CEMAL ŞERİK

Naturally, many assessments have been made concerning special warfare. What is its background, and what is its visible face? These matters have also been addressed extensively. Its political framework has been considered to a certain extent, and there are many assessments on this subject. Even so, it is useful to say a few things within the scope of the question.

If the concept of special warfare appears at the beginning of a word or sentence, it means that the subject has aspects that differ from other subjects. The emphasis on “special” conveys such a meaning. When this qualifier is placed before war, it naturally indicates that war must be considered from different angles, both in its general meaning and as special warfare. If we do not address it within this framework, we can say the following: the entry of the concept of special warfare into the literature largely dates to the period after the Second World War. Yet it gains meaning primarily through its ideological and political dimensions. This should not lead to the conclusion that the general definition of war lacks ideological and political dimensions. There are already generally accepted definitions of war. It is said that “war is the concentrated form of politics.” Although this is the most general definition, at times war determines politics and moves ahead of it; thus, which one determines the other is not treated as fixed and static. Still, in the broadest sense, war is defined as the most concentrated form of politics. There is also a common view on the question, “What is the general law or rule of war?” It is this: to impose your will on the force you regard as your adversary. This has a further explanation: protecting oneself and annihilating the adversary. These are among the points expressed within the general law of war. Naturally, they also apply to special warfare. But since we call it special warfare, imposing one’s will on the adversary, or protecting oneself and annihilating the adversary, carries distinctive and specific meanings even though it finds its place and meaning within the definition of general war. We will therefore need to dwell more on this here.

There are reasons why the strategy of special warfare was put into practice after the Second World War. This characteristic existed in the revolutionary socialist movement confronting the system of capitalist modernity and in guerrilla struggles whose ideological framework found expression in socialism, struggles for democracy, and patriotic struggles. This can be said in terms of the ideological and political framework. But the ideological-political framework here is somewhat different. In the past, war tactics or designated strategies used in the form of warfare called special warfare were also applied within ordinary wars. Special tactics are not exclusive to special warfare. Within a regular army, specially trained and prepared groups may conduct actions that can even determine the fate of a war. This is done through special tactics and concerns the training of those responsible for applying them. Yet it is regarded as part of the paths and methods followed within general war. Thus, that is not what is meant by special warfare. Nor, when defining special warfare, is it understood simply as warfare conducted by specialists prepared in these matters and using special tactics; it is understood differently. This is where the political and ideological dimension comes into play. By ideological and political dimension, the following is meant: particularly under the conditions of capitalism in the twentieth century—and indeed, we could say from the late nineteenth century onward—capitalism entered a certain process. Within industrial capitalism, monopolies became far more active and decisive. The decisiveness of monopolies means that capitalists established their domination and monopolies over everything, from politics to war and from the economy to the organization of social life. This was not a monopoly confined to military, political, and economic dimensions. Monopolization also arose in the sense of placing society under severe pressure. Within this monopolization, existing social reactions and opposition to the ruling powers deepened. The uprisings of the oppressed and exploited were added to this deepening; in other words, those uprisings became concrete there. This increasingly led to the development of revolutionary struggle. The October Revolution of 1917 was a beginning in this sense. In the face of the process initiated by the October Revolution, special methods and tactics naturally entered the methods used by the forces of capitalist modernity to prevent revolutions. But the generally valid rules and forms of war remained in effect; no distinct strategy or tactic was implemented there. It took concrete form as the application of previous tactics against revolutionary and socialist forces identified as the adversary and against working people. In this sense, intelligence organizations proliferated, counterintelligence activity intensified, and special surveillance units were established. Specially trained and prepared groups were formed within the general organization of military and police structures. Special laws and statutes were also enacted. To forestall social struggle and somewhat reduce the mounting reactions in society, “certain moderate policies were put into effect”—like substituting the carrot for the stick. These were measures developed against growing social struggles or precautions taken by ruling powers. Yet they were not regarded as a form of special warfare; they were treated as parts of an operation of suppression and considered within the general rules of war. The special warfare put into practice after the Second World War, however, had more strategic and comprehensive dimensions and different tactical dimensions. It describes the form war assumed against forces outside the system. Within war, forces belonging to the system fight one another, and ruling powers clash among themselves. The greatest wars have historically occurred on this basis, and they continued to do so in the twentieth century. The special warfare discussed here is waged against social and national struggles that ruling powers regard as a threat to themselves. Accordingly, they define the enemy, draw certain conclusions from those definitions, and then determine the paths and methods to be followed. Special warfare means orienting those paths and methods in a single direction and treating them as a strategy. Its prominence after the Second World War resulted from the emergence, with that war, of different factors in the reality of the world as it had existed until then. What were those factors?

1-       The emergence of the United States of America as a leading power within the system of capitalist modernity. Britain had previously been in the lead, and France had also occupied a certain place. States such as Germany and Japan sought to come to the fore, but they were defeated after the First and Second World Wars, their spheres of influence were narrowed, and they suffered extensive economic, political, and social devastation.

Among the old imperialist states, Britain and France remained standing after the Second World War. In fact, France was also in a bad condition. Britain remained standing, but its condition was bad as well. Bad compared with what? Compared with America. After the Second World War, France had fallen under German control; even its government had been determined in accordance with German fascism. At the same time, it was experiencing civil war—such was the reality of France. Britain, meanwhile, had suffered severe economic destruction in the war. They remained standing, but with these characteristics. The United States was the imperialist state that suffered the least destruction and exhaustion. For this reason, it emerged as the leading state within the imperialist system. Britain made way for it because doing so suited British interests. In the reconstitution of the international system, this made the Second World War and its aftermath somewhat different from earlier periods. Another difference was this: the October Revolution had occurred during the First World War and had expressed itself as a distinct force against the capitalist system. After the Second World War, however, many states emerged alongside the Soviet Union. People’s democracies were formed in Eastern European countries. Revolutions developed in the Far East, and struggles arose in different places and geographies around the world. Together, these formed a different systemic structure in opposition to the capitalist system. Both the changing roles within the capitalist system and the existence of socialist movements opposing it and organizing themselves as a system revealed the principal reasons why special warfare was introduced as a strategy. When we speak of the background of special warfare, this political and military dimension must necessarily be seen. Within that military and political dimension lies the form through which special warfare realizes itself, because the existence of the general socialist movements opposing the capitalist system is a target of special warfare. What are these targets?

1-       The existence of socialist countries. This, too, is a target of special warfare.

2-       There are developing class movements.

3-       There is the development of strong democratic public opinion opposed to war and in favor of peace.

4-       There are developing national liberation struggles in the colonies.

TO BE CONTINUED.