class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Dirty Wars ## 1: War and Dirty War ### Jack McDonald --- class: inverse # Outline - War and Dirty War: What's the Problem? - Why is it a Problem? - Why is it Important? - How Does Studying Dirty Wars Extend Our Understanding of Political Violence? - How Are We Going to Tackle These Questions? - Conclusions and Connections ??? 1. Okay, so there's a couple of goals for this week 2. First is to get you to understand the theme of the course - the topics we will be studying 3. Second is to explain how and why we'll be looking at dirty war through a set of disciplinary lenses 4. So I'll walk you through some basics of war, and political repression, then we'll pan out to put the course in a more abstract context 5. Lastly I'll go over the meta-structure of the course, how we get from A to B, so to speak. --- class: inverse # Part 1: War and Dirty War: What's the Problem? ??? 1. What is "a dirty war" 2. Relationship between war and political repression 3. What do we mean by war and what we mean by political repression? 4. How do these relate to rules and political order? 5. In national security, how do you go from observations of political behaviour to subjective interpretations of what should be done? --- # What is a "Dirty War"? .pic80[![Book covers of dirty war books](img/1/dwbooks.png)] Widely-used to describe huge variety of conflicts and wars > ...dirty war can be defined as a systematic campaign of violence directed against a portion of the civil populace where the perpetrators aim to conceal both the extent of the violence and the true extent of their involvement for the primary purpose of creating fear for political purposes. M.L.R. Smith and Sophie Roberts, _War in the Gray_ ??? 1. Definition is key issue, dirty war is a sometimes rhetorical term term used to denote wars that are not good wars 2. In another sense dirty war is a category of conflict, there are types of conflicts/political violence that can be categorised as dirty war 3. How might, or should, you go about constructing such category and what might that reveal about war and warfare? 4. We are going to start with this article, and Tarak Barkawi's work on war and political repression, to think about the relationship between war and political order more generally 5. What we are primarily concerned with in this course is the relationship between war, rules, political repression, and political order 6. A close reading of this article helps us to understand how our starting point might be a problem - if you expect a certain set of relations between these at the outset (nation states, rule of law) then many of the things you see as aberrations are aberrations 7. If on the other hand you do not take these things as priors these may be entirely logical consequences. --- # War or Political Repression? ![Escher pic, again. Sorry about that.](img/1/hands.png) > War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. > ...war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. Carl von Clausewitz, _On War_ (Trans: Jolles) ??? 1. Part of the reason this course is interesting is that we will be looking at many different relationships between war and political repression 2. that is going to be looking at political repression in war, as well as perhaps political repression that escalates to. Wall warfare 3. so we need to sketch and outline our starting point 4. Clausewitz's definition of war 5. war and pol repression = the importance of violence and its centrality. Do you need physical violence for war to occur or political repression to be said to be occur? --- # Taking a Step Back: What is War? > What we tend to perceive as war… is, in fact, a specific phenomenon which took shape in Europe somewhere between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries Mary Kaldor, _New and Old Wars_ -- > [war] is always an expression of culture, often a determinant of cultural forms, in some societies the culture itself John Keegan, _A History of Warfare_ -- > contemporary "strategic" thought... is fundamentally flawed; and, in addition, is rooted in a "Clausewitzian" world-picture that is either obsolete or wrong. We are entering an era... of warfare between ethnic and religious groups... In the future, war will not be waged by armies but by groups whom we today call terrorists, guerrillas, bandits, and robbers, but who will undoubtedly hit on more formal titles to describe themselves. Martin van Creveld, _The Transformation of War_ ??? Old New Wars, MVC Oxford CCW Nature/character CWS 1. One thing is it important to understand about the study of war is that it's been in flux for quite some time and particularly in the post-Cold War era 2. Discuss quotes: Kaldor 3. Challenge from historian John Keegan - war is cultural and fundamentally mutable as a concept 4. Debate over nature of war - is it mutable? --- # Taking a Step Back: What is Political Repression? > Political repression consists of government action which grossly discriminates against persons or organizations viewed as presenting a fundamental challenge to existing power relationships or key governmental politicies, because of their perceived political beliefs. Robert J. Goldstein, _Political Repression in Modern America_ > Political repression is the use or threat of coercion in varying degrees applied by government against opponents or potential opponents to weaken their resistance to the will of the authorities. Conway W. Henderson, _Conditions Affecting the Use of Political Repression_ ??? Goldstein quote, p.xxviii Conway quote p.121 https://www.jstor.org/stable/174207?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 1. By the same token and we should see that our we need touch understand what is meant by political repression before we start using it 2. One important feature - political repression as it is often state centric: we look at political repression by governments of populations 3. political repression is fundamentally tied to things like social movement theory which is the study of change within societies often driven by large-scale social movements that seek to change their political environment 4. One of the things that we need to consider is essentially symmetry in the study of political repression - we have to consider how nonstate actors can actually be repressive actors 5. When we are looking at revolutionary warfare and we are looking at actors are seeking to create a new political order in society and part of that and involves political oppression of the population they are trying to mobilise --- # Law and Sovereignty .pull-left[ ![Hobbes' Leviathan](img/r10/leviathan.jpg) ] .pull-right[ ![UN Security Council](img/r10/unsc.jpg) ] > the law may appear inextricably linked to power and especially to the supreme power, political power; indeed it may appear little more than an expression of that power. The law is perceived, therefore, as a command from on high, as written law, as an authoritative and authoritarian voice that emanates from the holder of sovereignty. > Law consists not only in _power_ and _order_, but also in the manner in which society organizes itself in accordance with certain historical values, basing its rules upon these values and observing them in day-to-day life. Paolo Grossi, _A History of European Law_ ??? Grossi quote p.xii 1. what I hope you're hearing and over the course of justice brief introduction to concepts is repeated reference to political order and one of the key features of any given political order be at her domestic political order or an international political order are sets of rules that is any political order can be studied not only in its current ranking of political agents and in the distribution of power within political system but also by the rules that constitute an action or that the story itself so when we look at war and political order were looking at the role of violent conflict within international political order but also in insurgencies and civil wars in the role of violence in essentially the creation of domestic political orders and the key feature here and of this course is how important rules are in governing that viral violence violent essentially if you talk to some very hot line class fittings also to as closet said that rules don't really matter they are things that are attached to the use of force do not change underlying issues of the use of force itself. Where rules might matter is in the actual essential political nature of warfare conversely and this is opinion I hold rules do matter in the sense that they constitute the political realm and they also fundamentally shaped the use of force by state and nonstate actors now we get the issue rules the rule of law and political repression what many people note is that the rule of law in many democratic states is founded on the idea of popular consent and sovereignty and the limited rights of government and the rights of citizens when we turn to say authoritarian states we find lower as a fundamental tool by which states used to enforce political orders this means that we have to consider the rule of law not just as a protective feature or something that limits government also something that extends or enforces power --- # Is/Ought Problems in War and National Security > In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with… the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation… David Hume, _A Treatise of Human Nature_ ??? 1. and thus we arrive at one of the central methodological challenges the we will be Preoccupied in this course which is the fundamental difference between description cause analysis and normative judgement but also the relationship between the there that is we could describe how political order works how a government and its institutions use law to enforce or protect a given political order and its citizens, we could analyse causal relations between say strong adherence to the rule of law and perhaps low instances of violent or coercive political repression (in theory we like to think this), and we could analyse how and why you arrive at what should be the case, that is the judgements we have for what should be normatively good or positive as a political orders one of the really interesting things I find about study of war is we use multiple disciplines to essentially evaluate good conduct and each of these arrive at different conceptions of what ought to be denote we don't think of strategic studies as a normative discipline, but fundamentally it is it is about ascertaining what a government should do given a set of circumstances it is about evaluating how well or badly government handled the given situation as such what we find and is Hume's problem, threaded through which is how do you go from observations of the world to normative evaluations of the world normative judgements how you go from some is to ought --- # Teitgen’s Warning .pic100[![Paul Teitgen](img/2020/teitgen.jpg)] >All our so-called civilisation is covered with a varnish. Scratch it, and underneath you find fear. The French... are not torturers by nature. But when you see the throats of your copains slit, then the varnish disappears. Paul Teitgen ??? 1. so why does that matter? My argument am and one that will be exploring of this course is that ideas are right and wrong fundamentally define political orders and we can find this in port items quote here armies this means that when we're looking at how states seek to defend political orders or how an insurgent revolutionary group seek to challenge political orders we have to consider their ideas of right and wrong in the process we must also consider the multiple roles that normative language plays. For example we can find normative language as a judgement use wrong what is right something was unethical or was morally permissible we can also find normative language as an excuse and refine moral arguments that are essentially relating between concepts of necessity and concept of right conduct and essentially try and forge a path towards non-judgement via explaining the importance of a given situation but also I think is very important to note that there is difference between excuses and explanations. And here we often find ourselves in quite tricky territory because we often come with our own kind of like preconceptions and, good preconceptions, like killing hundreds of thousands of people based upon cultural characteristics is not a good thing and hard to justify in any circumstance but some people offer not excuses for this kind of action but explanation and I think it's important to grapple with that and the colour revulsion you might feel not to sort of sympathise with the devil so to speak but to empathise and understand to the point that you're able to comprehend the problem in full. --- # Teitgen’s Warning, Part 2 ![Cofer Black](img/2020/cofer.png) > When we're through with them they will have flies walking across their eyeballs. Cofer Black ??? 1. and I think that's kind of the key thing when we say look at our cover black and the CTC after 9/11 what we find in the war on terror many actions which should be roundly condemned things like waterboarding and extrajudicial detention detention without trial for extended periods for people picked up in places like Afghanistan around the world and held in runtime about and we find many people quite unrepentant about their involvement in this activity we going to be looking at their arguments and keeping our kind of critical eye open because some of the really important issues about this course revolve around perceptions of necessity and how necessity is constructed by governments within institutions such intelligence agencies and the military and I don't expect anyone to jump to their defence but why do expect you to do on this course is to attempt comprehend the problems as they were perceived by the agents themselves in essence we are going to be reconstructing logics of Wharton Logic's national security that led to perhaps reprehensible action not to justify an but so that we can understand what we are doing when we render judgement upon its --- # Rules, Norms, and Law .pic80[![Emperor's new clothes](img/2020/clothes.jpg)] > Norms are intersubjective beliefs about the social and natural world that define actors, their situations, and the possibilities of action. Norms are intersubjective in that they are beliefs rooted in and reproduced through social practice. Theo Farrell, _Constructivist Security Studies_ ??? 1. and when we look back to IR theory and we can see why this might be important because what will be looking at is the construction of sets of practices and sets expect ideals with institutions within governments within conflicts micro dynamics of conflict and how they relate to wider global standards of governance And we'll also be considering how they relate to say international law but also morality and practical ethics practical reality And and I think the kind of the very interesting thing that we do when we start to look at this as we start to find influences of ideas of normative ideas in areas that most prima facie seem lawless or immoral spaces. So one of the things will be doing on this course essentially turning some of the normative structures of international society on their head. Will be looking at how things like international law and just war theory and reality what have you enable and escalate violence rather than constrain --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .question[ Where does your understanding of what war _is_ come from? Can you categorise your sources of understanding? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- class: inverse # Part 2: Why is it a Problem? ??? Defining Dirty Wars 1. Key issue finding a definition of dirty warfare definitions are the foundation of social science political science without definitions it's hard to do analysis fundamentally what we do on this course is examine competing definitions of war and political repression and how these concepts relate one another in this section we will look at description dirty war some methodological questions about studying war the relationship through more political repression the definition of dirty war abusing in this course are and how I got That --- # Dirty War: A Description .left-33[ Dirty war as "strategic practice" No formal declaration of hostilities "Rule by law" Distinction between combatant/non-combatant not observed Internal conflict ] .right-33[ > ...dirty war is the logical expression of certain forms of intelligence-related activities, which occur in conditions where a political actor seeks to deal with threats, real or imagined, that are believed to represent an extreme threat to established authority. M.L.R. Smith and Sophie Roberts, _War in the Gray_ > ...dirty war can be defined as a systematic campaign of violence directed against a portion of the civil populace where the perpetrators aim to conceal both the extent of the violence and the true extent of their involvement for the primary purpose of creating fear for political purposes. M.L.R. Smith and Sophie Roberts, _War in the Gray_ ] ??? 1. This is description of MR Smith and Sophie Roberts Four key components strategic practice decoration hostilities rule by law distinction and internal conflicts Can see how this reflects inherent biases for example do all hostilities have formal declarations? Also where do we get these distinctions between combatants and noncombatants? Are they natural? Third issue, restricting to internal conflict is this too restrictive? In this version of dirty war we have a subcategory of war, is that the right way to think about what dirty warfare is? --- # How to Make Friends and Influence People > Elsewhere, war is studied under the banner of "interdisciplinarity," as in the world's leading department of war studies at King's College London (KCL). There, a diverse and changing array of subjects is taught, from military history and sociology to strategic studies and international relations. The department's core idea of studying war "in the round," through the lenses of different disciplines, was a progressive response to "drums and trumpets" military history and to the limits of even the most astute studies produced by military staffs. At its richest, this has included philosophy, ethics, and literature, but no matter how many subjects are brought to bear on war at KCL or similar programs, core questions remain unanswered: how are these subjects justified conceptually and theoretically? What unifies this field of inquiry other than use of the word "war," or a common sense understanding of what this word might refer to? As long as these questions remain unaddressed, the "interdisciplinarity" of war studies lacks coherence. Tarak Barkawi and Shane Brighton, _Powers of War: Fighting, Knowledge, and Critique_ ??? Article link: https://academic.oup.com/ips/article-abstract/5/2/126/1941280 1. this is a graduate course so we are going to be thinking about methods methodology and disciplines this was challenged by Bacardi and Brighton and key question what unifies this feet field of enquiry-what does war refer to? If you do war studies this is either somewhat obvious and straightforward or something keeps you up at night one might think about this course is as a response to this-wwhat is war? Well will explaining in this course will be think about the relationship between war political order and rules of conduct-I will be doing this alongside institutions and practical dilemmas involved in political survival --- # The Problem of War Studies .pull-left[ ![Strategy > Politics > International relations > Security studies > strategy...](img/1/escherstairs.jpg) ] .pull-right[ ![War is weird, no matter how you look at it](img/1/escherrelativity.jpg) ] ??? 1. this is how I would approach a car in Brighton's problems depending upon your starting discipline war occupies a different focus, alongside this, disciplines relate to one another differently depending upon the disciplines hence in America international relations a subdiscipline of political science and Security studies is a subfield of international relations and strategy strategic studies is a subfield of security sites but if you were to say started strategy you would say politics as an aspect of strategic studies and the international relations is just one of those aspects of politics and security as one of those aspects and so I hope you can see how and this can of cycle can convertible a second thing is that my view of the war can never be studied from a definitive point of view that is going to this Escher relativity thing what war is depends upon how you look attached this this means disciplines are important because disciplines are the way in which we see more rural warfare Civil War says a subfield essentially proxy answer to Colin Brian thing is to really think about the relations between the underlying object as they are perceived from competing disciplined --- # Ways of Seeing War .pull-left[ ![Disciplines do create our worldview](img/1/historybooks.png) ] .pull-right[ ![Ways of seeing war](img/1/waysofseeing.png) ] ??? 1. so one might think about this course is an interrogation not only of the concept of war but in the way in which this concept has been constructed within disciplines one thing we find in the study of war is typically the privileging of interstate war and the construction of narratives about the role of war in history so Carl sets and she were a fair bit on irregular warfare but the way in which clouds fits is usually used as in terms of colour Michael ignore that and in strategic studies for example in strategic studies for example we can find the construction of concepts like an American way of war which make strong predictions about how and why the American state wages on conflict but this largely ignores American history of wars that on the course and this is important because this frames discussion of how and why the American way of war is changing the present fights lots of irregular What as regards the heart of say bomb left rockets including the military history and what gets left outline how do histories of irregular warfare intersect with histories of regular warfare but also how when we study regular warfare such as John Gray nears the first way of war we find attitudes towards war and violence that seem quite at odds with the stories about attitudes toward violence based around regular interstate warfare Sophie turned to right the page Rorschach tests highway of death and Barack and John Berger what do you see when you look at the highway of death how is that much of that is a reflection of your personal views what do you do when you take examples from their context and put them together in narratives? --- # War and Political repression .pic70[![Correlates dataset](img/1/correlates.jpg)] > This involves critiquing the main building blocks of Eurocentric war studies, that is, war studies based on categories derived from Western experience. These are the war/peace binary; an international system of sovereign and national states; and the consequent categorization of war into international and civil war (with residual categories involving "nonstate actors"). Tarak Barkawi, _Decolonizing War_ Is war constituted by battles and fighting, or one-sided violence? ??? Original COW dataset category of imperial wars 1. the key point from the car we is about the war peace binary big challenge prefers wall first battle repression as a binary these kinder categories matter and they shape how large typologies of war have been constructed e.g. correlates of Warm what I think brings together political repression and war is one-sided violence or these coercion And and I think this is going to be one of the more challenging things this course of study logics of one-sided violence in war national security and political repression --- # Dirty War: My Description .pull-left[ > Dirty wars are conflicts where one or more parties to the conflict denies the political, legal, and/or moral status of their opponents. Or: You are how you kill, and why you kill Or: Wars without cooperation, wars without respect It's not what you do and why, but where the expectations of conduct come from The importance of ideas: Explanations, justifications, excuses, denials, and silences ] -- .pull-right[ > ...once we look for them, European wars contain many underappreciated "subaltern" characteristics, that is, they have much in common with Small War. Tarak Barkawi, _Decolonizing War_ You don't have to agree with postcolonial theory to see elements of war within political repression, and elements of political repression in war. ] ??? 1. this is my description dirty waters couple really important things status corporation respect this is why expectations of conduct and thus also important so part of the story ofThus this dirty war is not dirty wars as an objective category by the construction of this category in light of changing is an international --- # The Evolution of My Ideas (1) Dirty wars presuppose the existence of modern bureaucratic states. Dirty wars are characterised by states classifying internal populations or communities as political enemies, in contrast to idealised notions of shared citizenship. Dirty wars are a form of total war against internal opponents. Dirty wars are internal wars where law permits, and ethics dictates, the use of force to eliminate a section of the population. Dirty wars are conflicts where one or more parties denies the political, legal, and/or moral standing of their opponents. ??? --- # The Evolution of My Ideas (2) Dirty wars... - Are internal wars involving the use of force to repress or eliminate a section of the population - Where law permits violence - And ethics dictates its use - They presuppose - The existence of modern bureaucratic states - Universal shared assumptions of good conduct - And are characterised by - States (and their opponents) classifying internal populations or communities as political enemies - Conduct that departs from an actor’s own standards, justified in terms of necessity, emergency, or political enmity ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .question[ Is political repression an important component of conventional wars? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- class: inverse # Part 3: Why is it Important? ??? 1. A Confusion of Conflicts 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # Where This Course Comes from .left-33[ .pic80[ ![My books](img/2020/book1.jpg) ![My books](img/2020/book2.jpg) ] ] .right-33[ How and why did the Obama administration start justifying American targeted killings? How do ideas about law and war constitute war and warfare? Bridging both: Who gets to determine that a war does, or does not, exist? Bridging both: How do we make sense of multiple overlapping identities and categories of status in war and armed conflict? ] ??? Four Perspectives - War - National Security - Ideas - Underlying Dillemmas and so on 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # The Global War on Terror ![Global War on Terror pics](img/2020/gwot.png) ??? 1. Key issue the global war on terror is it all? More warfare who gets to say it's a war? How does empirical violence fit with its classification as a conflict? Role of law in the constitution of the war-constitutional law and international lawn how do we fit bad conduct in detention and torture targeted killings how do you relate between actual conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and overarching concept of the war on terror? --- # Targeted Killings ![Targeted killings pics](img/2020/tk1200.png) ??? 1. extending from war on terror, can you get a global battlefield? Relationship between intelligence agencies technology and military force-CIA in Pakistan who gets to say that somebody can be a targeted attack? How do you global governance structures such as industry international law and human rights law intersect with armed conflict? How do military powers and capabilities intersect with the war powers of the presidency? Transparent accountability and responsibility --- # Libya ![Obama's address on the intervention in Libya - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic](img/2020/libya.jpg) ??? 1. use of force in international society humanitarian intervention in civil wars and how this can be controversial the disconnect between perceptions of war as precise and distant and the conduct of civil warfare development of proxy forces and civil wars playing out conflicts obviously Gadaffi's death --- # Ukraine ![Unidentified gunmen in Crimea, 2014. VOA - Public domain](img/2020/crimea.jpg) ??? 1. so-called hybrid warfare how states compete below the threshold of open conflicts how is secrecy constituted in international relations? Use of little green men to achieve strategic goals use of surrogates and proxies in conflict strategies dependent upon rule breaking in conflicts --- # The Syrian Civil War .pic80[ ![Siege of Aleppo map, From Wikimedia Commons](img/2020/aleppo.png) ![Aleppo ruins, From Wikimedia Commons - FCO Copyright available under Open Government License 1.0: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syria-_two_years_of_tragedy_(8642756918).jpg ](img/2020/aleppo2.jpg) ] ??? 1. obviously a huge conflict with many dimensions torture and detention terrorism and attacks on civilians one-sided violence in war particularly siege and starvation direct attacks upon civilian infrastructure and significant rule breaking on all sides of conflicts --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .question[ What determines whether or not a war exists? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- class: inverse # Part 4: How Does Studying Dirty Wars Extend Our Understanding of Political Violence? ??? 1. Big Questions 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # Baldrick's Question > The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs? Baldrick, _Blackadder Goes Forth: Goodbyee_ -- Key issue for this course: How important is the study of small wars, "grey-zone" conflicts, state terrorism, and violent political repression to the study of war itself? - What is war? - How can anyone tell that a war exists? - What happens when people disagree that a war exists? - When do people care that a war exists, or existed? ??? --- # Ozymandias & Oppenheimer > 'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. Percy Bysshe Shelley, _Ozymandias_ > We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: Vishnu... says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another. Robert Oppenheimer -- Key issue for this course: To what extent are objective evaluations of security, survival, and necessity possible? - Why is survival important? Is survival a scale-free concept? - As an _X_, how can I know what my chances of survival are? - Why would anyone roll the dice under these circumstances? ??? Full poem: I met a traveller from an antique land Who said- Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert... near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal these words appear: 'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. Percy Bysshe Shelley, _Ozymandias_ Full quote: We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another. Robert Oppenheimer --- # The Travelling Salesman Goes to War .pic70[ ![Yes there is a lot of maths behind this](img/1/tsp.png) ![Yes there is a lot of maths behind this](img/1/gametheory.png) ] -- Key issue for this course: To what extent are we ever able to re-capture the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity of war and political repression? - How do you decide, when you don't get to abstain? - What's the relationship between security, uncertainty, and ignorance? - How do polities know what they're doing? - What happens when security institutions disagree? ??? --- # The "Wrong Strategy" Fallacy > Perhaps the most common refrain in discussions of strategy is that _X_ is "the wrong strategy" or a "bad strategy". This is usually accompanied by an argument that _Y_ is in fact "the right strategy" or a "better strategy". There are variations upon this theme. Sometimes it's "the current strategy is not working" or something similar. Jack McDonald, _Some grouchy blog post I wrote_ -- Key issue for this course: To what extent can the study of "marginal", covert, or proxy wars contribute to our understanding of war and strategy? - To what extent are polities and political groups strategic? - Why do polities and political groups use force? - How do we make sense of "non-obvious" war and warfare? - Why not kill them all, all the time? ??? --- # Everyday Damocles .left-60[ ![The sword of Damocles](img/1/damobig.png) ] -- .right-60[ Key issue for this course: Is political enmity - and political repression - integral to political order? - Is politics a solveable problem? - What is the relationship between sovereign power and violence? - What is the right thing to do if your opponents resort to violence? - Can states avoid political repression? ] ??? --- # The Tragedy of Commonsense Violence .pic80[![Yes, those are remorseless cows](img/1/cows.jpeg)] > Let me here remind you that the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things. Alfred North Whitehead -- Key issue for this course: What role does justice play in war and political violence? - What is justice? - What happens when people disagree about justice? - Who, or what, are we obliged to consider? - What should I do when I'm not sure of _X_? ??? Garrett Hardin https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243 NB: Check for his sketchy politics - "The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon." --- # Clausewitz and the Grasshopper > War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale... Each tries by physical force to compel the other to do his will; his immediate object is to overthrow his adversary and thereby make him incapable of any further resistance. Carl von Clausewitz, _On War_ (Trans: Jolles) > playing a game is a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. Bernard Suits, _The Grasshopper_ -- Key issue for this course: How do different "rulesets" interact and constitute war? - Is it possible to cooperate with the people that you're trying to kill? - How do I know what set of rules apply? - What do you do when the other side doesn't follow the rules? - Do any rules apply to existential conflicts? ??? Suits quote p.43 also longer form - "To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude]." --- class: inverse # Reflection Questions .question[ What are the kind of "big" questions that you want to be able to answer? How might the study of dirty wars help you to do that? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- class: inverse # Part 5: How Are We Going to Tackle These Questions? ??? 1. --- # Focus: Hard Problems and Harsh Choices ![Control Photo](img/1/control.jpg) > Our policies are peaceful, but our methods can't afford to be less ruthless than those of the opposition, can they? ...You can't be less wicked than your enemies simply because your government's policy is benevolent, can you? Control, _The Spy Who Came in from the Cold_ (1965) ??? --- # Perspective: As Above, So Below ![Yep, The Matrix](img/1/matrix.jpg) > That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. Morpheus, _The Matrix_ (1999) ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # Problem: The Soleimani Strike .pic80[![Qassem Soleimani, Tasnim News Agency, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License](img/2020/soleimani.jpg)] Major General Qassem Soleimani, killed January 3rd in Iraq by a US drone - How can this be evaluated? - How _should_ this be evaluated? ??? 1. You've probably heard of this. 2. In January 3rd 2020, the US killed the Iranian General Qassim Soleimani, while Soleimani was in Iraq 3. So, was that the right thing to do? Or was it the wrong thing to do? 4. There were arguments about whether or not it was lawful, moral, politically astute, or strategically ignorant. 5. I'm picking the Soleimani strike here as an example, but if we pan out, it illustrates a basic problem in the study of war, security studies, and IR - on what basis should actions be judged? By whom or what? 6. If something is ethical but illegal, does that make it the wrong thing to do? 7. Why is it that some instances of political violence are "bad" but others are "good"? --- # Judgments of Right and Wrong .large[ There are many ways in which people evaluate wars as "good" or "bad" - Law - International law - Domestic law - Ethics - Just war theory - Political Theory - Strategic Studies ] ??? --- # ... in War and National Security > Concept formation lies at the heart of all social science endeavours... Concepts are integral to every argument for they address the most basic question of social science research: what are we talking about? > If concepts allow us to conceptualize, it follows that creative work on a subject involves some reconceptualizing of that subject. John Gerring, _Social Science Methodology_ .large[ Key Concepts: - War - Political Order - Political Repression - Rules ] ??? Sometimes sides disagree about the appropriate label for a given conflict Some wars feature significant amounts of political repression Internal conflicts are often brutal Who should make the hard decisions, and why? --- # Aims .large[ - Provide a survey of disciplines, concepts, and cases - Develop a toolset (theoretical perspectives, practical research methods) - Tackle some hard problems - Enable you to pursue your own subject-specific interests ] ??? --- # How to Ace this Module - Read the handbook - (Turn up), tune in, engage - Apply the theories/debates from your core module to this course - Leave 1 week to edit your assessed work before submission - Avoid topics in assessments that you might want to do for your dissertation - If you commit plagiarism, I cannot help you - Read the official student handbook - If in doubt, ask prior to submission of work - Never cut and paste anything into a document Workflow: - Check the problem for the week, and the discussion questions - Read the assigned readings and watch lecture material - Reflect upon how they have changed your view of the problem/questions, or helped you to answer them - Attend the teaching session ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # Learning Expectations .large[ My starting premise is that everyone here is an adult, and here to learn. That said, there are a few rules:] - Turn up to all lectures and seminars, or let me know if you can't attend - If you have a question about the course, please check the handbook first - Be excellent to each other* ![Bill and Ted](img/1/billandted.png) *This course may feature pop-culture references that indicate I am no longer "down with the kids" ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # Structure Term 1 - Lectures: Dirty Wars - A conceptual overview - What makes a war a dirty war? Why does that matter? - Seminar Series: Intelligence Ethics - Problems with applied ethics in war/national security contexts - What can intelligence dillemmas tell us about war/national security? Term 2: - Research Projects Workshop - Prototyping research projects to develop skills - Picking apart work by the course conveners - Lectures: Interdependent Warfare - Applying concepts from term 1 to contemporary conflicts - Lectures: War and Digital Rights - How do digital technologies blur the distinctions between war, peace, and political repression? - Seminars: 'Savage Warfare' - Examines the colonial origins of many of the concepts used to evaluate conflict in the present ??? --- # Project Work Group projects are a big part of the teaching for this course Group projects are designed to develop skills required to succeed at the assessments You are expected to self-organise for group projects, and work to deadlines Bonus: Some group projects are designed to create shared learning resources for the whole course to use ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- class: inverse # Part 5: Conclusions and Connections ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd --- # Key Issues .large[ Definitions matter! What counts as a dirty war? How is this category constructed? Ideas of right and wrong structure political violence... ...But so do practicalities ] ??? 1. courses about what counts as dirty war and why that matters in the study of war national Security it's about relationship between war national security and norms or rules within a social context it's about the practicalities of organising violence or securing or overthrowing the states and it's about the emergence of international global concepts about right and wrong in warfare --- # Key Questions .large[Does any of this challenge your preconceptions? How could you operationalise the concept of dirty wars? Why might this concept be useful for your primary course? ] ??? 1. asd 2. asd 3. asd 4. asd 5. asd