|
|
Definition of war and qualifiers that, in Spain, since the 19th century, have been included explanatoryly in military dictionaries (up to 91 in the Military Dictionary of our Admiral Admiral published in 1869), and then in some of the civilian ones dedicated to conflicts. wars of every moment. Permanent definition in general, in the basics, to which new qualifiers have been added over time with the disappearance of some previous ones; evolutionary qualifiers according to the perspective of those who, at each moment, formulate and accept them, taking into account new forms, thus visualized, of warlike confrontation. Thus, from those maintained in time we come to the present day of the Ukrainian war , a war that in addition to qualifying it by the name of the contenders, by the place where it is based, by the forecast of its duration, by the justice of its reality, etc.
It is incorporated into the most current concepts of asymmetric war, hybrid war, and “proxy” war according to the Russian vision, as new definitions that surpass all previous definitions. But are such qualifiers really something new? Or is it more of the same under new names? Congresses and debates have been held repeatedly pointing out such concepts as novelty, forgetting, in some cases, two elements to consider: history to compare and detect the changes that have occurred BTC Users Number Data n their case, and the "error of what is defined" of dictionaries . In the first case we can always find wars, bridging the gap in terms of weapons, means of war, procedures..., with characteristics similar to the current ones, although, logically, not the same in everything (thus in past wars, bridging the gaps, could speak of asymmetry and its hybrid character), and, in the second, linked to the first, reaching the explanatory differences of those adjusted to the reality of each moment. It must be taken into account that, at all times, things are defined as they are seen, however, all these definitions, when they change for any reason, cease to be valid, partially or completely, hence in each definition initial there is a possible "error of what is defined" in view of the fact that the original definition must be corrected, maintaining the essential, to update it.
An example: in some military dictionaries of the 19th century, it was considered that spies, necessary as "eyes of the Army", due to their methods and procedures of action, carried out low and repugnant work, unless it was carried out by someone. member of the Army. Definition that has currently changed by considering those spies as such outside of the consideration of secret agents or agents of an intelligence service giving them, apart from previous pejorative aspects, a different moral value. Thus, in one way or another, we reach the understanding of this "error of the defined", to show that, in wars, in terms of their effects, nothing has changed so much as to have to rethink them every time they appear and call them in a different way, and this is because, deep down, war, as such, continues to be war. However, new definitions and qualifications are welcome, especially when they serve to clarify our reality by correcting that possible "error of what is defined." And so, while some are interested in the "error of the defined", supporting a war accepted as such, others develop it, with all the consequences that a war entails, outside such error in its definition, but, yes, within of the error that its own reality represents.
|
|
發表於 2024-3-9 18:22:26