Continuing our intellectual journey into the city, this week we are looking at megacities (those with more than 10 million residents) and possible conflicts within them. We are considering David Shunk’s article ‘Mega Cities, Ungoverned Areas, and the Challenge of Army Urban Combat Operations in 2030-2040’ from Small Wars Journal. Available here.
Shunk discusses a number of aspects of urban warfare, and how they might apply to megacities in the future. The article is quite short and well worth a read.
Here are our thoughts:
The direction of this article comes as no surprise, though it does include far more detail than the other similar article we have read this month on military operations in an urban setting. However instead of focussing on any one of the quite clear-cut issues raised in the article itself, I’d like to raise a few of the other issues raised both in the comments section under the article, and in my own thoughts as a I engaged with the piece:
- Force size – how big is the enemy force? Is it ever knowable in an urban setting?
- If the enemy force size is unknowable, how can you commit sufficient forces to win the war, while keeping losses to a minimum? Is there also a danger then that you ‘under-commit’?
- Logistics – how do we keep our forces supplied in a ‘hostile’ environment?
- Politics – do we have the political ‘will’ for a protracted urban conflict? Are we prepared to deal with the consequences of what will at times be quite ruthless operations?
- Is any urban war ‘winnable’? – If the only way to neutralise all threats is to clear each and every building individually, then why even bother going in on the ground at all? Is it ever possible to win a war and keep the infrastructure (generally) intact without say, bombing the city to the ground?
- Will we see the use of ‘pacifying’ chemicals and/or some form of cybernetic warfare used as the most ‘humane’ way to minimise actual bodily deaths?
Mike Ryder, Lancaster University
Due to the format as a blog-post this article necessary could not provide very in-depth analysis. However, reading this read in conjunction with Michael Evans’ article on future war in cities turns it into an excellent illustration of Evans’ point. Evans warns his readers for a too narrow focus on mega-cities, as most urbanization takes place in small and medium-sized cities. Schunk on the other hand only focuses on megacities, and bases his message of only a few sources, which all stem from a strategic studies background. Kilcullen for instance gets a key role, which Evans had described as a work with a “dystopian view”. Schunk also leaves little room for multiple interpretations on the future of mega-cities, and his view is overwhelmingly negative. “Life in megacities will deteriorate as populations surge beyond their capacity” is a very bold claim, with little material to back up such a claim.
The analysis is rather descriptive, with little time spent on what causes the phenomena we will encounter in mega-studies, how they are connected, and wat the concrete effects will be on urban warfare. Everyone is aware of the fact that rapid urban growth might create environmental or infrastructural problems, but how does this specifically affect urban warfare? He does not really go into depth on that – which makes sense due to the format, but which ensures the article has little substance. I do appreciate his list of “basic characteristics of combat in urban terrain”, but again, I wish this was connected with the phenomena of urbanization.
Shunk also makes some strong statements which border on colonialist and orientalist thinking, especially in his descriptions of cities in the Global South as completely outside control. Saying that the rule of law in Lagos almost does not exist anymore is a gross exaggeration. It presents the Global South as an urban jungle left into the darkness, without growth, development or technology, which is a highly colonial view, and left a bad taste in my mouth after reading this article.
Maaike Verbruggen, SPIRI
It would seem that the danger when considering urban warfare following on from the major city conflicts that this article refers to, Stalingrad, Mogadishu, Grozny and Nablus, that a decisive victory in a mega city could be impossible. Indeed, repeating Mogadishu and the temporary US withdrawal from international interventions would be catastrophic for power projection and the actual securing of a mega city. This leads us to posit that states cannot really afford to lose urban conflicts where potentially major strategic positions could be taken by non-state actors.
Non-state actors have held territory, Islamic State being a prime example. But, Syria only provides a case study of where it is mostly difficult to regain territory in terms of the political situation in the area. A non-state actor in control of a mega city also presents a case study where it is militarily difficult to remove the enemy.
Perhaps such potential of non-state actors shows that the concept of the state as the primary movers in warfare is slipping, along with their monopoly on violence. A city so dominated by a non-state actor that it becomes an ‘ungoverned space’, much in the same way that rural Yemen and Somalia have been seen could result in major changes to the way in which warfare takes place. We see drone strikes against terrorist suspects in these rural areas because they are controlled by the terrorist groups, and not by the territorial state. Drone strikes in a city centre do not fit with the general conception that voyeuristic operators wait to strike targets out in open countryside. However, we do see city-based drone strikes in the fights against IS.
Conceptually, there is no difference between a state losing control over rural areas, and over urban areas. This should mean that there is also no conceptual difference between striking targets in open countryside and urban areas. Yet, the higher concentration of civilians means that such strikes are less-likely to take place. At least, this would be the case if munitions remain the same. Striking single enemy target in and amongst civilians may require robotic systems to be equipped with bullets, rather than explosive munitions.
This perhaps leads us to a possible ‘solution’ to the difficulties of urban warfare, more increased use of robotics. Potentially, this enables force to be exerted in enemy urban areas, without risking lives. Yet, use of Terminator-like machines is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Indeed, a high-loss rate is likely, so quickly made machines using 3D printing will probably be more common. Use of such systems may be able to provide infantry with an equal reduction in risk that the drones we use today have given to air forces. Other than an increased use of machines, the other option that springs to mind for reasserting some government control in a mega city dominated by non-state actors is Judge Dredd.
Joshua Hughes, Lancaster University.
Let us know what you think in the comments below!