John Negroponte interview

[William F. Owen]

The "so what?" is that the Treaty of Westphalia (and Osnabrück, everyone seems to forget that one !), established a convention on who was allowed to play. Warfare was restricted to sovereign states by those treaties and everything else was considered to be an insurgency, rebellion or subversion.

...and this convention was useful how? My point is that it makes no practical difference to any understanding of war and warfare. Nations (Peoples) make war for political -and that includes religion- purpose. That has never changed.
Westphalia makes no impact on that in terms of understanding and practice. War is not about who is allowed to play. It's about who ends up playing. The problem is that you cannot regulate it.
Peoples making war for political aims worked 5,000 years ago (in the B*ble) and it will probably work 5,000 years from now as long as it is a primarily human activity.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

...and this convention was useful how? My point is that it makes no practical difference to any understanding of war and warfare. Nations (Peoples) make war for political -and that includes religion- purpose. That has never changed.
Westphalia makes no impact on that in terms of understanding and practice. War is not about who is allowed to play. It's about who ends up playing. The problem is that you cannot regulate it.

Sure you can regulate it - just not always successfully .

Wilf, you are quite correct that "War", in the sense of actual combat operations, is not about who gets to play. However, and it is a big however (!), "War" in the sense of both operations and the choice to use violence as a means of coercing a political end is all about who gets to play.

Look at it this way: if you were thinking of leading a revolt and you knew that you were going to get support from some fairly major foreign players, then that increases the likelihood of you viewing a military option as being viable. If, on the other hand, you are told in no uncertain terms "sorry, you can't play", you are less likely to use it as an option.

Having said all that, it is also important to note that a fair number of non-State actors got to play in the area - the British East India Company comes to mind. But they only got to play on sufferance and, when they couldn't hack it, they lost their delegated status and were told to hit the showers.

Who gets to play is absolutely crucial because it also includes who gets to buy at wholesale prices, who can be labeled a "criminal" (or "terrorist") and who gets protection from various and sundry other conventional protections such as the Geneva Conventions. This is where a lot of the protocols of the post-Westphalian state system are breaking down right now and why, IMO, the "nation-state" is disappearing: "we" have changed the rules on who gets to play (that, as they say, is however for another post...).

Peoples making war for political aims worked 5,000 years ago (in the B*ble) and it will probably work 5,000 years from now as long as it is a primarily human activity.

Sure, and they will keep on doing so. I would never argue that that won't happen. However, I will argue that the series of interlocking legal fictions that constructed what we call a "nation-state" have been changed significantly and, again IMO, to the point where it is no longer a viable unit of analysis for warfare.

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

However, I will argue that the series of interlocking legal fictions that constructed what we call a "nation-state" have been changed significantly and, again IMO, to the point where it is no longer a viable unit of analysis for warfare.

But that is nub of my argument. You cannot have war without nations or societies constructed as such. War requires a trinity of people, leadership and armed force. That may be a nation, against a nation or within a nation. The English War of Roses was a war between "great houses" but within a Kingdom - control of the Kingdom being the issue.
The great Sci-Fi theme of "Corporate Wars" can only occur once "Corporations become nations" - or societies constructed as such - and Corporations exist entirely within a legal construct defined by "nations".

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Sorry 'bout the delay, but I had to go up to Carleton U for a colloquium.

But that is nub of my argument. You cannot have war without nations or societies constructed as such. War requires a trinity of people, leadership and armed force. That may be a nation, against a nation or within a nation. The English War of Roses was a war between "great houses" but within a Kingdom - control of the Kingdom being the issue.

Hmmm, personally, i would rephrase that as you can't have a war without some of the people involved acting in and as groups. Acting in and as a group is one of the central hallmarks of a "society", but I wouldn't restrict it to "nations" or "a people" (too many instances of a group - a "people" - splitting as a result of conflicts).

And as far as the Wars of the Roses are concerned, it was really a family squabble that was finally ended by someone who wasn't even a member of the family - sniff (yeah, I am a potential member of the Richard II society ). I'm thinking about changing my sig line to "You can always trust a Percy... to stab you in the back!"

The great Sci-Fi theme of "Corporate Wars" can only occur once "Corporations become nations" - or societies constructed as such - and Corporations exist entirely within a legal construct defined by "nations".

"Corporation" just means "body" as in group. They have to take on certain characteristics that we normally associate with "nations", but that has happened in the past and, IMO, will happen again in the near future. As to whether or not they exist solely within a legal construct defined by nations, that is somewhat problematic: Rome had corporations in the 1st century bce, and it was not a nation in the post-Westphalian sense.

I think in a lot of ways, we are arguing past each other because of terminology, to whit: "nation" and "nation-state".

[Kiwigrunt]

The VOC could be worth a look within the context of the last few posts.

[William F. Owen]

The VOC could be worth a look within the context of the last few posts.

Wallah! - "established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia."

...so yes these guys were "Blackwater" and an instrument of state/national policy.

[marct]

...so yes these guys were "Blackwater" and an instrument of state/national policy.

In some cases. The English examples are quite interesting, too, since the early ones had little to do with "national policy" and everything to do with filling the Royal coffers without having to go to Parliament.