Using the Study Sources D, E and F your own knowledge, explain and evaluate the argument that war has changed since the end of the Cold War
Source D
My central argument is that, during the last decades of the twentieth century, a new type of organized violence developed, especially in Africa and Eastern Europe, which is one aspect of the current globalized era. I describe this type of violence as 'new war'.
I use the term 'new' to distinguish such wars from prevailing perceptions of war drawn from an earlier era ... I use the term 'war' to emphasize the political nature of this new type of violence, even though ... the new wars involve a blurring of the distinction between war (usually defined as violence between states or organized political groups), organized crime (violence undertaken by privately organized groups for private purposes, usually financial gain) and large scale violations of human rights (violence undertaken by states or politically organized groups against individuals).
In most of the literature the new wars are described as internal or civil wars, or else as 'low intensity conflicts'. Yet although most of these wars are localized, they involve a myriad of transnational connections so that the distinction between internal and external, between aggression (attacks from abroad) and repression (attacks from inside the country), or even between local and global, are difficult to sustain.
Source E
The literature of the 'new wars' provides a great service in explaining patterns of contemporary conflict, and especially in drawing attention to the social and economic aspects of conflict and the relationship between security and development.
However, much of this is not new: all of the factors that characterize new wars have been present, to varying degrees, throughout the last 100 years. The actors, objectives, spatial context, human impact, political economy, and social structure of conflict have not changed to the extent argued in the new wars literature.
The difference today is that academics, policy analysts, and politicians are focusing on these factors more than before, and they understand the underlying dynamics of conflict - and especially the social and economic factors to a greater degree than in the past. In addition, advances in communication and the media have undoubtedly brought the realities of civil war - and especially the atrocities - to public attention more than before.
Source F
Whatever about warfare is changing, it is not, and cannot be, warfare's very nature. If war's nature were to alter, it would become something else. This logical and empirical point is important, because careless reference to the allegedly "changing nature of war" fuels expectations of dramatic, systemic developments that are certain to be disappointed. The nature of war in the 21st century is the same as it was in the 20th, the 19th, and indeed, in the 5th century BC. In all of its more important, truly defining features, the nature of war is eternal. No matter how profound a military transformation may be, and strategic history records many such, it must work with a subject that it cannot redefine. ...
Above all else, Clausewitz insists that war is an instrument of policy. What that means is that war should be waged not for the goal of victory, necessary though that usually is, but rather for the securing of an advantageous peace. ...