4) Principle Arguments
-
The author notes the nature of war as the constant universal and inherent aspects that define and shape war as a political instrument. It has the components of violence chance and uncertainty.
-
War does not have a definite definition but it is commonly referred to as the violent contact of similar but distinct groups.
-
The author notes that the non-sate players have become key elements in the various wars in the world indirectly.
-
The author also notes that RMA has become a primary factor that contributes to success. He refers to it as the dynamic nature of strategy, training, education and equipment (220).
-
Although it gives able countries a competitive edge against their opponents, the author points out that the countries without the capacity for RMA may result in asymmetric warfare.
-
The wars experienced in the world always have an unseen hand fueling them through military or ideology support. Some of the powerful countries may have an interest in a revolution and they can either support the government or the rebel groups.
-
The author also argues that today, war is played on wider concepts to include the impact of non-governmental organizations especially in the developing regions (218).
-
Sheehan maintains that war brings about accelerates the forces of change (220). He critically outlines how countries become aware of their fallibility, and they work towards sealing the gaps.
-
Although the concept of war has roots in history and reflects changes in the method of aggression, Sheehan argues that modern war is dynamic, and it reflects the characteristics of the context in which it takes place.
-
Conclusively, the author notes that cold war did not change the nature of war to a great extent. The RMA and the modern warfare have not been used on a large scale outside the United States warfare. Today, war and politics have become very intimate and they are now a vehicle for political supremacy.
5) Critical Question
It is questionable for Sheehan to maintain that war accelerates the forces of change (220). How could this be possible bearing in mind the destruction that resulted in the aftermath of war? Looking at the examples of war that he gives (for instance, the war in Iraq), did the wars really accelerate change or derail development?
6) Principle Concepts
Civil war, armed conflict, international law, modernity and warfare, warfare technology, new war economy, asymmetrical warfare.
Reference
Sheehan, M. (2008). The Changing Character of War. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.