Does the New Wars thesis accurately describe the armed conflict in Syria?

-Rajat Ahlawat

The New Wars theory describes the changing nature of warfare in the post-Cold War world,
as being significantly different from conventional warfare in Clausewitzian sense. The term
new wars was popularized by Mary Kaldor in her 1999 book New & Old Wars: Organized
Violence in a Global Era. Since then it has been a topic of much debate, including some
scholars arguing that it is just a new name given to a different category of old war, and
Newman (2004) stating that all of the factors that characterize new wars have been present,
to varying degrees, throughout the last 100 years.1

The arguments Kaldor puts forward is that the new wars take place when the authoritarian
state is very weak, and where the distinction between state and non-state, public and private,
external and internal, economic and political, and even war and peace are breaking down. 2
This essentially implies that the state loses its monopoly over violence. The purpose of this
article is to analyse whether Kaldors New Wars theory accurately describe the on-going
armed conflict in Syria.

Since March 2011, Syria has been engulfed in a civil war which has resulted in more than
210,000 killed and 10.9 million displaced. 3 Multiple state and non-state actors are involved,
who have been fighting against each other over time and space. Some experts also see this
conflict as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, 4 making it even more complicated.
International presence is also significant, with Russia taking pro-Assad stance and US and its
allies being chiefly anti-Assad regime, and both parties have been involved in aerial
bombings, and training and arming of violent actors.

Kaldor says that the new wars work towards dismantling the state rather than state building as
was the case with old wars. This is exactly what we see in the Syrian conflict. There are four
major areas of difference as pointed out by Kaldor: actors, goals, methods and forms of
finance. Below is a quick evaluation of the Syrian conflict based on the four parameters.

Actors: New wars are fought by a combination of state and non-state actors not only
regular armed forces as in old wars. 5 Malantowicz describes actors of new wars as different
autonomous paramilitary groups, party militias, bandits, warlords, insurgents, private military
companies and foreign mercenaries, all lacking military order and discipline, all committing
severe atrocities6, which can be clearly observed in case of the Syrian conflict. A simple
Google search with keywords Syrian civil war shows a result of 45+ combatants combined
mainly on four fronts: Syrian Arab Republic and its allies including Iran (and Iran supported
proxy groups like Hezbollah) and Russia, Syrian Opposition forces which include Free
Syrian Army (FSA) and al-Qaeda affiliates, Syrian Democratic Forces (Rojava) with Iraqi
Kurdistan, and the Islamic State.

Goals: Kaldor argues that new wars are fought based on identity. Philips (2015) has pointed
out about Syrian conflict that it has drawn in actors with ethno-sectarian agendas 7. Acts of
violence, looting and kidnappings have taken place on sectarian grounds. The conflict has
divided the population on religious identities like Christians, Shia and Sunni Muslims,
specifically the Alawites among the Shia sect. But at the same time, along with religious
sectarianism, political ideology also plays an important role, which forms the basis for many
traditional tribes like Alawites and Kurds joining ranks of opposing forces.

Methods: Kaldor points out that in new wars, territory is captured through control of
population and population displacement. Looking at the map of Syria based on the on-going
conflict8, the state is divided majorly into five parts controlled by different actors notably
Assad and his allies, the Rebel forces, the Kurds, Anti-ISIS coalition, and the Islamic State.
On the second point of population displacement, the whole world is aware of the on-going
Syrian refugee crisis, which has resulted in more than 10 million people displaced.

Forms of Finance: Kaldor says that old wars were state financed whereas new wars depend
on predatory private finance and international aid. In Syrian civil war, sources of financing
vary greatly, which include state finance for Assads forces, with Iran and Russia directly
supporting him with arms and other assistance, while opposition forces being supported by
aid from other Arab countries and assistance from Western world. Also indirect means like
looting, kidnappings, and illegal oil sales are widely prevalent.

At the same time there are some observable points where the new wars theory does not
exactly fit. Kaldor argued that each side benefits politically and economically by continued
violence, and is not interested in winning, hence the reason why new wars persist. But in
Syria, it is not necessarily the case given the intensity of fighting by different sides for each
battle. Even old wars persist, for example the Iran-Iraq war persisted for almost 8 years.
Along with religious ideology, political views played a major role, as the initial mobilization
of people took place on political grounds. Also, it is difficult to make a clear distinction
between the opposing forces in the Syrian civil war, as many times they switch sides, and
opposing forces unite against a common goal.

Mary Kaldors New Wars theory to a very large extent accurately describes the on-going
armed conflict in Syria. The participation of various state and non-state actors, along with
private contractors, mercenaries and terrorist outfits, the methods of war and the sources of
financing are all consistent with Kaldors theory. Also the goals, methods and financing of
war are consistent with the new wars argument. Both US and Russia agree on ISIS as a major
threat. Washington is against the Assad regime, and Moscow has bombed Syrian opposition
groups which had been supported by the US. With the battles being fought among different
sides for the control of each city, and the peace talks again failing, the violence in Syria is
likely to persist, in line with Kaldors argument.
1
Notes

1. Edward Newman. The New Wars Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed. Security
Dialogue vol. 35, no. 2 ( June 2004): 179.

2Mary Kaldor. In Defence of New Wars. Stability, 2(1): 4 (2013): 2.

3Diana Al Rifai and Mohammed Haddad. Whats left of Syria? Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/03/left-syria-150317133753354.html

4Geraint Alun Hughes. Syria and the Perils of Proxy Warfare. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 25:3
(2014).

5Kaldor. In Defence of New Wars, 2.

6Artur Malantowicz. Civil War in Syria and the 'New Wars' Debate. Amsterdam Law Forum, [S.l.], v.
5, n. 3 (Oct. 2013): 53.

7Christopher Phillips. Sectarianism and conflict in Syria. Third World Quarterly, 36:2 (2015):359.

8Map of Syrian Civil War/ Global conflict in Syria. http://syria.liveuamap.com/

Bibliography

Hughes, Geraint Alun. Syria and the perils of proxy warfare. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 25:3
(2014): 522-538.
Kaldor, Mary. In Defence of New Wars. Stability, 2(1): 4 (2013): 1-16.
Malantowicz, Artur. Civil War in Syria and the 'New Wars' Debate. Amsterdam Law Forum, [S.l.], v.
5, n. 3 (Oct. 2013): 52-60.
Mello, Patrick A. In search of new wars: The debate about a transformation of war. European Journal
of International Relations 16(2) (2010): 297-309.
Newman, Edward. The New Wars Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed. Security Dialogue
vol. 35, no. 2 (June 2004): 173-189
Phillips, Christopher. Sectarianism and conflict in Syria. Third World Quarterly, 36:2 (2015): 357-
376.
Stent, Angela. Putins power play in Syria. Foreign Affairs. January/February 2016 (2016): 106-113.