Proxy wars everywhere, the planet already in flames ...

[nomoba]

We read and hear the term "proxy war" with an increasing frequency inside the blogosphere and through various analyses. Has the type of wars changed dramatically? Do we need to redefine the term "war"? It appears that after September 11, 2001 attacks the new type of the so-called "proxy wars" has been adopted not only by terrorists and groups of extremists, but even by the most powerful nations too.

War probably needs to be redefined in a sense that either it is not conducted directly by nations, or, nations themselves simulate methods more familiar to paramilitary groups, avoiding a full force conflict in open front. Moreover, the line between victory and defeat is not clear at all, and in most cases it is of less importance.

http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/11/proxy-wars-everywhere-planet-already-in.html

[Бай Ганьо]

Do we need to redefine the term "war"?

Why? If one wants to redefine something, one should show that the current dictionary definition suffers from grave shortcomings.


war1
[wawr]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations:
The two nations were at war with each other.

What is wrong with this definition?

In a few sentences the author explained the situation without redefining any term. Saying "proxy war" is not providing a redefinition of "war", it's introducing another word to label a specific kind of conflict.

What's more, the word "proxy war" has entered the dictionary long time ago: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proxy-war

The linked article is a symptom of wider problem within the left: why are so many leftists obsessed with redefining even when this is not necessary? In doing so, aren't they imitating the lawyer's mania of redefining things to an unreasonable extent to suit them and neoliberal bourgeois ideology?


Moreover, the line between victory and defeat is not clear at all, and in most cases it is of less importance.

As if the common sense definition of "war" says something about victory or defeat.

[BIXX]

I think I've only ever seen you make a post once that wasn't just am excuse to promote your blog

[RedAnarchist]

Every single war in history has been a proxy war, it's only considered a modern phenomenon because Western governments aren't sending their own working class troops anymore.

[Bala Perdida]

That's a history class term. Anything or anyone that uses those shouldn't be bothered with to engage unless physically.

[ckaihatsu]

That's a history class term. Anything or anyone that uses those shouldn't be bothered with to engage unless physically.


So those who use 'proxy' only *operate* by proxy...(!)


= D









[T]he line between victory and defeat is not clear at all, and in most cases it is of less importance.
Just offhand I'm not seeing *trade* relations being affected by *geopolitical* relations, as with routine sanctions or embargoes when international tensions flare up -- maybe that just *heightens* the stakes, making it more all-or-nothing -- (?) (But if not then the warfare-by-proxy *is* more political-fascism-like, since it's essentially Bonapartism-with-international-conflicts.)