![]() To be certain, the age-old nature of war has not been the object of variation it remains, as Carl von Clausewitz famously captured it in his 1832 work On War, a political act carried through the use of force to compel an enemy. ![]() ![]() It was maintained, notably, that the evolving features of armed conflict do not amount to novelty per se, and that whatever complex emergencies, multi-variant warfare, small wars, low-intensity wars or wars of the third kind had materialised, these did not amount to fundamental change. The idea that war has changed has been opposed by several thinkers, such as Mats Berdal and J. To understand the nature of the alleged modulation in warfare is therefore to focus not merely on the idea of newness but rather on the characteristics of a historical moment, which marked a caesura from an older to a newer form of war. Close to thirty years later, that which could be seen to constitute a new generation of armed conflict in the early 1990s is today arguably passé. By that reckoning, the “new wars” are no longer new. That is so, argues the UCLA professor, since innovation is dependent on its relative unfamiliarity to a new audience. In his history of newness ( Novelty, 2013), Michael North remarks that actual innovation only exists at the very crest of a wave.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |