The Wars of Future

From the strategic use of deceleration against a military apparatus, which relies on stepping up hostilities to the rediscovery of suicide as a threat to inter-change-based societies, the latest changes in the conduct of war are nearly always characterized by asymmetric strategies. It is therefore predictable that future wars will be predominantly asymmetric.

Asymmetrical warfare, the salient feature of the new wars, is based to a large extent on the different velocities at which the parties wage war on each other. Asymmetries of strength are based on a capacity for acceleration, which outstrips that of the enemy, whereas asymmetries of weakness are based on a readiness and ability to slow down the pace of the war. This strategy generally involves a considerable increase in the casualties suffered by one’s own side.

The dramatic superiority the US military apparatus has achieved over all potential enemies in the last two decades is largely due to its capacity to exploit the various opportunities for accelerating the pace at the different combat levels.

The future wars will hardly be a linear extension of the trends of the twentieth century. Greater material resources and a more advanced technological development alone will not automatically tip the scales between victory and defeat. The enormous superiority of the United States in military technology is no guarantee that the USA will emerge victorious from all the wars it seems ever more ready to wage.

It will be an asymmetrical competition between high-tech and low-tech weapons. Since 9/11 we are aware that mere box cutter’s knives, if used to hijack airliners so as to crash them into buildings and cities, can serve to shake a superpower to its foundations. In that case, however, it was not deceleration alone, which enabled the terrorist operatives to attack the USA but a combination of speed and slowness. The infrastructures of the side attacked were exploited by a clandestine group, which was able to go about preparing the attacks quietly and calmly, and then turned aircraft into rockets and jet fuel into explosive.

Current trends suggest that in future large sections of the population may well see their sole chance in waging wars and emerging successful. Growing environmental risks, such as water shortages, increasing desertification and rising sea levels; a greater global inequality in the distribution of consumer goods, in educational opportunities and in living conditions; the imbalance in demographic rates and the related waves of migration; the instability of the international financial markets and the dwindling ability of States to control their own currency and economy; and, finally, in some parts of the world, the rapid disintegration of States — all these are sufficient grounds for assuming that many people will see violent change rather than peaceful development as a better chance to assure their future. Thus the use of force for a better future will become the key element of their political reasoning and they will be ready not only to fight for vital resources but also to begin asymmetrical wars with superior adversaries.

Precisely because of their advanced socio-economic development, these superior adversaries are themselves highly vulnerable and, however great their military superiority, they cannot eliminate this vulnerability. The aim of the US in its various projects to establish a missile defense system is to make itself invulnerable. Such missile defense systems are of course no longer directed against the Soviet Union but against enemies who, though small and relatively weak, pose a serious threat through their possession of nuclear warheads and a few delivery systems. In principle, war has become not only politically but also economically unattractive for the developed countries. The costs outweigh the returns.

Most of the wars with warlords are not fought by well-equipped armies but by the hastily recruited militias of tribal chiefs or heads of clans, plus the armed followers of warlords and the like. Above all, the weapons used in the new wars are cheap — small arms, automatic rifles, anti-personnel mines and machine guns mounted on pick-up trucks.

Two factors play a crucial part in the emergence of the new wars: the ability to finance them from the flows of goods and capital generated by globalization and, more important still, the fact that they have become cheap to wage.

The future wars will be fought only partly by soldiers and, for the most part, will no longer be directed against military objectives. Civilian targets are now taking the place of military objectives in many areas, starting with towns and villages overrun and despoiled by militia leaders and warlords and extending to the symbols of political and economic might that were targeted by terrorist commandos on 9/11. Even the means used to carry out these attacks are less and less of a genuinely military nature.

The term civil war is the symmetrical opposite of the term international war; the asymmetrical antonym is transnational war, i.e. one in which the boundaries drawn by the States no longer play a role. This type of war crosses national borders without being waged as a war between States. It is characterized by a constant switching of friends and foes and by a breakdown of the institutional authorities (such as the military and the police) responsible for ordering and having recourse to the use of force. In this context, acts of war and criminality become indistinguishable and the war drags on with no prospect of a peace accord to end it.

The future wars to a large extent will not be waged with massive firepower and tremendous military capabilities. They will tend to go on smoldering with no clear beginning or end, while the dividing line between the warring parties on the one hand and international organized crime on the other will become more and more blurred. For this reason, some people are already disputing the fact that such situations do indeed constitute war. Asif J. Mir, Organizational Transformation

Issues Face-to-face South Asia

Music of Earth is never dead. Symbolically, the truth of this statement is verified in the folk songs of Asian peoples. The oriental queens of melody, like Abida Perveen, Lata Mangeshkar, continue to sing of the agonies of a heart that refuses to submerge its feelings in the complexities of modern age. In the domain of art, literature, paintings, culture, the music of love, of beauty, of life and nature, of horrors of war, of agonies, of racial discrimination and frantic cries of the oppressed continue to permeate the fibers of man's creative art. Art is stated to be a defense against fate. The fate is, however, being made miserable by the forces that have made world affairs difficult to handle. In South Asia the plague spots have emerged in the environment of those areas that do not augur well for survival of a peaceful world ---a world where peace could and should win over forces of war and destruction.

The scientific inventions in all fields of human endeavor have undoubtedly brought comforts to our world, but not without its side effects. Peoples in South Asia live miserable lives full of chaos and tension. They feel insecure. They are not confident about regional peace. The issues that can possibly lead to war still remain potential threat to peace. The terrorism has emerged as a new enemy of humanity. The unprecedented arms race continues in the mainstream of unprecedented population growth. All resources are being consumed in buying destructive arms. But the people want food, shelter and jobs. They require medicines for their sick. They need books for their children. They yearn to live in an environment that is free of problems, free from exploitation and free from tension.

World affairs have come to such a pass that no prospect for peace seems to be visible even at the farthest end of horizon. The events such as Mumbai attacks in South Asia tend to damage our hope for world peace. Mind agitates to ask: Who would stem this tide of emerging chaos, confusion, and moving tension? Should we wait for a certain Messiah to bless life in our sagging spirits, which have become dead under the burden of inertia of idle hours?

The symptoms of fanaticism—mother of terrorism in all forms, exploitation, racial discrimination and a growing fear of insecurity being felt by the down trodden of South Asia, must put us all on alert. We must take some such steps as could crush snakes in grass that threaten peace.

The recession in world economy is casting its shadows on the economic developments in South Asia. The yellow lights of sunset of dollar augur well for this raw material producing region. They should, however, exercise their sovereignty over their exclusive right to fix prices for their raw material to such a level as could cover the expenses incurred on the imported machinery and equipment.

The World Bank and IMF have given free hand to plunder the material resources of this region. The horrible rate of population explosion has, however, got to be controlled without which the economic growth cannot be accelerated.

South Asia is bursting, as it seems, for the birth of a new economic cooperation—cooperation for economic dispensation that suits both the region and the developed world.

South Asian nations should turn away from centralized management and government controls and toward the incentives and rewards of the free market. They should invite their citizens to develop their talents and abilities to the fullest and provide jobs, create wealth, build social stability and foster faith in the future of all. The economic summits of the industrial democracies have already paid tribute to these principles.

The leaders of the South Asia should welcome the call for reform leading to greater reliance on their private sectors for economic growth. Overcoming hunger and economic stagnation requires policies that encourage regions own productivity and initiatives. Such a policy framework will make it easier for the rest of the world to help. The laws of economic incentives should not, nevertheless, discriminate between developed and developing countries. They should apply to all equally.

Much of the recent recovery in the world economy can be directly attributed to the growth of economic freedom. And it is this trend that offers such hope for the future. And yet this new hope faces a grave threat: the menace of trade barriers.

The Charter of the United Nations is based not only on avoiding the scourge war but also on establishing the conditions for friendly relations among nations and on solving problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, for the development and preservation of peace.

Notwithstanding the foreboding of the prophets of doom, the efforts for peace, at all levels, by all men who matter at national affairs of every country, should be made. It is high time that all countries of the region should hearken to the call of their conscious—the demand for peace.

Breakthroughs in resolving regional conflicts in South Asia have been accompanied by an explosion of national and ethnic clashes; many of them related to the collapse of old centers of power. It is not surprising that there is a talk of both a new world order and a new world disorder. They are like two sides of the same coin. One side represents mankind's ideals and aspirations, the other its fears and hatreds.

Forces of integration and disintegration are shaping the region of South Asia simultaneously. Terrorism has peeped out as high powered force of disruption—a destabilization factor. Viewed from one angle, modern communications, technology, trade, and the appeal of political and economic freedom have the potential to create a global democratic capitalist society where international cooperation will be more successful than in the past.

The issue of human rights, as it has emerged out of the ideas of the enlightenment, still remains alien to certain South Asian countries. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations is now more or less five decades old. Born out of the holocaust and the atrocities of World War II, the Declaration outlaws murder, torture, and political imprisonment. These steps reflect the lessons of the Second World War, which demonstrated that internal regimes were not just a domestic matter but could they become a menace to world peace. This Declaration was adopted in the final years of Stalinist rule, when mass repression was still institutionalized, seemed to many to be a hypocritical gesture. In many of the signatory countries this characterization remains true, but the human rights are being violated at alarmingly rate in this region. The law enforcing agencies, in this region, are committing rapes murders, torture and other atrocities. Kashmir is just one illustration.
A search for peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue, however, should be the focus of international experts in the emerging discipline of interactive and diplomatic conflict resolution. Dialogues on conflict resolution, bridging theory and practice and striving for a plebiscite in dealing with this international conflict should receive top priority.

Water has become another great threat to peace. The Indus River Basin has been an area of conflict between India and Pakistan. Spanning 1,800 miles, the river and its tributaries together make up one of the largest irrigation canals in the world. The basin provides water to millions of people in northwestern India and Pakistan. Dams and canals built in order to provide hydropower and irrigation has dried up stretches of the Indus River. Water projects have further caused the displacement of people and have contributed to the destruction of the ecosystem in the Indus plain.

The enmity between India and Pakistan over water started early when India discontinued water supplies to Pakistan. Hard bargaining and the mediation of the World Bank led to the world acclaimed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. The treaty allocated the three Eastern Rivers — Ravi, Sutlej and Beas — to India, the three Western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to Pakistan.

A permanent commission known as the Indus Waters Commission was constituted to resolve the disputes between the parties. This treaty is globally respected that it has survived wars and periods of acute tension between the two hostile neighbors. However, the treaty has encountered hiccups wherein some contentious issues have cropped up.

If India and Pakistan take a political decision to restructure their relations, they will have to ensure that water serves as a flow to bring them together, rather than taking them further on the course of conflict.

Modern societies are moving away from the belief that there always will be conflict. There are now situations where we can marginalize conflict and where great changes can be made if parties can be led to perceive the causes of their disputes in new way.

In addition to regional disputes, the grave threat of terrorism also jeopardizes the hopes of peace. No cause, no grievance can justify it. Terrorism is heinous and intolerable. It is the crime of cowards who prey on the innocent, the defenseless and the helpless. The region should come up with modern approach to countering terrorism.

The maniacal arms race is dominating the economies of the poor South Asian countries. The bulk of their budgets go in buying or developing destructive arms and ignoring major issues. Days in and days out, voices are raised that arms control has become the dire need of the day.

In 455, the Eastern Roman Emperor, Marcian prohibited the export of all weapons and materials for making weapons, to the barbarians. The 1968 treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) bear more than a casual resemblance to Marcian' s policy enunciated fifteen hundred years earlier.

But then, as now, a mixture of politics and greed rendered control over the supply of weaponry an expedient of only temporary and partial value, at best. Lethal instruments are not important, but they acquire their significance from politics. The Huns and barbarians, no doubt, found the Roman supply blockade of weapons to be an inconvenience. Today the NPT and the MTCR similarly are inconveniences, but only inconvenient, to would-be acquirers of nuclear weapons and missiles.

But if politics subverts arms control, so does it facilitate arms control. Speaking in the House of Commons on July 13, 1934, Sir Winston Churchill claimed, "It is the greatest possible mistake to mix up disarmament with peace. When you have peace you will have disarmament.”

We can be hopeful about the world and the prospects for freedom We only need to look around to see the new technologies that may someday spare future generations from the nightmare of nuclear terror, or the growing ranks of democratic activists and freedom fighters, or the increasing movement toward free market economies, or the extent of worldwide concern about the rights of the individual in the face of brute state power.

Nonetheless, it is high time for the governments of South Asia to hate all tensions that create exploitation, war and bloodshed. They should promote peace, liberty, justice, democracy and human rights. However, when peace is denied, liberty is snatched, justice is taken away and democracy usurped, they should support all such efforts at all governmental and non-governmental levels that aim at restoring basic rights everywhere. They all should put in their best to ensure that the beautiful world of ours continues to pulsate with heartbeats of life, music and love.

The potential for a lasting peace is there. The potential for a destabilizing peace is there, too. If the leaders of the South Asia fail to face the problems head on, they have the ingenuity. They have the need. Only the question remains: Do they have the will? I think, they do. Asif J. Mir, Organizational Transformation

Fate and Divinity - Islamic perspective

Out and out, fate is for those too weak to determine their own destiny. I have many reasons to believe that we create our fate every day, and every moment we live. Thus and so, each man is the architect of his own fate.

Fate comes down on those who do nothing but curse their fate. In point of fact, it utterly leads the willing, and drags along the reluctant. Implicitly and explicitly, such are the people who live and die with their music still unplayed. They never dare to try.

Just the same, those who have the power to push back the tides of consequential forces, can actually change their fate. And those who can’t are the people who ought to change their attitude. This implies that there is no fate but our decisions that make or unmake it.

Fate is just a fancy way of saying luck. Once a fortune teller told Hitler that he had no lines in his hand to show bright prospects and hence a bad fate ahead. He took a knife, incised a line on his palm and said, ‘That’s upto me how I draw my fate.” By the way, Hitler was a leader who was a victim of fate owing to wrong decision.

And never forget that winners refuse to believe in fate and losers use it as an excuse. To change your fate, you must first change yourself, as it is you who created your fate.

Some believe that one's fate may be ascertained by divination. That’s true in Islam and Allah is referred to as the Divinity. Among Muslims, there is a sphere in which human beings are perfectly free to choose between moral options. Here people have a freedom to choose good or bad options. A person has complete control in this sphere over his intentions. Even here, although he has the perfect freedom to choose, he is not free to carry out these intentions.

Man is thus partly free and partly subject to deterministic forces. He will nevertheless be held accountable for acts that he intended to do out of his free will. He can make his own fate. He has been shown both the paths, of virtue and vice, of truth and falsehood. He has been given complete freedom of choice between the two. He needs to exercise this freedom responsibly.

The belief that everything which happened, and will happen is according to the knowledge, will and command of Allah is called Taqdeer. Belief in Taqdeer is obligatory. Strong belief in Taqdeer will indicate that Allah’s wish is in this occurrence and it cannot be opposed. And Taqdeer happens to be the synonym of destiny and has nothing to do with fate.

Allah states in Surah Aal-e-Imran: “(After you have consulted) and when you have firmly decided, then have trust on Allah (and proceed to do what you have decided to do). Verily, Allah loves those who place reliance (on Him).”

In a hadith compiled by Tirimizi, Jabbir (Radi Allah anhu) narrates that Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “You can never be a Mu’min as long as you do not believe in Taqdeer in its good and its bad to such an extent that whatever is to happen will not be warded off and whatever is not to happen will not occur.

Nonetheless, in keeping with social precepts, Man is free to choose his actions but must bear the natural consequences of them. The laws governing the physical as well as the human social universe are unchanging and constant. Whosoever follows the Divine Law, even if to a very small extent, and does noble deeds will see pleasant results. As in Chapter 99, Verse 7-8 of the Holy Qur’an, Allah says “And whosoever goes against the law, even if to a very small extent, would get appropriate punishment.”

Through and through, the end of the matter is an abstract expression: destiny and not fate is the verdict of divinity. Asif J. Mir Organizational Transformation