Evolving Battlegrounds: A Comparative Analysis of 20th and 21st Century Warfare

Introduction

International Relations entails interactions of independent political communities which include elements of resistance, opposition, and conflict of interest or purpose. Warfare has remained the cardinal phenomenon since time immemorial with its frequency and intensity contingent to change, owing to shifting power dynamics among state actors. There is no single definition of war as different IR scholars defined it per their comprehension of the quintessential aspects of war. Carl Von Clausewitz has defined war as an act of violence to force the adversary to fulfill the will of the state forcing it. He has also defined war as a continuation of policy by other means. Horace Meyer Kallen in his work “Of  War and Peace” has defined war as an armed contest between two or more than two sovereign entities using organized military forces to achieve particular ends. 21st Century warfare is a completely new arena and to understand it, one must go over the contours of the past.

Every era has its own theoretical and practical contours of warfare. The trends and fundamental aspects remain ever-changing concerning the changing nature of the international system and politics. It is imperative to note that war’s nature remains eternal, however, the character of warfare changes with the changing system and technological advancements. 20th-century warfare dynamics include inter-state conflict, total wars, superpower confrontation (US-USSR), and independence-related conflicts. The second half of the 20th century mainly characterized fourth-generation warfare whereas the end of the 20th century led to more non-civil conflicts. Confrontation’s lid were taken off by it that were considered perilous during the superpower showdown. Moreover, it unleashed competitions and rivalries that were previously banked by the standoff of the East and West.

Against this backdrop, this research aims to holistically analyze key dynamics of 20th and 21st-century warfare. Theoretical aspects coupled with the case studies of both centuries have been provided in order to draw a comparison and determine the shift in the changing patterns of warfare.  

Warfare in the 20th Century

Total war

The first half of the 20th century is mainly characterized by “Total War.” It mainly implies such military conflicts in which contenders primarily aim at achieving complete victory by willingness to sacrifice resources and lives. In this type of war, there remains no distinction between fighting civilians and combatants. It aims to destroy the resources of contenders and make them unable to wage war. Total war also entails blockades, blocking the enemy’s water access, and destroying major infrastructure. Moreover, any type of weapon can be used in it. The modern concept of total war dates back to Carl von Clausewitz’s writings which asserted that wars cannot fought by practicing laws. His work “On War” opposed the 18th century’s conflicts and limited objectives. He also gave importance to the crushing forces of adversaries in the battle.

Fourth Generation Warfare

The second half of the 20th century is characterized by fourth-generation warfare. William S. Lind, a US military analyst, coined the term “Fourth Generation Warfare” which implies such type of warfare/conflict that undermines the monopoly of the state. In this type of warfare, chief protagonists are not the states rather it involves non-state actors who challenge the state’s writ. In terms of ontology, it is regarded as asymmetric conflict which can be differentiated from traditional warfare in terms of choice, tactics, as well as means of conducting wars. Economic, social, as well as psychological stratagems are used by violent non-state actors to create disorder in their respective states. 

Colonial Warfare

Another important dimension of 20th century warfare includes warfare against colonial powers which is termed as colonial warfare or warfare of independence. It is a blanket term to delineate such kind of combat which emanates when foreign powers colonize a particular overseas territory. It also includes wars that were fought in the 20th century between European armies in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. 

Guerilla Warfare

It falls under the domain of irregular warfare in which combatants’ small groups such as armed civilians, irregulars, and paramilitary personnel use various military tactics such as sabotage, ambushes, hit-and-run tactics, mobility, petty warfare, and raids to fight less mobile and larger traditional military. Guerilla tactics include avoidance of direct head-on confrontations with armies of adversaries and advocate engagement in limited skirmishes. The goal of this is to exhaust adversaries and make them withdraw.

The groups involved in guerrilla warfare are dependent on political and logistical support from either foreign backers or the local population, who are not directly involved in that conflict but sympathize with the efforts of the group. In the 20th century, guerrilla warfare growth was mainly spurred on by theoretical work on respective topics such as “On Guerrilla Warfare” by Mao Zedong and “Guerilla Warfare” by Che Guevara. Moreover, successful revolutions carried out by Russia, Cuba, and China also show the importance of this type of warfare in the 20th century. 

Naval and Aerial Warfare

20th-century warfare also included warfare on seas, also known as naval warfare. The emergence of modern battleships in the 20th century such as steel-armored ships like HMS Dreadnought coupled with torpedo boats, and destroyers revolutionized the warfare at sea. Another type of warfare that was entirely 20th-century’s creation is aerial or air warfare. The platforms to carry out military operations were helicopters, airplanes, and propelled aloft manned crafts to target the ground, water, and other aircraft. 

Case Study of 20th Century Conflict: World War I

World War began in 1914 after Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination which plunged all the Europe towards the deadly war. In that war, the Allied Powers (US, Great Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Russia, and Romania) fought against the Central Powers (Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Germany). Trench warfare’s horrors and new military technologies led the state in World War I to face unprecedented levels of destruction and carnage. Allied powers remained victorious, however, death causalities of civilians and soldiers were more than 16 million individuals. 

WWI fulfills the criteria of total war due to four reasons: 

1. High-level mobilization of military personnel, troops, resources, and weapons
2. Blurred roles of civilians and military personnel
3. Complete rejection and opposition to comprise peace and result in other than the enemy’s destruction 
4. Complete control of society. In WWI, civilians were mobilized by nations for war through various means such as military propaganda, forced conscription, and rationing which indicates total war aspects

WWI also witnessed the materialization of naval warfare such as the 1916 Battle of Jutland was fought between the old Royal Navy and Imperial Germany’s Kaiserliche Marine. Moreover, seaplanes of Russia flying from converted carriers’ fleets blocked the maritime supply routes of Turkey. Additionally, air patrols of Allied powers countered the U-boat activity of Germans in the coastal waters of Britain and also carried out a torpedo attack on their ship. 

Air warfare was another aspect of WWI. Initially, aircraft were unarmed and hence used for reconnaissance purposes but later they were used in direct air-to-air combat in which both warring parties tried to gain air superiority and inflict damage to the maximum extent. The other two purposes of the aircraft were strategic bombing and gaining tactical ground support. 

Warfare in the 21st Century

Community-based or Civil War

It’s not possible to dismiss the inter-state wars in the 21st century, but fundamental warfare contingencies in today’s world constitute a complex phenomenon that is delineated as a “burgeoning number of the increasingly disorderly spaces” spread globally. These spaces can be functional, economic, social, regulatory, legal, and geographic. Such wars occur mostly among the various communities which in turn are characterized by concrete and prominent factors i.e., language, religion, ethnicity, or self-selected and self-defined criteria. Contrary to the 20th century’s major wars, these wars are not mainly backed by some political ideology, but to control resources such as territory, and social, economic, and political power and therefore termed as civil or internal. 

There are three distinct characteristics of such wars

1. It involves failing/failed states or such regimes falling between autocracy and democracy termed anocracies. 
2. Such wars are not characterized by classic or traditional military confrontations. Dominant participants are not formal military forces rather are warlords, warring ethnic groups, informal paramilitary organizations, and competing militias. Contemporary community warfare is brutal, and crude and involves indiscriminate violence. 
3. It is very hard to end such wars and the reasons are various: insincerity of parties and disappointment regarding agreements.
4. Civil wars are mainly localized which implies that these wars are contained geographically even though they transgress national borders. 

Transnational Terrorism

Community warfare’s other variant is transnational terrorism in which communities are delineated in global terms. It includes perpetrators and sites of violence signifying different nationalities and states. It is mainly perpetrated by Al-Qaeda as well as its ideologues/ affiliates. In such type of terrorism, which is also termed as Islamic fundamentalism, there is a self-defined community that is accountable to only God and not any other authority.

Fifth Generation Warfare

The present century is also characterized by the extension of insurgent and asymmetrical warfare which is known as “Fifth Generation Warfare” or “Hybrid Warfare.” It is primarily based on information-based operation campaigns that unorganized groups and organizations conduct. It can be led by state or non-state actors to defeat and disrupt enemies for the achievement of wills. 

This concept was used by Colonel Xiangsui and Liang in their book named “Unrestricted Warfare” in 1999. The corollary of this war is the hybrid warfare which is now debated as a separate warfare. Moreover, it also includes information warfare which is waged against adversaries using digital technological advancements such as various platforms of social media, digital data, the internet, and the darknet. 

Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid warfare as a term first appeared in the book “British Counterinsurgency in Post-Imperial Era” penned by Thomas Mockaitis. F.G. Hoffman has defined this form of warfare as an amalgamation of guerilla, cyber, conventional as well unconventional, terrorism, informational, irregular, and regular combat that is carried out by both state and non-state actors. The key aim of this type of war is to destabilize, disintegrate, and demoralize the enemy.  There are four main aspects of such type of warfare as per Frank. G. Hoffman is as follows:  

1. Subversive and incendiary activities that aim at destabilizing and disrupting the particular state for the creation of a response dilemma.
2. Use of proxy war to destabilize the state.
3. Coercion is used by the aggressor for the substitution of the target’s will. There are various forms of coercion such as physical coercion in which the targeted state is threatened with military forces and its use. Psychological coercion involves the isolation of the state diplomatically.
4. Victorious use of early phases whereby the aggressor uses forces (conventional) against any particular target to acquire objectives. 

Cyberwarfare

Cyber warfare includes cyber-attacks against the state by either state or non-state actors to impose significant harm on the targeted enemy. Cyber warfare is the most important type of hybrid warfare as the emergence and reliance of terrorist outfits and organizations are dependent on advanced communication methods. The offensive capabilities of hostile entities are increasing due to various harsh cyber strategies. Cyber warfare also includes the use of cyber weapons, artificial intelligence, misinformation, disinformation, sabotaging communication technologies, and espionage. 

Trade Wars 

Another important aspect of contemporary warfare is trade wars which are defined as economic contestation between the states. Consequent to that is the imposition of protectionist policies such as trade barriers. There are various ways to impose trade barriers such as import quotas and tariffs. They are waged when the government feels that other states are involved in unfair trade practices and damaging its markets.

Sixth Generation Warfare

Russian Major General Vladimir Slipchenko is credited for coining the term “Sixth Generation Warfare” which implies the informatization of conventional warfare as well as the emergence of precision strike systems. Later, he began using the term “no-contact warfare” as an optimal manifestation of sixth-generational warfare and defined it as action entailing the capability to carry out no-contact-cum-distant operations alongside the increased role of C4ISR capabilities. 

Case Study of 21st Century Conflict: India-Pakistan Hybrid Warfare

India and Pakistan have been considered archrivals since the partition of the Subcontinent and this hostility is only antagonized by the lingering Kashmir conflict. Indian strategy of hybrid warfare against Pakistan includes conducting war on four fronts:

Use of Proxy War

India’s use of proxies against Pakistan can be examined through three aspects.

• First is agitation which can be understood through the Indian Doval Doctrine which means that India finances and backs agitator groups in Pakistan, mainly in the Balochistan province. The Doval Doctrine is a dogma strategized by Ajit Doval, former Indian Intelligence Bureau director as well as advisor for National security. His doctrine involves the use of secessionist and terrorist outfits in Pakistan to destabilize it.
• The second aspect is the use of reactionary forces which includes the use of violent groups such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan that stand against the state policy.
• The third aspect is the use of separatist forces such as the Balochistan Liberation Front which is a separatist militant organization.

Use of Information Warfare

India uses this type of warfare and coordinates with the influencers and various activists who are involved in spreading fear and panic and leading a rally or public debate. It creates the notion of ambiguity by using social media such as posts, fake news, videos, tweets, and blogs. An example can be taken from advertisements in 2017 on billboards and buses in the United States as well as in Europe such as “Free Balochistan” which became sensational. This was an Indian Government move against Pakistan to materialize its vested geo-political aims. T.P. Singh Bagga, who financed this campaign, is very close to incumbent Indian Prime Minister Modi. 

Warfare on the Political Front

This type of warfare involves the fusion of diplomatic warfare, lawfare (also known as legal warfare), and various instruments of a political nature that aim at weakening the state. India is using political warfare against Pakistan by using its economic edge to diplomatically marginalize Pakistan. One of the key examples is abusing FATF to target Pakistan.

Warfare in Cyberspace

An example of this can be given from the post-Pulwama situation as it innumerates the manifestation of cyberwarfare. The Pulwama attack happened in February 2019 across the National Highway of the Jammu Srinagar when a suicide bomber in a vehicle led the attack on Indian personnel of Central Reserve Police, leading to 40 fatalities and escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. As a result, India started carrying out clandestine cyber-attacks against Pakistan’s military, government, and commercial assets. Moreover, the website of the Foreign Office of Pakistan was hacked and made out of service. 

Analysis: Comparison of 20th and 21st Century Warfare

The warfare that dominated the 20th century shifted the global balance of power. This century saw the emergence of WWI and WWII which are regarded as total wars in which all military means were employed to win the war. The spread of these wars was so gigantic that they catapulted the entire world towards it. The 20th-century wars were mainly inter-state conflicts (between states alliances, and blocs) or fourth-generation wars (insurgencies or guerilla warfare). Moreover, the decolonization process during the 20th century led to conflicts between the colonial powers and colonizers. 

Warfare in the 21st century is inextricably linked to their causal factors that include hotchpotch of the social, economic, political, environmental, and psychological elements. The combination of these elements is described by Philip Cerny as “neomedievalism.” The interaction of the aforementioned factors is the fundamental cause of the persistent durable disorder. Overlapping and competing jurisdiction of non-governmental, private groups, and state groups, burgeoning alienation between the fragmented hinterlands and entities responsible for communications and innovation coupled with the isolation of the marginalized groups and ever-enhancing inequalities along with the significance of ethnicity, identity politics, and fragmented loyalties have transformed the contemporary conflict dynamics. 

With the end of the 20th Century, dynamics and trends changed which in turn changed warfare character in the 21st Century. These trends such as growing dissatisfaction among the masses, depleting resources, balance of power, and globalization, etc. shaped the dynamic of warfare making it more multidimensional, volatile, and turbulent. It implies that participants’ diverse clusters at the state as well as at the non-state level are motivated by crucial and complex combinations of social, economic, political, and other motives concerning group dynamics, psychological trauma, individual alienation, and governmental performance. 

Being facilitated by dark networks and disorderly spaces, civilian personnel are mostly targeted, and this remains protracted for a long duration. All these changing dynamics of 21st-century warfare necessitate pragmatic thinking as well as creativity at operational and policy levels. This also indicates that with the changing pattern of 21st-century warfare, a more holistic perspective of peace comes to the forefront which is regarded as positive peace demanding structural-level change to end conflict, rather than a surface-level agreement between the warring parties. 

---

References

Babar, S. I., & Mirza, M. N. (2021). The Indian hybrid warfare strategy: Implications for Pakistan. Progressive Research Journal of Arts & Humanities (PRJAH), 2(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.51872/prjah.vol2.iss1.22

Hall, R. C. (2010). Consumed by War: European Conflict in the 20th Century. Kentucky, US: University Press of Kentucky.

Hobsbawm, E. (2018). War and peace. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/feb/23/artsandhumanities.highereducation

Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars (p. 51). Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Retrieved from https://www.potomacinstitute.org/images/stories/publications/potomac_hybridwar_0108.pdf

Hoth, M. D., & Mengal, S. (2016). Greed versus Grievance Debate Highlighting Its Empirical, Theoretical Foundations and Applicability to the Study of Conflicts: A Case of Balochistan Province in Pakistan. Journal of Law and Society, 47(68), 93.  Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/b555fa2db78de7cbb8c72b12b3789506/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=4545482

Kipp, J. W. (2012). Russian sixth-generation warfare and recent developments. Jamestown Foundation. Retrieved from https://jamestown.org/program/russian-sixth-generation-warfare-and-recent-developments/

Mazaika, K. (2017). Assessing and addressing community conflict arising in conservation planning and management (No. 6). Working Paper. Retrieved from

Mithander, C. (2007). Collective traumas: memories of war and conflict in 20th-century Europe (No. 38). New York, USA: Peter Lang. 

Patel, A. (2019). Fifth-generation warfare and the definitions of peace. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 2(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.21810/jicw.v2i2.1061

Renz, B. (2016). Russia and ‘hybrid warfare’. Contemporary Politics, 22(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2016.1201316

Reynolds, C. G. (1966). Sea Power in the Twentieth Century. Royal United Services Institution. Journal, 111(642), 132-139.   https://doi.org/10.1080/03071846609431301

Robbins, M. (2018). World War I unleashed total war, and the power of mass communication. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-robbins-world-war-one-posters-20181111-htmlstory.html

Robinson, M., Jones, K., & Janicke, H. (2020). Cyber warfare: Issues and challenges. Computers & Security, 49, 70-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2014.11.007

Shultz, R., Godson, R., Hanlon, Q., & Ravich, S. (2011). The sources of instability in the twenty-first century: weak states, armed groups, and irregular conflict. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 5(2), 73-94

Simons, G. (2010). Fourth generation warfare and the clash of civilizations. Journal of Islamic Studies, 21(3), 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/etq042

Syed, B. S. (2018). Hybrid war‟ imposed on country to internally weaken it, says Bajwa. Dawn. Retrieved from: https://www.dawn.com/news/1401747 

---

If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.