The Dispatches on War

Re:Ferozk#8

You raise some very interesting questions. I think there are three kinds of wars - the purely materialistic wars, the purely ideological wars and thirdly a hybrid of the two. Purely materialistic wars are started simply to gain territory, wealth and power. I would say the conquests of Alexander, Romans, Mongols, Ashoka etc fall in this category. Purely ideological wars are started to establish the supremacy of an ideology or religion. The crusades in the middle ages, the cold war between US and USSR and the current war on terrorism are examples of purely ideological wars. Finally you have the hybrid where there is both ideology and greed involved. Most wars fall in this category including WW2, the Islamic conquests of India etc.

A nation starts believing it is mighty if it has both the strength of material resources and an accompanying ideology for their way of life. In fact, ideology is even more important than just material strength to sustain and win wars because it motivates people to die for their cause. Early muslims were victorious all over simply because of the strength of their ideology. Even Osama Bin Laden felt he was mighty simply on the basis of religious ideology and attacked the twin towers in New York. On the other hand Alexander`s victories fizzled out after his death because it really didn`t have any ideological base to support it after his demise.

The US believes it is mighty because it has humongous material resources backed by a powerful ideology of capitalism and individual liberty. The war in Iraq is an ideological war. It is wrongly protrayed as a war for oil. In fact the primary purpose of the neo-cons in US is to change the ideological landscape of the middle-east, defeat political Islam and force all middle-eastern countries to become democratic and secular i.e. adopt western ideology. Iraq was just chosen to be the battlefield because it was in the cross-hairs for a long time. Some flimsy excuses were given to launch the conflict. In reality it was just the place where the Bush administration chose to wage battle against political Islam and hoped for a domino effect in the middle-east.

As far as winning a war is concerned, it depends on the material strength of the aggressor, the ideological strength if there is an ideology involved and the nature of the losing side as to how quickly they succumb. The US was able to win Iraq militarily but holding on to it has been very tough. This is because political Islam is a tough ideological opponent and its followers do not give up easily and succumb to the western ideology of democracy and freedom. If the Iraqis simply wanted to get rid of the US, they would peacefully hold elections, adopt their new constitution and have the US leave. Rather they want to establish an Islamic regime in Baghdad for which not only must the US leave but it must also lose in the process. Hence the violence that we see everyday. I wonder what would happen if the US had attacked Pakistan or India to wage such an ideological battle. I think far from fighting, we would probably line up at the US embassy and ask for green cards and US citizenships :-)

In reply to #5 by haroonellahi

``Muslims have indeed recruited Christians and many Christians have used for Muslim wars``

I am myself curious to know about it, as I have no such knowledge of Muslims employing non-Muslims to fight their wars/battles. The Mughal army did have Hindu generals and the Rajputs did fight for the Mughals. But it was a pact, whereby the Rajputs always had a 50,000 (somewhat) standing army ready at the disposal of the Emperors. These forces fought anyone, anywhere to expand the Mughal Empire. They were used against those Rajput kingdoms who preferred to stay independent as well as against the Deccani Muslim Sultans.
Regarding the Janissaries, you have only reflected my views in comment # 3.

``they had entire programs where Christian parents would give their childern to the Turkish authorities. ``

The program that you are mentioning is nothing but devshirme, which produced the Janissaries, (``New Force`` in Turkish). In addition to what you have wrote about the Janissaries, these Ottoman foot soldiers were pre-adolescent Christian boys who were taken from their families ( some of the families readily gave them for a better life), housed in special barracks, converted to Islam, and trained either for military or bureaucratic service. Hence, their being Christian is not right, they had become Muslims. Also these kids were from the Christian territories like the Balkans which the Ottomans had captured. What do yo umean by ``Elite Christian unit``? Do you still mean the Janissaries or some other Catholics/Orthodox units serving the Ottomans?

re: amit # 2

Sir, I do not have any disagreements with your point of view, since it is the realist or realpolitik view of power. As Bismarck stated, might is right! I myself subscribe to this point of view.

However, a good question is what makes a nation think that it is mighty? The mighty British army of its time did not win the war of 1776 to 1783 just as the mighty American army did not win the war in Vietnam and is not winning in Iraq. Might makes a nation right, and can start a war, but it will not help it win the war. Wars are won on the basis of economics and politics. Starting a war is not the same as fighting it and winning it.

Lust for war, false justifications and strong defences still does not answer the question, why war has changed since its invention nearly 4000 years ago and why the face of war of todayis so different from yesterday`s war?

re: nasah # 1

Aptly said and willingly agreed! :)

Ciao

re: Netizen # 3

I will see if I can get the names of the books from the library, which cite the examples of the early Muslims using mercenaries and once I do, I will post them for you.

As to Saudi Arabia asking United States for protection in 1990-1991, the point is that the Saudis went to a non-Muslim army to help it guard its interests. Whether Bush, Sr. fought that war for oi or notl is a side issue, because if the American interest was oil, oil was also the interest of the Saudi ruling family to have called in the American divisions to guard the oil fields of the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia has a long tradition of using proxy wars to fight for its interests. It used Iraq to fight against Iran, when the Iran revolution of 1979 threatened its interests and it used the Americans to fight the Iraqis, when Iraq threatened it in 1990-1991.

Pakistan did not send its armed forces to fight Saddam not due to its India centric policy, but due to the politics of GHQ in Rawalpindi. Had the COAS not been so politically against United States, Pakistani army would have had more than a brigade fighting Iraqi army. Pakistani brigade did not fight as it was stationed in the rear for ``logistical`` reasons. Secondly, the deployment of Pakistani soldiers to Saudi Arabia would not have re-orientated its India specific threat axis, because the hardware would have been provided by the Saudis and the Pakistanis would have simply manned the Saudi equipment. Since Pakistan has a large number of manpower and its was a low-tech army in the 1980s, light on technology and heavy on human resources, the prospect of earning hard dollars by being rent-a-soldiers for the Saudis was quite attractive to the officer corps in Rawalpindi.

In this sense, Pakistani army can classified as a mercenary army. For that matter, it can also be safely argued that United Nations peacekeeping missions are nothing more than mercenary wars also. United Nations is simply hiring soldiers from the Third World to go and fight wars, which no one wants to fight and in return, the nations contributing troops to the United Nations get foreign exchange. Any army of any nation, which deploys outside of its national territory to defend another nation and in return makes a financial gain from it, can be considered as a mercenary army.

As to the Thirty Years War, my interpretation of that conflict was in the sense of its contribution to nature of war. I do not disagree, with your statements since they are the basic version of the conflict. What you are discussing is the origins of that war and what I was discussing, were the consequences of that war upon the nature of war itself and on the political development of Europe as a collection of secular states. Every school child knows that the war of 1618-1648 was between Catholics and Protestants, but revolt of Martin Luther was basically an attempt to break the political power of the Holy Roman Empire and that of Spain and it was to prevent the domination of Europe by a single nation. If you closely look at the Treaty of Westphalia, and how the balance of power was recreated, you will see that Europe wanted to remain politically fragmented and with a multipolarity of power centers.

The pope and the papal states had a lot to with the Thirty Years Wars. What is often overlooked is that the Church was a very temporal power in Europe in 1500s. Starting with the coronation of Pepin the Short by the pope in the 1200s, the legitimacy of the king came from his being be crowned by the pope and the popes often used religion to get political aims. Prior to the Thirty Years War, the popes were quite wary of the power of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, because his power was a direct threat to the power of the popes. According to the Peace of Augsburg of 1556, the first conflict phase of the Reformation of 1517 ended when Charles V agreed to abdicate as the Holy Roman Emperor and not because the Prostestant German princes were defeated. In fact, there is a strong historic chronology that suggests that the period of 1517 to 1648 was actually a series of the same war to decide the political future of Europe and religion was an afterthought to that outcome and was not the scintilla of the conflict.

In the end, I think we agree because as you have stated and I quote ``Islam has still retained this characteristic thats why you see people from several nationalities in Al Qaida``. I believe, I had made similar point that unlike Europe after 1648, Islam was not able to develop this argument its politics and is still struggling to settle the issue. As you pointed out, Europe was pan-religious but then it discarded the idea and Islam still thinks that Pan-Islamism or pan religion is a good idea.

Ciao

Its very rare now that one finds intellectually stimulating articles on Chowk... there are a bunch of articles that feroz has written here and elsewhere that deserve to be compiled in a bookform...

Netizen, I agree with you with what you had to say about how it was mere interest for Sr. Bush . However, I do not have any contemporary examples to support the authors claim however Muslims have indeed recruited Christians and many Christians have used for Muslim wars. Backtrack to the Ottomon Turks, dude, they had entire programs where Christian parents would give their childern to the Turkish authorities. The Turks would create `batches` and these young childern, aged 4-5, would lose all contact with their family. They would have no loyalty to any one segmenct of society nor would they be in the petty family rivalries. They would however have loyalty to one man alone and that would be the Turkish Sultan. Therefore, that would decrease chances of mutiny. Most Vazirs in the Ottoman Empire governiing Ottoman Provines came out of this system. Also, Janasseries of the Turkish Armies. Elite Christian unit which would exceptionally strong. Most Generals were also out of this amazing system.

To those, who have responded and commented, I offer my thanks. I have just a few points to make on this article and the rest, which will follow it. The intention of the statements made in the article are open to question and the arguments made are open to debate. I am not stating an idee fixe on the nature of war, but merely offering a historic perspective on its evolution. This an interpretation of an event, which in this case happens to be war and the political and economic contexts associated with it. This is not the Sermon on the Mount on the nature of the war itself. The idea behind the article was to generate a debate on the issue and like with all debates, I think that I will learn more from the interacts than I can hope to teach my readers.

Dear readers, you are free to state your views, question my statements and hopefully, you will eludicate me on my favorite hobby, which is the study of war.

To those who might respond in the future, I thank you!

Ciao

there was once upon a time when Islam civilized the barbarian`s Europe -- now it`s European`s turn to civilize barbarian`s Islam.......

and it will be done not by war -- but by Europeanizing the Imam ... ban on importing Imams from the mother countries -- educating Imams in European universities -- with compulsory courses of Religions of the World 101....

.....assimilation assimilation assimilation -- there will be assimilation for the Musliims in Europe -- no escaape from that ....

....as they say when the jackal has a death wish it heads for the city -- same for the fundamentalist Muslims heading for Europe -- the European St. Bernards are going to rescue the FUN from the Fundamentalist Islam in coming decades....

it wont happen in Born-again Evangelical United States to the Ghettoized Islam........they will be segregated and pretty safe -- in the Land of the Neocons.....

Feroze,

There is only one real reason to start a war - might is right!! People can come up with all kinds of justification but the reality is that whoever is strong and powerful, attacks and defeats the weak. It has little to do with religious philosophies. Even if the stronger party has democracy, free press etc, it can barely control the lust for war. The current war in Iraq is a perfect example where imaginary reasons were given for a war. The same goes for Vietnam. Look at the German instigation of WW2. Some imaginary justification was given about conditions of germans in Sudetenland.

In the subcontinental context, the Ghazanavis and Ghauris repeatedly attacked and plundered India when Indians never did any harm to any muslims. Some false justfication was given about some ruler in Sindh. Babur attacked Ibrahim Lodhi only because he could and because of his lust for the throne at Delhi. So it is just human nature to take advantage of the other party`s weakness.

The real lesson from all this is that you must have a rock solid defense. It does not matter how good your own intentions are. You should never depend on the kindness of others not to harm you. Today India and Pakistan are talking real peace because they know that they cannot conquer each other.

``but the Muslims overcame this hindrance by employing armies of non-Muslims to fight their wars.``

Can you give examples of where Muslims have done that.

``Therefore, it was not surprising for Saudi Arabia to ask for United States’ military protection against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1990 and to garrison non-Muslim armies on Islam’s holiest soils.``

I think ythis conclusion has flaws, I don`t think Saudi Arabia asked United States for help becuase the U.S. army was non-muslim. Sr. Bush was as eager to protect the oil pipelines in Saudi as the Saudis were to ask for help. Don`t forget that U.S. was and still is the strongest army the world has ever seen. Saddams army before the first Gulf war was, if not the best then one of the best armies in the middle east. I don`t think the Saudis would have taken any chances with Osama`s rag tag army. Regarding Pakistan, where does its military get its hardware and planes. Do you think India-centric Pak would have sent a 500,000 strong army to defend Saudi against 500,000 - 1 million Saddams battle hardened force.

``The Arab idea of mercenaries was later included in the armies of the Ottoman Turks in the guise of the corps of Jannarsies, who were non-Muslims and who fought for the Turkish Ottoman Empire. ``

The turks have been using Jannisaries since 14th century. Though the Janissaries consisted of conscripted Christian kids/youths (from the defeated populace) they were converted to Islam and brainwashed into defending the faith and the Sultan.

``It was this power, which was contested in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), when the Europeans nations fought the church’s power to define their own sense of political suzerainty without the church’s influence. Reformation of 1517 might be the brainchild of Martin Luther, but it was sustained politically and via military resistance by the German principalities of Mitteleuropa not on religious grounds but on the need to break the church’s political monopoly over European states symbolized in the sovereign right to declare wars.``

Thirty years war was occured for a number of reasons but basically it was fought between the Protestants and the Catholics. The Holy Roman Empire wanted to extend its influence over more states and the Protestants and the Calvinists wnated to defeat these Empire. Hence it was a religious war.

``In the aftermath of the Thirty Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, the powers to make war was taken away from the individual (the pope) and given to the state.``

I don`t think the Pope and the Papal states had anything to do with the Thirty year war. These battles were fought in Central and Eastern Europe along religious, lingual and ethnic lines.

``Since the church had assumed supremacy over the European states and the war was fought to break that supremacy, it was decided that all states would be equal in power and wars could only be fought for reasons of preserving the state’s power. It was hoped that through this, wars would be of defensive political nature only and not of an aggressive religious style. ````
Once againt the war was fought between the Imperial forces and various groups like the Bohemians, the Danes, the Swedes (they wanted to check Catholicism), the French (even though it was a Catholic state, it wanted to weaken the Hapsburg). Even within the Holy Roman Empire there were several princes some Catholic, some Protestants and some Calvinists. You can say that the treaty helped to establish nation-states. Also, it was agreed that the citizens of the nation state was subjected to the laws and actions of their own government rather than to those of neighbouring powers. These laws/actions could be religious or secular. The nation state could have become Catholic/ Lutherans/ Calvinist states depending on what the king and the populace favoured. The difference was earlier overlapping political and religious loyalties were common. Hence Catholic Spainiards could could in aid of the Holy Roman Empire against the Protestant Swedes. Islam has still retained this characteristic thats why you see people from several nationalities in Al Qaida.