This book is very enlightening, if that is the word one should use to describe a book about the subject of war, violence, assault, systematic rape, mass killing and everything that goes with it. Others have outlined very well the subject of the book and given a similar rating to mine. Max Weber said that the state was the only one authorized to the legitimate use of violence. In a rather long-winded and sometimes tedious argumentation, Van Creveld explains how this is no longer the case, and how the nice tidy little distinction mad by Von Clausewitz of state, govt and people no longer holds: violence is now dispersed and in the hands of many groups whose war-mongering is very different from that of standing armies with the latest military equipment. Modern armies and their weapons are not well suited to this kind of war of "low-intensity conflict", as he describes it. Before emigrating to the US, I saw how this happened in my native Ireland: the Irish Republican Army was a very effective force against a sophisticated modern British Army. Thank God ( and timely American intervention ) that bloody struggle seems over, but the IRA said that its strategy, while not always successful, broughtt its opponents to the negotiating table.
I have also seen it in Mexico (I have a home there) where the drug cartels are now more like a military insurgency than a band of organized bandidos. Witness what happened in recent months. Government soldiers arrested the son el "El Chapo" Guzman (now in a US prison), and after a day-long standoff with the Narcos, his captors were forced to hand him over. That particular day, the Narcos called in firepower from the surrounding mountains which rushed to the scene and took over the city of Culiacan, using guerilla tactics to pin down the local populace ( everyone had to stay put ), and threatened the army with blowing everyone to bits. As well as their standard AK-47s, they had Barret 82 rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, weaponry to bring down army helicopters (which they did) and a host of other equipment to impose their will. The Mexican army could have won, but with terrible bloodshed, loss of life and perhaps just barely. It is not an exaggeration to say that drug cartels control maybe eight of Mexico's 32 states. Although the Mexican army is a well-equipped and well-trained force, it does not seem to have found an effective way to contain, much less, eliminate the cartels, which day by day become more sophisticated. ( Perhaps the government could use more deadly, clandestine means, but they are reluctant to do so because of public reaction, which the Narcos know too well ). This is indeed an ongoing low-intensity conflict of the type discussed in the book. ( and happening very close to the US border ).
I use this example to validate Van Creveld's argument, that modern armies and weaponry are simply not enough to confront terrorists, armies of religious fanatics, drug cartels, 'freedom' fighters, and so on. Although written 30 years ago, and although it may exaggerate somewhat the extent of this threat, I feel its conclusions and message have to be taken very seriously. And I am sure they are, by all students of military history and strategy.
- Amazon Business: Make the most of your Amazon Business account with exclusive tools and savings. Login now
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
