"A Scary Thought: A Global Thirty Years War" Topic

"From 1618 to 1648 Europe was torn apart by a devastating and ruthless war. It was waged with fanaticism nourished by religious extremism absolving soldiers from atrocities because it was God's will and done in God's name. Out of this debacle came the Westphalian system giving rise to the nation-state.

Fundamentally the conflict was about who should have the right to define ethics, norms, values, and behavioral patterns in a Europe baffled after Martin Luther's challenge of the Catholic Church' and digesting the societal repercussions of the information revolution introduced by Gutenberg.

The current global picture resembles this picture in many ways--raising fears that we may be in for a reprise, one auguring the same degree of fanaticism with destructive effects multiplied by the sinister use of modern weaponry and technology…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

You mean we're not going to fight with harquebuses and pikes?

My God! Is there a Gustavus Adolphus hiding behind every tree ready to jump me with highly mobile, light artillery? Oh woe is me!
But seriously, it is my earnest hope that we (the human race) may finally learn and adopt methods of settling our differences without slaughtering each other and laying waste to large swaths of territory. This might be Utopian, pie-in-the-sky thinking and might be seen as bad news for wargamers, but it would be a nice change from the "business as usual" violence perpetrated daily around the globe on innocent people and their property. A Thirty Years War with the modern weapons at hand and with the dubious morality which some of those who control such weapons display, could be terrific (as in terrifying). I imagine that such a cluster of wars would not last thirty years due to the extinction of the species; if just one such conflict escalated out of control. Perhaps it is time to find a way to confine our martial urges to the chess-board and games-table and try to coexist in peace. A pipe-dream perhaps, but better than the military nightmare conjured up in the linked article by Mr. Moeller. That is my definition of "Military Progress".
Cheers?
Rod Robertson

Reminds me a little, of a Harold Coyle book, The Ten Thousand.

The essay makes it sound like such a big clash of ideals, values and world view. The diametrically opposed and irreconcilable forces of Radical Islam and Christianity spiralling out of control towards a prolonged war of mutual destruction. Give me a break.

There are those who say that war was dynastic, not ideological or religious, which is why a major Catholic power was able to get a Protestant country to do most of her fighting.

@ Rod I Robertson, Nicely said :)

@ 28mm Fanatik, Unfortunately, 'Radical Islam' or real Islam, does want to rule the world, every inch of it!
And it's warfare is at more than the military level!

It is geopolitical & totalitarian (:

Those damn Christian eh? They're just as bad as the other lot. Yawn, typical academic even handedness, so as not to cause any cultural offence. Sorry, Rod war is here to stay, just because we move forward chronologically and technologically, does not mean the baser instincts of man follow suit.

I'd rather accept the inevitable and prepare for war, rather than investing in the chimera of improving man, however noble it may sound. Ironically such efforts just make the inevitable conflicts, that follow the failed attempt, far more bloody, in terms of blood and treasure.

I'm hoping we can avoid the entire world getting hit with massive terrorist attacks/Islamic States showing up and trying to take over.

I'm betting that some serious troubles are going to happen in trying to prevent more Islamic States from sprouting.

Milites:
Yes, you may be right, but I can hope! If war is indeed here to stay, then we might not be.
Perhaps, if we diverted just some of the money spent on ridiculously expensive weapon systems with dubious efficacy and pointless military bureaucracy with little or no real purpose, we could spend it better. Such savings might be spent on cultural and educational exchanges with states we treat as near-enemies, then in a generation or two we might reduce the chances of war, as better ties between states might lessen tension. I am not talking about military exchanges but sending adventurous and willing young people, in their late teens and early twenties to experience life on the other side. Likewise we would accept teens and young adults from potential adversaries and build growing cadres of people with real connections between such suspicious states. What is the harm in trying that?
The alternative is near or complete self-destruction and then Natural Selection might select for cooperative genes rather than aggressive genes among the few survivors. Not a pretty prospect for the extinct, but perhaps a better world.
Lion in the Stars:
For the truly committed jihadists there is no cure. However, for the very numerous run-of-the-mill recruits, there may be a solution. Find jobs and decent incomes for young men in the Middle East and you will greatly cut down the pool of ready recruits for extremists, both religious and secular. Unemployment and exploitation feed the Jihadist machine just as oil powers our military machines. But instead of spending money on building lives we pour our national wealth into strategies and weapons which destroy and end lives. Perhaps a school or a day camp where food is provided and a wider world view is taught to Middle Eastern youths is a more effective weapon than a helicopter or an artillery piece? If you doubt this is feasible then explain why so much money is channeled from rich Middle Eastern states and individuals to the madrassas which foster recruitment to the jihadi cause. Schools are powerful weapons in the long-run.
Rod Robertson.

Prosperity is the greatest "weapon" for peace in the long-run. People who live prosperous lives don't agitate for war. The motivation just isn't there….

Great War Ace:
I agree, so let's build a bigger pie rather than fighting over a little one.
Rod Robertson

The Arab states had plenty of money to build working industrial modern societies. Instead they passed it all away on guns and gold plated lavatories for the Sheikhs. Only the Persians under the Shah gave it a real go until Khomeini came in and started killing people.

Until they are forced to take personal responsibility for throttling Islamic jihad instead of feeding it guns and money all we in the west can do is try to hammer them flat when they attack us and our allies.

And I agree with Warlock. Protect our own. We possess the biggest "hammer". There is no reason why "they" should be able to hit us with impunity at all. Meanwhile, the "West" should be making as many economic inroads into developing countries as possible, including especially those threatened by extremists and dictatorships. The road to world prosperity is long. But the key to success is numbers of "converts". Overwhelming numbers of those who already have, and those who want to have, what prosperous nations enjoy, will simply overwhelm the power and war mongers. They will be obliterated from a lack of support, "out" themselves, and be destroyed….

Fundamentalist islam is not capable of presenting an existential threat to the west on any meaningful level.

The west is not going to wipe out fundamentalist Islam, even if it could.

This state of affairs suits everyone in power very well.

Only Warlock and Great War Ace:
The problem with 'hammering' is when you strike the nail you just punish the wood. When you punish the wood you discredit your cause and disable your ability to change the situation.
If western militaries would target the real culprits behind the jihadist movements then I would agree with you. Alas, those who fund, support and to a lesser degree protect such extremists are immune from 'hammering'. If the House of Saud, the House of al-Thani (Quatari royal family), the Pakistani ISI and the leaders and backers of Wahabism and Salafism were the targets of such 'hammering' then things would probably change fast and likely for the better.
But instead the West targets, for the most part, the foot-soldiers and local commanders of such organizations and leaves the 'respectable' backers alone. Yes, powerful and central leaders have been found and destroyed but they are the exception rather than the rule. They are quickly replaced and usually with leaders who are more fanatical and far more clever. Furthermore, for every one such leader or foot-soldier killed many more non-targeted people are wounded and killed. These victims of 'collateral damage' then become the martyrs which radical groups use to attract and recruit new meat for the grinder. Weasel is correct in his assessment above and until that 'status-quo thinking' is challenged and defeated here, there will be no victory there. The only things 'hammering' will waste are money and lives.
Rod Robertson

You have a point Rod.

Amicalement
Armand

Do you know many Arabs? I do. Lots of Saudi nationals and Lebanese.

What they respect is a willingness and ability to fight. That's it. If you show weakness they will and do attack. That is what a Saudi Colonel told me.

Only Warlock:
I shall assume your question is for me. Yes, indeed I do, although none of them are, as far as I know, active military personnel.
I am not saying don't fight, I am saying pick your targets to have the greatest military and geo-political impact. Any wargamer knows that when you identify a command element on the table you target it right away. When you identify a line of supply, you cut it as soon as is possible. Likewise in the real world, hit the highest value targets and you will gain the 'respect' of those who survive. But simply pounding the run-of-the-mill jihadist and the comparative innocents around him has a minimum positive impact on the problem at hand and likely worsens the over-all chances for solving the problem.
Rod Robertson

So Weasel and Rod are saying that "we" know who/what the command level elements are, and deliberately avoid targeting them? Because, "This state of affairs suits everyone in power very well"? Isn't that conspiracy theory talk? Is all of this internecine violence being used to control the world in imbalance or what?

I believe that there really are organizations that want other organizations dead. I believe that the leaders of the Jihadist groups share this goal and desire in common vis-à-vis the "West" and the cultural threat we represent. So if they have enough people who agree, then they will have large enough armies to carry out that agenda. But if they struggle to build up the ranks of their forces because of a general apathy and antipathy – because the populations they are trying to control already enjoy enough prosperity – then the leaders will estrange by their excesses those they wish to attract. Meanwhile, in some places, the "grunts" really do pose an immediate threat to stability, e.g. northern Iraq. And doing air strikes on them is not a waste of time or resources if those strikes prevent the leaders from pushing their "grunts" into even more extensive territory….

Not quite but close enough.

The west does not have a way of eradicating or neutralizing the fundamentalists, because they are tied heavily into concepts of arab nationalism, or at least have co-opted such.
Any heavy handed action will result in increased support and recruitment.
Hence, we're not in a position where we can "destroy" them in any sense other than waiting for it to burn itself out and clumsily meddle occasionally as we've always done.

Likewise, the fundamentalists have no way of providing any existential threat to the west. Even if they conquer the entirety of Iraq and Syria, from the perspective of some guy in Oslo, nothing has changed.
They have no fleets and they aren't going to mount a D-Day in Italy.

Sure, they can hit us with terror attacks but that doesn't have any chance whatsoever of "destroying" or defeating the west.

So we have two factions that are unable to overcome each other in an existential manner, yet are at war with each other.
Now, if you're a person who'd benefit from a permanent state of war, this isn't such a bad position to be in.

That doesn't mean you made it that way on purpose. It doesn't mean anyone intentionally wanted it that way. But you can sure cash the government checks for weapons procurement and security / Recruit the locals for insurgency duty and establish your fiefdom just the same.

edit: This doesn't mean that the rise of fundamentalism isn't a threat to someones life and wellbeing or that we shouldn't combat terrorism so don't all start jumping up and down.

It simply means exactly as it says: We can't "win" and neither can they.

The sooner we act in a manner that deals with the problem we actually have, rather than the problem we wish we had, the better off we'll be.

And wouldn't "dealing with the problem" be to promote prosperity in the disadvantaged "breeding grounds" where fundamentalists recruit their forces? If their pool of recruits dried up from a lack of interest, would that not effectively end the "war"?…

People with a reasonable hope of living their lives, providing for their families, with a government that isn't too terrible and maybe learning a bit about the world tend to make for poor insurgents, yes.

Islam needs to have a reformation of sorts. They need to conclusively sort what the true values of the religion are.

The Arabs also need to sort out the basis of their societies – nation state based liberal democracy or nationalist authoritarianism or pseudo-theocracy have proven to not be the answer and have just resulted in failure.

Until the terrorist sponsoring Persian Gulf States are removed/neutralised, none of this is possible.