of interest to you:

1. Bangladesh Military has around 320,000 active personnel (much larger population base compared to Eritrea) and they have more than 10,000 personnel on UN missions. In other words, UN deployments help pay for a sizeable portion of the Bangladesh military's personnel.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Armed_Forces"]Bangladesh Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

2. North Korea has a population of ~24 million, and they have ~1.1 million active military personnel. This is clearly a militarised society with a national policy of "Songun" (military first). Technically, North Korea is also still in a state of war with South Korea since there was never a peace agreement at the end of the Korean War (only a cease-fire that has largely held until now). This also explains the occasional skirmishes/attacks across the border:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army"]Korean People's Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun"]Songun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Paul Sheehan in his excellent book about Vietnam 'a bright shining lie' , the main character in the book, John Vann, (who was fighting the viet-cong and north vietnamese), said that if he has Vietnamese he would have joined the VC (this from someone who was fighting them). Thus an oppressive government can be counter productive.
The thing about Vietnam is that they were fighting for independence (against the French colonisers) and for national reunification (against the US and allies). That is a perspective that is largely over-looked in english media. And because of their strong sense of nationalism and the desire for self-determination, no price was considered too high at that time.

However I would argue that in terms of military operations, if the government if corrupt and does not care for its populace it makes it harder to actually win the war. I would assert that the massive corruption in Afghanistan has not assisted the local populace seeing the government in a nice light. Hence they are possibly that much more likely to join an opposition force, in this case the Taliban, and hence the war becomes that much harder to win, and more NATO soldiers die. My brother was a soldier (a major in the army) , would not be thrilled if he was sent overseas and got shot.

At times it almost seems that some conflicts are between 2 groups of armed criminals, one group gets in power and calls themself the government, the other group calls themselves the opposition. It is hard to have much sympathy for a government that is filled with crooks that make millions of dollars, or tens of billions of dollars if we look at Mubarak, Suharto and Putin.
Well, the victors get to write history.

If CCP didn't win the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the world will be considerably different today. Although I expect corruption will still be endemic under the KMT, as shown by constant corruption cases in KMT ruled Taiwan.

But here's the thing about corruption, it has been a facet of human society ever since the very first civilisation. It is not new and it certainly isn't going away anytime soon. Nonetheless, human civilisation has progressed even though corruption has been part of it. Personally, I think it is a matter of extent. As long as corruption doesn't get too far out of hand, it will be tolerated as long as people can make a living. But, when it becomes very difficult to make ends meet, that's when revolutions happen (such as the Arab Spring).

Your response was appreciated, well written in my humble opinion.
Thank you.
 
Top