Moreover, nation-states, their proxies, and nonstate actors who perpetrate unconventional, undeclared, asymmetric conflicts throughout the global community can and do take de facto political control of geographical and human portions of traditional nation-states. When they do, they create quasi-states within the state. Whether or not motives are political, commercial, or ideological — or to control or to replace governments — is irrelevant. The fact is that these activities make a joke of traditional sovereignty. At the same time, law and security depend completely on the whim of terrorist, insurgent, criminal, or gang leaders. This makes a joke out of citizen (human) rights, and the notion of democracy. Inadvertent or deliberate, any and all of these actions compel radical change and define both insurgency and war.
In general, I have to agree that we need a new approach to fighting these nonstate actors. Indeed, the issue of essentially privatized warfare (at only 99 cents, it is a virtual steal, if I do say so) is part of this new environment that denies states a monopoly on lawful use of military force.
But one thing that I believe is overstated is the focus on the nonstate actors. Yes, we need new ways to combat them. But do not forget that nonstate actors generally only become serious threats when they have state sponsors. Take down those old-fashioned Westphalian states and the nonstate actors that rely on them for sanctuary, training, weapons, money, and intelligence, are far weaker than they are with state support.
And conventional armed forces are really good at hammering conventional states.
By all means, explore how we can fight nonstate actors in a post-Westphalian world with military and non-military means. And look out how we can use nonstate assets to fight these nonstate actors as well as their state sponsors.
But don't neglect the aspect of simply destroying the regime that supports nonstate actors who would make a joke of human rights, democracy, and sovereignty.
