Commando News Australia Edition 14 2018

of the types of conflict, combatants and non-com -
batants, and war and peace conditions. Some of the
more recent deployments fall into this concept of
warfare.
Underlying new theories of the Russian thinking on
hybrid warfare were summed up by General Valery
Gerasimov 11 , who simply stated that ‘the future wars
have a tendency toward blurring the lines between the
states of war and peace.‘ The Russian new doctrine
accuses the US/NATO of practicing all the instruments
of power (diplomacy, information, military, and eco -
nomic) and see that the military instrument per se plays
only a limited role in this concept. Therefore, hybrid
warfare employs military/non-military assets and
methods in order to achieve political and strategic
success. Such activities may include, but are not limited
to: protecting target populations, encouraging local
disturbances, using irregular forces, exploiting
humanitarian measures, performing criminal acts,
carrying out overt and covert operations, spreading
narrative and propaganda, undertaking conventional
attacks…, all of this in a highly integrated and
combined plan.
The Categorisation of War
Civil war is different from other forms of irregular
warfare in that that it often crosses the threshold
between conventional and irregular warfare. What
makes it unconventional is the fact that the conflict
occurs within a defined national territory (intra-state)
with the participation of two or more factions.
Nicholas Sambanis 12 used an expanded definition of
civil war that enabled him to draw further conclusions.
He based his definition of a civil war on ‘six criteria:
1. The war has caused more than 1,000 deaths in
connection with the fight;
2. The sovereignty of internationally recognized
states has been called into question;
3. It takes place within the recognized boundaries
of that State;
4. It includes the State as one of the main parties in
the struggle;
5. It includes the rebels with ability to run the
organized resistance; and
6. It includes parties who were not satisfied with the
proposal of co-existence in the same political
unit after the war.’
Sambanas further stated that Civil wars may be
categorized as ‘internationalised’ when one or more
countries intervene in the war. It should be noted that
the current typology of wars is a result of change to the
previous traditional typology that stressed two types of
war – international and civil wars.
Because of the periodic systematisation of all wars
11
General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of Staff Russian Federation 2014.
12
Sambanis, Nicholas (2001) Do Ethnic and Non-ethnic Civil Wars Have
the Same Causes? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3): 259-282
to new criteria, some of the wars/conflicts clearly
shifted from one category to the other.
The primary classification of wars will certainly
continue to change.
Conclusion
A definitive critical analysis of each of the 60 plus
conflicts/wars that over 80,000 Australians have served
within PKO, in post WW2 in one capacity or another,
regardless of the terminology and expressions used,
should not remain unreported in a frank and fearless
way. The current reporting of our history of Peace -
keeping is fragmentary, subjective and incomplete.
Historical events surrounding the deployments
ought not be changed but they ought to be viewed in
a wider and proper perspective, and that perspective
should acknowledge the role of the initiators of the
conflict/war and define the reasons which led the
Australian Government to make the political decision
to deploy Australians to that conflict. Most, if not all, of
the belligerents faced by Australian Peacekeepers were
not ‘quiet observers’ in the democratic processes that
led up to war and international intervention. Rather,
they all chose to intervene and to play a major role in
trying to shape the future of their nation and inevitably
that has led to destabilising the region in which they
live.
The withdrawal of the colonial powers from their
colonies around the world and the collapse of
communist regimes in Europe were certainly two great
victories for the ‘rights of the individual’ in a democratic
world, but they failed to adequately address the bigger
problem that they created which was that of leaving
behind a ‘power vacuum’.
The very existence of these ‘power vacuums’ and by
not ensuring that the will of the majority of people was
adequately addressed and listened to and taken into
account, meant that the system that was abandoned
was doomed (or designed) to fail. A working infra -
structure ought to have been left behind and a realistic
timeframe for handover with effective security
arrangements put in place, within these countries is the
minimum that a ‘reasonable man’ would expect. By not
rigorously trying to ensure this took place meant that it
was ‘a defeat’. With such failings conflict and war in
these countries became inevitable.
It is important to establish a more holistic framework
in order to understand modern warfare better.
Politicians, Historians and International Relations
specialists should refer to any conflict/war by its real
name and be able to define its true character. The
international community has become highly bureau -
cratic and seemingly ineffective regarding the crises
following the power vacuums in the countries where
international intervention of some description is
required for the sake of humanity.
If military professional and political leaders are to be
successful in resolving conflict, they must adhere to
Clause witz’s famous dictum that one must first know
26 COMMANDO NEWS ~ Edition 14 I 2018