“Yeni Savaş” Düşüncesi Üzerine: Mevcut Tartışmanın Ötesine Geçmek

Yıl 2024, , 181 - 194, 23.08.2024

Tarık Solmaz

https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1514894

Öz

Geçtiğimiz otuz yıl içinde, “yeni savaş” düşüncesi askeri tartışmalarda önemli bir odak noktası haline gelmiştir. “Yeni savaş” düşüncesinin temel iddiası, Soğuk Savaş sonrası çatışmaların, I. Dünya Savaşı ve II. Dünya Savaşı gibi geç modern çağdaki savaşlardan özü itibariyle farklı olduğudur. Soğuk Savaş sonrası çatışmaların iddia edilen yeniliği halihazırda şiddetle eleştirilmiştir. Eleştirmenler, “yeni savaş” akademisyenlerinin geçmişin günümüz çatışmaları üzerindeki kalıcı etkisini küçümsediklerini ve ikna edici argümanlar sunmadan savaş hakkındaki düşünme şeklimizi radikal biçimde değiştirmeye çalıştıklarını savunmuşlardır. Savaşın doğası ve karakteri üzerine yapılan tartışma, konuyla ilgili literatürü önemli ölçüde zenginleştirdi. Ancak, mevcut literatürde ihmal edilen kritik bir nokta bulunmaktadır: “yeni savaş” düşüncesine gömülü güç dinamikleri. Bu makale, “yeni savaş” kavramlarının savaşa dair salt akademik görüşlere dayanıp dayanmadığını Batılı, Rus ve Çinli perspektifleri karşılaştırarak eleştirel bir şekilde incelemektedir. Makale “yeni savaş” düşüncesinin çoğu örneğinin, büyük güçlerin dar stratejik kaygılarını yansıtan belirli ulusal/medeniyetsel güvenlik tehdit değerlendirmelerine dayalı ve oldukça değer yüklü olduğunu savunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, Robert Cox’un teorilerin rolü hakkındaki ünlü deyimine atıfta bulunarak, “yeni savaş” kavramlarının genellikle bazı devletler ve bazı amaçlar için olduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Savaş Düşüncesi, Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Çatışmalar, Güç Dinamikleri, Anlatı Savaşları, Pratisyen-Akademisyenler

On “New War” Thinking: Moving Beyond the Current Debate

Öz

Over the past three decades, “new war” thinking has become a significant focus in military debates. The central contention of “new war” thinking is that post-Cold War conflicts are essentially different from those of the late modern era, such as World War I and World War II. The alleged novelty of post-Cold Wars has been vehemently challenged. Critics have maintained that “new war” scholars underestimate the lasting influence of the past on today’s conflicts and attempt to radically change the way we think about war without providing empirically grounded arguments. The debate on the nature vs. character of war has significantly enriched the literature on the subject. However, there is a crucial oversight in the current literature: the power dynamics embedded in “new war” thinking. This article critically examines whether they rely purely on academic views of war by comparing Western, Russian, and Chinese perspectives. It argues that most exemplars of “new war” thinking are highly value-laden, based on certain national/civilizational security threat assessments that reflect the narrow strategic concerns of the great powers. So, playing on Robert Cox’s famous dictum on the role of theories, “new war” concepts are generally for some states and for some purposes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New War Thinking, Post-Cold War Conflicts, Power Dynamics, Battle of Narratives, Practitioner-Academics

Kaynakça

• BERDAL Mats (2011). “The New War Thesis Revisited” Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers (eds.), The Changing Character of War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 109-133.
• BOWERS Ian (2018). “The Use and Utility of Hybrid Warfare on the Korean Peninsula”, The Pacific Review, 31:6, 762–786.
• CHEKINOV Sergey G. and BOGDANOV Sergey A. (2013). “The Nature and Content of a New-Generation War”, Military Thought, 4, 12-23.
• COX Robert W. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Millennium, 10:2, 126-155.
• ECHEVARRIA II Antulio J. (2005). From Fourth Generation War and Other Myths, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
• ERROL Henderson and SINGER J. David (2002). “‘New Wars’ and Rumors of ‘New Wars’”, International Interactions, 28:2, 165-190.
• FREEDMAN Lawrence (2005). “War Evolves into the Fourth Generation: A Comment on Thomas X. Hammes”, Contemporary Security Policy, 26:2, 254-263.
• FRIDMAN Ofer (2018). Russian ‘Hybrid Warfare’: Resurgence and Politicisation. Hurst Publishers, London.
• GERASIMOV Valery, “The Value of Science is in the Foresight: New Challenges Demand Rethinking the Forms and Methods of Carrying out Combat Operations (Trans. Robert Coalson)”, Military Review, 96:1, 23-29.
• HAMMES Thomas X. (2004). The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century. Zenith Press, St Paul, MN.
• HAMMES Thomas X. (2005a). “War Evolves into the Fourth Generation”, Contemporary Security Policy, 26:2, 189-221.
• HAMMES Thomas X. (2005b). “Insurgency: Modern Warfare Evolves into a Fourth Generation”, Strategic Forum, 214, 1-8.
• HAMMES Thomas X. (2007). “Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges”, Military Review, 87:3, 14-23.
• HERBERG-ROTHE Andreas and HONIG Jan Willem (2007). “War without End(s): The End of Clausewitz?” Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 8:2,133-150.
• HOFFMAN, Frank G. (2007a). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Arlington, VA.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2007b). “Preparing for Hybrid Wars”, Marine Corps Gazette, 91:3, 57-61.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2009a). “Hybrid Warfare and Challenges”, Joint Forces Quarterly, 52:1, 34-39.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2009c). “Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict”, Strategic Forum, 240, 1-8.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2010) “‘Hybrid Threats’: Neither Omnipotent Nor Unbeatable”, Orbis, 54:3, 441-455.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2016). “The Contemporary Spectrum of Conflict: Protracted, Gray Zone, Ambiguous, and Hybrid Modes of War”, Dakota L. Wood (eds.), 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength: Assessing America's Ability to Provide for the Common Defense, Heritage Foundation, Washington DC.
• KALDOR Mary (2006). “The ‘New War’ in Iraq”, Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 53:109, 1-27.
• KALDOR Mary (2010). “Inconclusive Wars: Is Clausewitz Still Relevant in these Global Times?”, Global Policy, 1:3, 271-281.
• KALDOR Mary (2012). New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era, Polity Press, Cambridge. KALDOR Mary (2013). “In Defence of New Wars”, Stability, 2:1, 1-16.
• KOBER Avi (2001). “Israeli War Objectives into an Era of Negativism”, Journal of Strategic Studies, 24:2, 176-201.
• KRULAK Charles (1997). “The Three Block War: Fighting in Urban Areas”, Vital Speeches of the Day, 64:5, 139-141.
• KRULAK Charles (1999). “The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War”, Marine Corps Gazette, 83:1, 18-23.
• LIANG Qiao and XIANGSUI Wang (n.d.), Unrestricted Warfare (English translation), Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), Washington, DC.
• LIND William S. NIGHTINGALE Keith SCHMITT John F. SUTTON Joseph W. and WILSON Gary I. (1989). “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation”, Marine Corps Gazette, 73:10, 22-26.
• LIND William S. (2004). “Understanding Fourth Generation War”, Military Review, 84:5, 12-16.
• LIND William S. and THIELE Gregory A. (2016). 4th Generation Warfare Handbook, Castalia House, Kouvola. SCHUURMAN Bart (2010). “Clausewitz and the ‘New Wars’ Scholars”, Parameters, 40:1, 89-100.
• SMITH Rupert (2006). The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, Penguin Books, London.
• STONE John (2007). “Clausewitz’s Trinity and Contemporary Conflict”, Civil Wars, 9:3, 282-296.
• BILAL Arsalan. “Russia’s Hybrid War against the West”, NATO Review, April 26, 2024, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html, accessed 17.06.2024.
• CORDESMAN Anthony. “Has Iran Chosen Hybrid Warfare?”, The Hill, June 14, 2019, https://thehill.com/opinion/international/448544-has-iran-chosen-hybrid-warfare/, accessed 14.06.2024.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. “Hybrid vs. Compound War,” Armed Forces Journal, October 1, 2009b, http://armedforcesjournal.com/hybrid-vs-compound-war/, accessed 26.06.2024.
• KOFMAN Michael and ROJANSKY Matthew (2015). “A Closer Look at Russia’s ‘Hybrid War’”, Kennan Cable No. 7, The Wilson Center, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/7-KENNAN%20CABLE-ROJANSKY%20KOFMAN.pdf, accessed 01.07.2024.
• PETERSON Nils. “The Chinese Communist Party’s Theory of Hybrid Warfare”, Institute for the Study of War, November 21, 2023, https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/The Chinese Communist Party%27s Theory of Hybrid Warfare_0.pdf, accessed 20.06.2024.