peterAustralia
Member
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.
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.