The Weaponization of Social Media

According to Kaldor, western liberal democracies look at war in a classical
way and therefore fail to understand the new realities of war and what the
goals are. It is no longer about states against states, but about identity and
identity claims and about cosmopolitanism (inclusion) versus particularism
(exclusion / nationalism). The wars are therefore more about control of the
population and political decision-making than about control over territory.
But Kaldor also points out, that new wars are not to be understood as an
empirical category but rather as a logical framework in which to make sense
of contemporary conflicts and their characteristics.
Martin Van Creveld, just as Mary Kaldor, also argues that the way
that primarily liberal democracies today view contemporary wars is
fundamentally flawed! The view is based on strategic thinking that draws
on Clausewitz. This, he argues, is an obsolete way of viewing conflicts and
wars in a time where contemporary conflicts are characterised by war
between ethnic and religious groups and where the notion of large-scale
conventional warfare is at best an illusion. In his view, this form of strategic
thinking has a consequence on states’ capacities to project (violent) power,
which is why a change in strategic thinking is necessary, in order to align
strategy to the characteristics of contemporary conflicts. 13 States therefore,
need to rethink the aims and objectives for employing armed force. What
is the end-state, who are the actors (or audiences one could say), and how
do they project power in order to prepare for future conflicts.
One of Van Creveld’s basic notions, when arguing that conventional war
is obsolete, is that the presence of nuclear weapons prevents large-scale
conventional wars. 14 This “new” weapon system is what makes wars new!
Furthermore, he argues that they are “status-quo” weapons that stabilise
the balance of power between states that have them, as it is irrational to
use them. On the other side, however, with the absence of large-scale
conventional wars, what he calls “Low Intensity Conflicts” (LIC) is the norm
in contemporary conflicts. LIC will still be bloody and can lead to political
change. Large states, however, have a hard time wining them. 15
Creveld’s view on contemporary conflicts is that they will most probably be
fought over ethnic, religious and economic issues and personal interest of
leaders, rather than over geography. Future conflicts, though, will still be
violent, and wars will occur even though they will be in the form of LIC.
These conflicts will be fought by primarily non-state actors (populations).
In this equation, charismatic leaders will be very influential in instigating
17