Surrogate Warfare. Andreas Krieg
angle that has been widely neglected by the literature thus far.
Chapter 6 sheds light on the phenomenon from an ethical point of view, applying principles of just war theory to the externalization of the burden of warfare. From a jus ad bellum point of view, this chapter discusses how the resort to warfare by surrogate conforms to both the normative and philosophical debates about just war. The delegation of authority to external surrogates has an impact on the patron’s reasonable chance of success, potentially its right motive and intent, the proportionality of effort, and the criterion of right authority, as well as the question of whether force is really being employed as an act of last resort. The second part of the chapter looks at surrogate warfare from a jus in bello angle to highlight the moral implications of the use of surrogates in complex operational environments. The key focus in the second part of the chapter is on the patron’s legal and moral responsibility for surrogate action. The loss of patron control over ever-more autonomous human and technological surrogates does not necessarily exempt the patron from the duty to ensure that surrogates operate ethically and in conformity with international law—a duty that become increasingly difficult for patrons to fulfill, as examples show.
Chapter 7 brings the various analytical debates together, applying them to the case study of Iranian surrogate warfare since 1979. As this chapter shows, unlike any other state, Iran has mastered surrogate warfare domestically and externally in counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and strategic defense. This chapter demonstrates how the regime in Tehran has come to embrace asymmetrical warfare by surrogate as its standard modus operandi of strategic defense. A particular focus will be directed toward the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Quds Force as the prime vehicle of Iranian surrogate warfare in the Middle East. In contrast to Western foreign intelligence services or SOF, Iran not only externalizes the burden of war in an effort to disguise its activities but has relied on surrogates as an effective tool to secure Iranian interests overseas. While the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the United Kingdom’s Military Intelligence, Section 6 (MI6) might employ surrogates covertly on smaller projects of often more peripheral interest, surrogate warfare for Iran is an integral part of strategic deterrence and defense.
Notes
1.“Anarchy” is here defined in reference to the absence of a coherent global governance system able to regulate global affairs through an effective enforcement mechanism. See Buzan and Little, “Reconceptualizing Anarchy.”
2.In this book, “state” and “statehood” will be defined in reference to the Westphalian state in accordance with the international law tradition, revolving around territorial integrity and sovereignty—arguably two features that cause friction with the changing concept of statehood in the early twenty-first century. We chose the Westphalian tradition so as to depict the dichotomy of this concept of statehood with the reality of transnationalism in the new millennium.
3.For security assemblages, see Abrahamsen and Williams, Security beyond the State, 91.
4.See Beck, World Risk Society.
5.Clausewitz, On War, 83.
6.Gross, Meisels, and Walzer, Soft War, 1–3.
7.Singer and Emerson, Like War.
8.“Surrogate,” Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com.
9.Smith, “Surrogate Warfare in the 21st Century,” 40.
10.Krieg, “Externalizing the Burden of War,” 99.
11.Mumford, Proxy Warfare, 1.
12.Lacey, “Conquering Germania.”
13.Singer, Corporate Warriors, 22.
14.Atwood, Hessians.
15.Boot, Invisible Armies, 82.
16.Ferris, “Small Wars and Great Games,” 201.
17.Mansoor, “Introduction: Hybrid Warfare in History,” 4.
18.See Aid, Intel Wars, 132.
19.Deutsch, “External Involvement in Internal War,” 102.
20.Maurer, Cyber Mercenaries, 16.
21.See Huber, “Compound Warfare.”
22.Bar-Siman-Tov, “Strategy of War by Proxy,” 269.
23.See Moran, Remote Warfare.
24.See Krieg and Rickli, “Surrogate Warfare.” “Mediatization” refers to a process in which the reality of social and political institutions are increasingly shaped or directed by mass media. War itself has become highly shaped by the impact of mass media. See Gianpietro Mazzoleni and Winfried Schulz, “‘Mediatization’ of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy?,” Political Communication 16, no. 3 (1999): 247–61.
25.Clausewitz, On War, 515.
26.Abrahamsen and Williams, Security beyond the State, 91.
27.Bacevich, “Autopilot Wars.”
28.Krieg, “Externalizing the Burden of War.”
29.Stewart and Ali, “U.S. Strikes Cripple.”
30.Allison Quinn, “Vladimir Putin Sent Russian Mercenaries to ‘Fight in Syria and Ukraine,’” The Telegraph, March 30, 2016, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/vladimir-putin-sent-russian-mercenaries-to-fight-in-syria-and-uk/.