Re: <nettime> The American theory of hybrid war

Le 15 mars 2022 à 05:07, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com> a écrit :

Benson's question, When did this war begin? is profound. And the question, When's it going to end? will likely haunt us for a long time.

While Michael's list of putative events (Brexit, Donald Trump...) that might signify "the initiation" of this war is intriguing, I am not sure whether it is really appropriate. War is far too material (or dematerialising...) for this, it belies any form of abstract reasoning that tries to pin it down. All those other things that might be wrapped up in causality or events are incommensurable with the act of taking up arms.

War should not be confused with conflict, not as a covering term, nor as a metaphor. Conflicts are a fundamental of social relations. They occur between siblings and families and social groups, corporations, states, and blocs of states. Interior conflicts even occur within the bounds of one's own individual psyche. Conflicts are subject to instrumentalisation, manipulation, intimidation and psychological violence. But they are not war. Any reference to war on their regard is metaphoric.

What are the characteristics of a conflict that turn it into a war?

This can happen when your government declares a state of emergency in the face of a real (or imaginary) enemy, that leads to justifying the "usual" constitutional freedoms being curtailed. Peacetime is officially annulled. The military are put in charge of "strategic" things, and given precedence in laying out the rules. There is censorship. Patriotic laws are passed. Maybe there are curfews, or other forms of control of movements. Young people are conscripted, and conscientious objection is proscribed. A home front is declared and people are allowed to carry weapons. There is rationing. People are encouraged to denounce those they believe to be traitors. Even if the government tells you that no, you are not at war, but soldiers are returning in bodybags, then you are.

You are definitely at war when you are under military threat. When your physical integrity, or that of your loved ones, is threatened or harmed. Or your property, or the place where you live. When you have to flee for your life. Or when your territory is occupied and subjugated by hostile forces, and you are subjected to the cruelty and whims that project the agenda of its soldiers, officials and secret police.

War is declared, even if it is "only" a "special military operation". Declaring war is an important, official proclamation, so as to be able to blame the adversary in advance, justify whatever atrocities one is about to commit, because "there was no other choice". Particularly if the declaration comes with a preemptive strike, or a surprise attack. There is an ontological difference between peacetime and wartime: they are two, quite different social conditions. In wartime, states can impose upon their citizens in ways unacceptable in peacetime (which is another thing that makes war useful). In wartime, normal activities become secondary to the war effort (at best) and survival (at worst), because security of the state, the nation, and (hopefully) the people become the primary concern.

One can ask whether the Cold War was really a war, or simply a metaphor to juice up the ideological conflict between the western and eastern blocs. There were of course "warmer" moments, for example the Cuban missile crisis. But war was never waged in the motherland, contrary to the wars that both powers involved themselves in on foreign soil (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan), to further their strategic aims. The USSR putting down rebellions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Poland were not part of the Cold War: despite condemnations by the west, they were a domestic-colonial Soviet issue. Indeed, for the big powers, and their satellites, the period of the Cold War saw unprecedented growth in consumer abundance, on both sides. Saying that this was a consequence of Cold War competition does not really apply.

So I believe that it would be false to pretend that at this time, we in the “West” (Western Europe, North America,…), are at war, or even in a sort of pre-war. We are bystanders, and while it occupies our passions, we go about business and leisure as usual, and our personal security is guaranteed. At least until the bullets start to fly. And if they do, it is doubtful that that would be because powers that be (NATO, the Russians) are secretly planning to go for each other's throats, but possible if some military mishap causes the other side to press the wrong button.

Joe.