Echoes of Conflict: The Troubling Return of Shooting Wars
Analyzing the Global Resurgence of Armed Strife in the 21st Century
In the 2020s, we find ourselves amidst two active shooting wars – one in Europe, known as the Russia-Ukraine War, and another in the Middle East, the Israel-Hamas conflict. The intensity shows no signs of waning, with the involved parties determined to persist, fuelled by moral and material support from their respective sponsors and allies. For this article, a shooting war refers to a conflict involving armed clashes rather than mere sabre-rattling, propaganda, or proxy wars.
As Carl von Clausewitz noted, war is essentially a continuation of policy through different means. This concept has been held throughout history. The rallying cry for armed conflict has been a constant in our written history, from asserting rights over hunting grounds in our hunter-gatherer past to conflicts over fertile agricultural land. With the advent of settled cities and monarchs as rulers, armed conflict became a means to expand kingdoms. In pre-modern times, armed conflicts were integral to colonisation and securing trade routes. While cautiously argued, armed conflicts often marked historical turning points, propelling the narrative forward as successful battles yielded substantial returns for the victors.
Entering the modern era with the ubiquitous presence of telecommunications technology, shooting wars unfold before the eyes of millions, vividly portrayed in colour over time. The once-exclusive purview of soldiers experiencing the horrors of the battlefield is now laid bare for everyone. When I say everyone, I mean it – young and old, male and female, citizens to presidents, all witness war and its aftermath in real-time. The moving images of piles of bodies, crying children, and levelled cities are beamed into living rooms, exposing the full spectrum of war's horrors and glories.
In earlier conflicts like World War 1 and 2, the public struggled to comprehend the returning soldiers' experiences. The horrors of the trenches in WWI and the vivid descriptions and images of bombed-out cities and gas chambers in WWII were hard to grasp for those who hadn't endured them. However, the Vietnam War marked a turning point, as iconic images like the young girl running naked from an American bombing seared into public consciousness. Revelations about the use of Agent Orange and the My Lai massacre turned public sentiment against the war, influencing the ultimate American withdrawal from South Vietnam.
Subsequent conflicts, such as the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq war, and the Gulf War, saw nations using media and images to rally public support for their troops while demonising their opponents. Public empathy and carefully curated audio-visual materials became a potent tool for nation-states to leverage armed conflicts to pursue political goals.
Moving into the 21st century, the era opened with the 9/11 attacks, triggering two shooting wars – the invasion of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). Media played a crucial role, with real-time images and videos of the Twin Towers burning galvanising public and global support for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The subsequent invasion of Iraq, however, faced a more divided response. Throughout the 2000s, the media revealed a subtle shift, presenting the other side of the story and exposing scandals like Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition. Victims from both sides began sharing their stories, fostering empathy among those reading about their experiences. As these stories unfolded, it became apparent that people caught in conflict zones are victims of circumstance, sharing the same desire for a safe and happy place to raise their families.
In the court of public opinion, these shooting wars have become net negatives, marked by scandals, economic impacts, and overall lousy PR. Western governments, being secular democracies reliant on public votes, are increasingly sensitive to public sentiment. Surprisingly, the public is developing empathy on a human-to-human level, even towards so-called enemies. Post the Iraq War debacle in 2003, major shooting wars seemingly took a hiatus, not indicating an end to conflicts but rather an adaptation and improvisation. Remote drone strikes in areas with limited cameras, covert raids by special forces, and the use of mercenaries as proxies for deniability became prevalent. Private Military Contractors (PMCs) entered the scene, cosying up with the Defence Department in the US and paid with taxpayers’ money. We continue to eliminate perceived threats, but now it's done off-screen to minimise public backlash. Concerns for collateral damage emerged, leading to the establishment of committees with self-important names to assess targets before taking action.
Entering the 2010s, a semblance of civilisation emerged as debates on the legality of wars and collateral damage became part of public discourse. Whether viewed as a PR stunt or a positive humanistic progress, there was a collective effort to move beyond using sheer force. The humanisation of everyone, coupled with pleas to avoid conflict, became a glass-half-full perspective. A more cynical viewpoint suggests the development of sophisticated weaponry to win wars without tarnishing the public image. Economic warfare, in the form of sanctions, became prominent, starving out countries like North Korea and Iran. While the devastation was real for these nations, the absence of graphic images in Western media minimised public outcry. These novel approaches to warfare, though equally devastating, became more acceptable to the Western general public, weary and horrified by the vivid aftermath of shooting wars in 4K and home stereo systems.
The 2010s witnessed a brief resurgence of shooting wars with the emergence of the so-called Islamic State (IS). IS strategically utilised every available platform to propagate its version of a caliphate, resorting to gruesome tactics reminiscent of medieval times—crucifixions and cage burning, to name a few. Their promotion of sex slaves and executions, perhaps failing to grasp why major Western powers had stepped back from such conflicts, turned global opinion against them. The coalition swiftly eliminated the IS threat, with even archenemies like Iran and America working together. Throughout the decade, civil clashes and conflicts dominated, and Western involvement in shooting wars focused on material and moral support rather than direct participation. The repercussions of 1990s and 2000s wars, coupled with the refugee crisis hitting Europe, diverted attention domestically, limiting Western interventions abroad.
Major shooting wars involving Western powers, usually having global implications, took a backstage position. An intriguing outcome was that most NATO countries failed to meet their minimal 2% GDP commitment for defence spending. Audits revealed decrepit and under-practised militaries, attributed mainly to the US shouldering responsibilities for wars and defence within NATO. While acknowledging the complexities, this oversimplification serves the context of this article. Instead of engaging in direct conflict, nations preferred posturing. These military shortcomings affirmed a global shift from shooting wars, favouring diplomatic and covert approaches when facing perceived threats to international interests.
At a gradual pace, it appears that, as a species, we are slowly distancing ourselves from violent methods to advance our interests. While this shift is not explicitly articulated, it marks a unique moment in written history where the prospect of a violence-free world, once the Utopian dream of hippies, becomes a tangible possibility.
Then arrived the 2020s. The onset of COVID-19 demanded collective attention, diverting armed forces toward humanitarian efforts rather than conflict. Life came to a standstill globally, prompting nations to utilise their scientific prowess against an enemy immune to conventional weaponry. In navigating the pandemic, we emerged with valuable lessons, realising the need for perpetual vigilance as disasters and adversaries, much like us, can adapt and overcome.
No sooner had we collectively sighed in relief than the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfolded, dubbed by the Russians as a special military operation to root out Ukrainian Nazis. The earlier clashes and annexation in 2014 attracted some condemnation, but this time, it's a full-scale mobilisation – tanks, choppers, Kalashnikov-wielding soldiers, mortars, and generals adorned with a shirtful of medals. It's a classic shooting war in 2022, a stark reversal to our bestial ways of settling conflicts. Despite our fleeting faith in humanity's progress, we find ourselves entrenched in the horrors of war again, as evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, where Israel and Hamas are engaged in a familiar dance of opposing forces employing traditional and non-traditional means.
The pressing question is why we've regressed to using shooting wars to settle grievances. Despite decades of vividly experiencing the horrors of such conflicts, we had a brief epiphany advocating for alternative conflict resolution. Many even neglected their militaries, perceiving their utility as diminishing as we moved away from shooting wars. Yet, boom – two shooting wars in two years, almost back-to-back. What gives?
Recent years have witnessed a binary polarisation of public opinion on numerous issues. Notably, in the context of these shooting wars, a significant polarisation emerged: the comfort in dehumanising the other side despite an awareness of the horrors inflicted upon them. It's as if we've lost the empathy gained only a few decades ago. The lingering question persists: why are we reverting to our more basic instincts despite technological and societal advances? The post-World War II vision of a unified global community now seems like a laughable dream. As a community, we're pulling further apart, which is ironic considering the intricate web of economic dependencies that globalisation has woven, making it impractical to dismantle at this critical juncture of civilisation.
A quick conjecture is that the global system we've fostered and hoped would function for the past 80 years has repeatedly failed. These failures are evident on paper and in ink at this historical juncture, collectively eroding our faith in its fairness to conflicting parties. It's possible it never had a chance; we were consistently engaged in our old shenanigans, refining the art of wearing a mask until we grew tired of it. Consequently, we decided to discard the mask and revert to our old ways of advancing self-interests.
Another contributing factor to this regression might be the widespread influence of social media on public consciousness. Politically speaking, most global leaders are, anecdotally, attuned to public perceptions. Social media, having evolved into a powerful brainwashing tool free from government control, is now capable of setting its agenda. Serving as gatekeepers to vast amounts of data, these platforms analyse what we see or want to see. Sensationalisation becomes a commodity, and targeted content beamed to specific demographics convinces people to buy into the sold narrative. Once a narrative is sold, the public conveys it to the government through votes. In Russia, the population has embraced the narrative that Crimea is Russian, Ukrainians are Neo-Nazis, and Ukraine is a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia. While Russia is not regarded as a democracy, they do have elections, and Putin's popularity is grounded in his perceived rescue of Russia from the failed democracy experiment in the '90s. On the Israeli side, following October 7th, the government disseminated minute details of atrocities committed by Hamas, fostering unity despite differences and leading the IDF into war with little hesitation. The government's propaganda efforts resulted in the dehumanisation of the Palestinian population, evident in the IDF's alleged indiscriminate bombing of the Gaza Strip's civilian population. Despite images and videos depicting children under rubble, dead families, and bombed hospitals, the Israeli public remained unmoved, and the conflict continued with a lopsided gain by Israel.
Acknowledging the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, it's essential to clarify that this isn't an elaborate plan by shadowy figures controlling the world like marionettes. Instead, it's a complex interplay of individual actions converging into unforeseen consequences. We may just be witnessing the beginning of this domino effect, and as we advance and fine-tune technologies like artificial intelligence, more unintended effects could emerge. We hope this glimpse of a dark future prompts us to address the potential negatives before we're too deep to find our way out.
Love your piece..please write more