Değişen Savaş Konsepti ve Amerika’nın Savunma Politikası

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 75 - 88, 01.07.2021

Ferdi Güçyetmez

https://doi.org/10.47478/lectio.837638

Abstract

Devletler, hegemonik savaşlarını baskılamak ve kabul ettirmek için doğası gereği savaşır. Bu nedenle, dünya tarihi savaşlar ve çatışmalar ile başlar. Devletlerarası eşit olmayan güç değişimleri, insanlığın bir arada yaşamaya başladığı günden itibaren vardır. Devletler, dinamiklerini ortaya koyduğu için egemenlik kurma çalışmaları ilk nesilden günümüze kadar gelebilmiştir. Peki, birbiri üzerinde egemenlik kurmak isteyen toplumlar çareyi neden çatışmakta ve savaşmakta bulmuşlardır? Bu sorunsal, çalışmada Tukidides gibi, insan doğasının değişmezliğine, insanlığın korkuyla yönlendirilmesiyle güçlerini artırma bilincindeki dogmatik nedene bağlanmaktadır. Spartalılar ve Atinalılar arasındaki savaş yöntemlerinden çıkarılan derslerle sistematiği değişen savaş kuramları doğrultusunda ilerleme kaydedilse de şu gerçek ortaya konulmalıdır: “İnsanlığın teknolojik gelişimi ve ekonomisi ilerleme kaydetse dahi bu insanın dogmatik olarak içinde taşıdığı savaş doğasını değiştirmez sadece savaşın yöntemlerini değiştirir.’ Bu çalışmada, çok kutuplu dünya düzenine geçiş yapan politik düzenin ABD merkezli değişimi gözlemleyerek elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda savaş politikaları ve savunma tercihlerinin değişimini ortaya koyulmuştur.

Keywords

Hegemonya, Savaş Metotları, Wallerstein, Sert Güç, Amerika

Supporting Institution

İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi

Project Number

06

Thanks

Araştırmalarımıza destek olan hocalarıma teşekkür ederim

The Changing Concept of War and America’s Defence Policy

Abstract

States fight by nature to get their hegemony accepted. Therefore, world history begins with wars and conflicts. Unequal power exchanges between states have existed since the day humanity began to live together. Since the states reveal these dynamics, establishing sovereignty has survived from the first generation to the present. So why did societies that want to dominate each other find the solution in conflict and war? This study attributes this problem to the invariance of human nature, such as Thucydides, and a dogmatic reason in the consciousness of increasing humanity’s powers through fear. Although progress has been made in line with the systematically changing theories of war with the lessons learned from the methods of war between the Spartans and the Athenians, the following fact must be revealed: “Even if the technological development and economy of mankind progress, the war that this man dogmatically carries in does not change his nature, it only changes the methods of war.” This study reveals the change in war policies and defence in line with the data obtained by observing the conditions of American-based change of the political order transitioning to multipolar world order.

Keywords

Hegemony, Wallerstein, Hard Power, America

Project Number

06

References

• Barnett, T., (2004). Pentagon’s New Map: The Military in the 21st Century, New York: Berkley Books.
• Bunker R., & Steven M, (1999). “Executive Outcomes: Mercenary Corporation OSINT Guide” (July 1999), http://fmso.leavenworth (date of access: 05.09.2020).
• Burton, J., (1997). Violence Explained, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Bilensoy, İ., (2018). George W. Bush ve Barack Obama Dönemlerinde Terörizme Karşı Uygulanan Politikaların Karşılaştırılması, Lectio Socialis, 2(1), 53.
• Christopher, K., (2006). Corporate Soldiers And International Security, The Rise Of Private Military Companies, London & New York: Routledge.
• Commission on Global Governance, (1995). Our Global Neighbourhood, The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Petraeus D. G., (2010). Counterinsurgency Concepts: What We Learned in Iraq, Global Policy, 1(1), 116-117.
• Deborah, A., (2005). The Market Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Doug B., (2000). Messiahs or Mercenaries? The Future of International Private Military Services, International Peacekeeping, 7(4), 129-144.
• Ercoşkun, B. (2021). On Galtung’s Approach to Peace Studies. Lectio Socialis, 5 (1), 1-8. DOI: 10.47478/lectio.792847
• Ercoşkun, B, Konuralp, E. (2020). Change, Transformation, and Trends in Peace Studies. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (66), 187-199. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dpusbe/issue/57463/739123
• Fidler S., With Armed Forces Stretched, Governments Face Hard Lobbying, Financial Times, http://www.financialtimes.com/archive/html (date of access: 24.07.2020).
• Gaddis, J. L., (2006). The Cold War: A New Hıstory, Politique étrangère, Institut Français des Relations Internationales, 2(71), pp.432-435.
• Galtung, J., (2004). Peace by Peaceful Means, Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.
• Gaul, M., (1998). Regulating the New Privateers: Private Military Service Contracting and The Modern, Marque and Reprisal Clause, Loyola of Los Angeles: Law Review.
• Gilpin R., (1981). War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Glovanni, A,. (1993). Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gutmann, M., (1988). The Origins of the Thirty Years War, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Cilt. (18)2, p. 771.
• Hardt M. & Negri A., (2004). Çokluk: İmparatorluk Çağında Savaş ve Demokrasi, çev. Yıldırım Barış, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınevi.
• Harris, P., “How US Merchants of Fear Sparked a 130 Thousand Dolar Bonanza”, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14909.htm,(date of access: 01.11.2020).
• Huntington, S. (2006). Military and State: Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Salyangoz Press: İstanbul.
• Kaldor, M., (2005). Old Wars, Cold Wars, New Wars, and the War on Terror, International Politics, 42(12), 498.
• Kaymak, M. (2016). Hegemonya Tartışmaları Işığında İngiliz ve Amerikan Hegemonyaları: Yönlendirici Hegemonyadan Kural Koyucu Hegemonyaya, Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 34(1), 63-92.
• Keser, A., (2018). “Özel Askeri Şirketlerin Küresel Yayılımı ve Geleceği.” https://setav.org/assets/uploads/2020/02/R154.pdf, (date of access: 10.09.2020).
• Kinsley, D. R., (1988). Hindu Goddesses, Berkeley: University of California, p.47.
• Kissenger, H., (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster’s.
• Lewis Gaddis J., (2004). Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, Harvard University Press.
• Liang Q., & Xiangsui W., (1999). Unrestricted Warfare, Beijing: Literature and Arts Publishing House.
• Machiavellı N., (1999). Savaş Sanatı, Çev. Berna Hasan, İstanbul: Özne Yayınları.
• Mandel, R., (2019). The Privatization of Security, International Student Association 41thAnnual Convention, Los Angeles: United States Publish.
• Matteo, P., (2011). Power and Its Forms: Hard, Soft, Smart, The London School of Economics and Political Science, 2(4) 12-45.
• Minow M., (2005). Outsourcing Power: How Privatizing Military Efforts Challenges Accountability, Professionalism and Democracy, Boston College Law Review, 46(5), 1-39.
• Modelski G., & Tompshom G. (1988). Seapower in Global Politics 1494-1993, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Myron, L., (1988). Marketing Literatüre Review, Western Carolina University, 1(1), pp. 749-770.
• Paul, E., (2006). A Survey of the Theoretical Economic Literature on Foreign Aid, Crawford School of Public Policy, 20(1), pp.1-17.
• Rebecca, R. V., (2004). Battlefield Contractors: Facing the Tough Issues, Public Contract Law Journal, 33(2), 369-421.
• Rothenberg, G. G., (1988). The Origins Causes and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(2), 771- 793.
• Runciman S., (1986). Haçlı Seferleri Tarihi, Çev. Fikret lşıltan, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
• Sayın, H., & Akbulut, E., (2018). Transnational Immigrant Communities and Ethnic Solidarity: The Case of Samsun and Syrian Circassians, Journal of Social Sciences Institute/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16), 371-394.
• Singer P. W, (2004)., The Private Military Industry and Iraq: What have we learned and where to Next? Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Policy Paper, 2(1), 1-4.
• Singer, W. P., (2001). Corporate Warriors: The Rise and Ramifications of the Privatized Military Industry, International Security Publisher (23)3, 90.
• Sorokin, P., (1937). Social and Culturel Dynamics, New York: American Book Company. United States Defense Report, (2010). Know Your Military, https://www.defense.gov/KnowYourMilitary, (date of access: 22.07.2020.)
• Vernon, R., (2014). Bureaucratic Structures in Urban High Schools, San Diego State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Vuving, A. (2009). How Soft Power Works, Associate Professor, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, American Political Science Association annual meeting, Toronto, 8(3), 42-69.
• Wallerstein, I., (1974), The Rise and Future Demise of the World-Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387-415.
• Wallwork, R., (2004). Operational Implications of Private Military Companies in the global war on Terror, School of Advanced Military Studies the United States Army Command and General Staff College, Kansas, USA: Fort Leavenworth
• Wu, I., “We All Contribute to a Nation’s Soft Power”, (July 2018), https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2018/02/08/we_all_contribute_to_a_nations_soft_power_112703.html, (date of access: 15.08.2020).