Very informative book that draws some pretty harrowing parallels between past, present and future.

History is very interesting phenomenon. It is said that man who does not know history is destined to repeat it. So isnt it interesting that in this time and place where knowledge is available to anyone we again see powerful people doing the same mistakes as their historical predecessors. People are short sighted in general - no matter the education people dont see beyond their lifespan. From time to time few people appear that try to plan for greater time-span and they succeed, they bring some form of control is and peace is brought back - but this very peace time causes the problem - people forget very soon the horrors of the past and we go back to square one.

Thats in general message of the book. After centuries of bloody feuds, mercenary captains prolonging the wars for their own benefits (not unlike the Yojimbo) states are established and with them rules of conduct. Are these rules always followed - of course not. But they existed and those not following them would end up pariahs - so most of them tried to adhere to the rules because risking economic sanctions is never fun. Fact is - without rules mayhem takes place in which some make great fortunes but majority suffers.

As long as there is a dictionary definition of "just war", as long is war cheap for general public of nation willing to go to war (due to either use of advanced stand off weaponry or proxy soldiers (be that mercenaries or crime syndicates)) and as long there are states that feel that general rules of engagement are there to be applied to others and not to them there will always be an instability. Use of proxy forces only worsenes the situation and allows the rise of war profiteers on every side. Modern conflicts show that is more than sufficient to have one genration raised in abnormal post-war, constant-tension environment to forever break that society. Path leading back to normality becomes ever so longer as years pass by.

Is conflict constant in nature? Sure it is but if left uncontrolled it can bring everything down. That is why rules where established in the first place. Constant war destroys everything - it is based on pillage, destruction and robbery. War industry is the only means of industry and production in this case, but this industry brings nothing to society itself. It only enriches the people running that type of industry.

So what happens is nothing new - means of waging war are new, deadlier and mores sophisticated but general politics and various economic interests are always the same. While various modern mercenaries, condotieris and privateers are free to roam and do what they like wars will not end but slowly burn until there is nothing left in conflict zones and local population knows nothing else than constant war. And when everything is destroyed conflict will try finding the way of sustaining itself because many will depend upon it.

Hopefully international community is smarter than to allow this to happen. Or is it? ( )

Honestly, some of the fault must lie with me. I'm sure that when this came out, it was revelatory - today it feels a bit like stating the obvious (and missing a key thing or two).

However, even the obvious must have come from somewhere, and it's my understanding that Münkler made a significant contribution to our then-nascent understanding with this volume. Some of his insights still ring true; while it's become trendy to dismiss comparisons between the modern Middle East and the Thirty Years' War, he manages to avoid the obvious (and misleading) parallels and instead looks at the relationship between citizenry and combatants.

The marauding armies of seventeenth century Europe lived "off the land," which in their case meant a lot of foraging and pillaging the crops and holdings of the local inhabitants. This set a finite bound on the sustainability of combat operations, whereas under contemporary conditions the involvement of third parties - even if just for humanitarian purposes - allows a conflict to justify and support itself, and indeed metastasize to encompass a wider arena. It is no coincidence that the Thirty Years' War was concluded with the Peace of Westphalia, laying the foundation for the "statization" of war, and its gradual assumption into the remit of central governments.

New Wars can be a bit repetitive at times, and some of its findings are self-evident to the point of uselessness, but on the whole, a good and formative little book, and worth your time if you can spare it. ( )