The Future of War

The Ivan Bloch Commemorative Conference on "The Future of War" was held in St. Petersburg, Russia, 24-27 February 1999.1 The conference celebrated the 100th anniversary of the May 1899 General Peace Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, and Ivan Bloch's 1898 study, The Future of War in its Technical, Economic and Political RelationS.2 The conference, organized by the Dutch Foundation for War Studies, focused on the future of the international system, with debate centered on such perceptions as "anarchy," a "clash of civilizations" and a "new world 'disorder."' Conference workshops included topics such as "War in European History, 18991999"; "The Transformation of the International System"; "The Transformation of War"; and "The Future of Political Violence." Speakers and presenters included John Keegan, Defence Editor, Daily Telegraph, London; Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies, King's College, London; Sir Michael Rose, former commander of the UN Protection Force, BosniaHerzegovina Command, London; Martin van Creveld, Professor of History, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Edward Luttwak, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.; Sergei Karaganov, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Russia; Robert Bunker, Fellow, Institute of Land Warfare, Association of the US Army; William Church, Center for Infrastructural Warfare Studies, San Francisco; Maria Pinto, University of Minho, Portugal; and Kong Fannong, former director, UN Division of Technical Cooperation Policy, Beijing. Topics of Discussion Key topics and points raised included the following: The expansion of the concept of information operations or information warfare expands the current battlespace without appropriate treaty definitions. Information operations upset the offense-defense status quo of defensive domination and promote instability in the international relations system. Ready access to information and information technologies, coupled with the ability to communicate globally via the internet, fax and other media, now provide terrorists in the Middle East new tools for targeting, fund raising, propaganda, dissemination and operational communication. Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) focus their attention on wars between poorly organized belligerents, including substate entities. NGO relief activities generally have the same consequences as United Nations Relief and Works Agency activities; they perpetuate the materiel and motivational sources of war. However, NGOs lack the inherent security of state-sponsored and multilateral relief entities. Hence, if threatened, they purchase security from local armed bands. By so doing, the NGOs serve to sustain armed bands, enhancing and prolonging their ability to continue fighting one another. Somalia is the classic example. We cannot expect peacekeeping forces to deliver warfighting goals. Peacekeeping forces are not mandated, trained or equipped to do so. As new circumstances arise, the UN must continue refining peacekeeping doctrine to incorporate the latest lessons from peacekeeping missions around the world. Surveillance, precision-guided weapons and communication technologies must be improved to ensure we can, if not compete with, at least keep up with the media's communications developments. The international community should consider defining training standards, necessary equipment holdings and logistic facilities that relate to new operational circumstances in the same way NATO does. An "inspectorate" should enforce these standards for peacekeepers so those "offered up" for peacekeeping duties are provided troops and equipment capable of performing the tasks given. Cyberspace is a higher dimension of battlespace that provides new warfighting capabilities which overcome the limitations of traditional four-dimensional battlespace based on space (x,y,z) and time (t). Two of these operational capabilities, termed bond-relationship targeting and cybershielding, appear to be more advanced than Joint Vision 2010 concepts of operation. …