modern militarism: history and ideology

7/28/2019 Modern Militarism: History and Ideology

1/9

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

Modern Militarism: History and Ideology

By Dr. Khalid Mohmand

Translated by the Ansarullah English Team

Modern Structure of Armies

The French Revolution was an important turning point in recent history which resulted

in the disintegration of Papal rule, monarchy and the feudal system prevalent in Europe

at the time, and their replacement with secular rule. Power from the Church, which

safeguarded Divine Rule, was transferred to the common man, and monarchy gave wayto democracy. As a result, the purpose of mans existence was reduced to material and

capital gains.

Among the societal vacuums created after the French Revolution, one of the greatest

was the question of the monarchs armies. Royal forces previously fought with the belief

that the king was the Representative of God. They considered the kings defeat as

their own, and believed that sacrificing their life for his sake was a religious obligation.

But the new secular system did not accommodate any such notions. At the same time, it

could not be denied that for an army to be motivated to fight valiantly, there must be a

clear ideology, strong conviction and a well-knit grouping. Therefore, Europeancountries needed a new creed to unite and fuel their armies. They found their answer in

the ideology of General Clausewitz of Prussia.

Clausewitzs ideology of war is considered the bible of the organizational structure of

modern-day national armies. The West and its blind followers consider Clausewitz as the

prophet of modern-day military. Clausewitz served as a general of the Prussian army

that fought France in 1792, and later joined the Russian army. By this time, as a result of

the French revolution, Europe had rid itself of the supremacy of the King and the Pope.

It was during this time that Kant presented his theory of capitalism and Karl Marx his

theory of communism.

Clausewitz did not see the fruit of his ideology during his lifetime. In 1832, he died after

an illness. After his death, his widow published his works, but they failed to gain any

recognition. In 1871, the French King, Napoleon III, attacked Austria and faced an army

led by Clausewitzs most talented officer, General Moltke who had organized the army

according to the principles laid by Clausewitz. France suffered a shameful defeat which

shocked the whole of Europe. When discovered that the victorious army was structured


2/9

according to the principles of Clausewitz, all European countries adopted his method to

re-organize their armies.

By this time, the Muslim Ummah had weakened to such an extent that the Ottoman

Empire, awed by Clausewitzs ideology, appointed General Moltke to lead its military

restructuring. Colonial powers too reorganised the armies of their colonies according tothe same principles; the British and French colonists aligned the armies of India and

Algeria with Clausewitzs ideology, respectively. Within the next 70 years, all modern

armies were reorganised under this very structure, and they came to be known as The

Clausewitz Armies.

What is important for us to note here, is that since the fall of Russia, we are dealing with

the armies of Clausewitz on all fronts. Be these the armies of USA or UK or those

imposed on us in our own lands all are based on the same fundamental philosophy

and ideology. The result of this close ideological and doctrinal relationship between

these armies can be seen in the ease with which they have united against the Muslims,in effect working together to annihilate Islam in the form of one, united Dajjali force.

What was the ideology of Clausewitz? We will discuss this a little later. Let us first look

at the history of modern militarism.

Background of Modern Militarism:

World War I (Unityof the Muslim Ummah [disintegrated]) 1914-1918

The main trigger for World War I was the assassination of Austrias Crown Prince in

Serbia. The failure to arrest the assassin led to Austrias declaration of war againstSerbia. Germany and the Ottoman Empire allied with Austria, while France and Russia

opened its fronts against Germany. Later Britain and USA too joined the war.

World War I had far reaching effects. Among them was the dismemberment of the

Ottoman Empire, the creation of Israel, the formation of League of Nations (an

international organization similar to the UN), and sanctions on Germany to curtail any

future threats. If the outcome is observed, it can be noted that the main beneficiaries of

this war was the Zio-Christian Alliance. The war was fought between European

countries, but it was the Muslim Ummah that suffered a heavy loss. Was this a

coincidence or part of a well-planned strategy? Did the enemy work according to pre-planned motives, or did it exploit the situation to achieve its aims? Whatever the

answer, in either case, the fact remains that the enemy achieved its objective. The

enemy was well aware of the fact that without getting the Ottoman Empire out of its

way, it would not be able to establish a Free Market Economy, create the Zionist state of

Israel or carry out its plans to set up a global government of Kufr.


3/9

At the end of the war, the Warsaw Pact was drawn, according to which Germany was

penalized with a heavy fine which they had to pay to France. Political and military

analysts of the time predicted that the clauses of this pact, as laid down by the allies,

would lead to another world war. And that is exactly what happened.

The point to be observed here is that victory in this war could not have been achievedwithout the principles of Clausewitzs military ideology. We will elaborate on these

principles a little later.

World War II (1939-1945)

The cause of World War II was World War I itself. When Germany failed to pay its war-

fine to France on time, the latter, according to the clause of the Warsaw Pact, took

control of 90% of Germanys coal reserves, which further damaged Germanys economy.

At this point, Hitler rose to power. He could foresee that if Germany abided by the

Warsaw Pact, it would soon reduce to non-existence. Consequently, in breach of the

contract, he began an extensive build up of his army. He occupied the Rhine andregained control of the coal mines, after which he invaded Belgium and Poland.

Germanys occupation of Poland invited the wrath of Britain and France, who then

entered the war. World War II was commenced. Italy allied with Germany. After the

invasion of Poland, Germany occupied France and then Norway. After occupying

Western Europe, Germany turned its attention to the east. It made three attempts to

invade Russia, all of which failed due to severe weather conditions. This marked the

beginning of defeat for Germany. Simultaneously, Germany attacked British-controlled

Egypt with the help of Italy.

In the face of these gains by Germany, by 1941 Britains defeat seemed imminent. Atthis point, USA extended help to the latter. Japan, due to its enmity with USA, sided with

Germany. What emerged were two blocks one comprising of UK, France and USA

while the other was made up of Germany, Italy and Japan. Russia, without allying with

any, continued to fight Germany. Germanys fatal mistake was to fight on multiple

fronts against different opponents. Under these circumstances, there was no way it

could continue the war for long. USA attacked Japan with atomic bombs, while Germany

suffered defeat at the hands of Russia, which allowed its enemies to attack from all

sides. In this war, the western allies, adopting the strategy of Indirect Approach

developed by the British war expert Lidell Hart, used heavy weaponry against Germany,

leaving it unable to withstand the onslaught. Eventually Germany was defeated and theWest termed this a victory of capitalism against fascism.

At the end of World War II, the Jews and the pro-Jew West achieved aims, which they

had long dreamt of. Among these were the formation of the United Nations, official

recognition of the state of Israel, the establishment of Bretton Woods, an international

monetary management system and the disintegration of fascism in Germany and Italy.


4/9

Cold war between Russia and USA (1945-1991)

During World War II, both Russia and the western states suffered at the hands of

Germany and its allies. Throughout the war, they were like animals of a jungle, who

during a storm, gather on a mound waiting for the storm to subside so they can launch

an attack against each other. And this is exactly what happened between the West and

Russia.

After World War II, as soon as all threats from Germany and its allies abated, Russia

tested its atomic bomb to keep pace with USA. The latter saw this as a threat to its

national security, and with this, the world witnessed a new form of war. There were

many distinguishing marks of this war, but the most prominent was that instead of two

superpowers confronting each other on the battlefield, they extended this conflict by

opening war fronts in smaller countries away from their own lands. The second

distinction of this war was that both countries began competing in winning over allies

throughout the world. Russia adopted the strategy of direct expansion by taking control

over Eastern Europe and invading countries in South Asia. In line with its expansivepolicies, Russia first instigated war between different elements with the same country,

and then by aiding its supporters from amongst these elements, they ensured their

victory as it did in North Korea and Vietnam.

These tactics of Russia enraged the West and USA. To check these advances by Russia,

USA adopted the Containment policy, which entailed both political and military

strategies.

According to the political policy, America created allies in Europe, Middle East, and

South East Asia. Subsequently, NATO and seeto CENTO came into existence. It was at

this time that the US president Truman drafted a strategy called the Truman Plan.According to this plan, USA would give extensive aid to South East Asian countries to

build up their armies so they could fight Russia. This was called the Mutual Military

Assistance Program. Truman termed this war Moral Crusade. Those countries which

actively participated in this plan were termed as frontline allies, and even then,

Pakistan numbered among them. India did not take part, as it was inclined towards

Russia. The then prime minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, and successor General

Ayub Khan implored USA to include Pakistan among the allies of its Moral Crusade,

which it then did so. It provided air bases to USA from where its well-known spy-planes,

called the U2, would take off. (Thus it would be incorrect to believe that the Pakistan

Army was fundamentally a good army and it was post September 11 that it deviatedfrom its course. This army has always pledged allegiance to and served loyally to

America and the global community of Kufr. The fact is that we only became aware of

this reality much later.)

From the military perspective, USAs target was to encircle the world with its might. In

light of these plans, permanent bases were established in Eastern Europe, which later

became NATO bases. During the same time, Communist North Korea attacked South


5/9

Korea. Keeping in line with its strategy, USA sent its troops into the war zone. As a

result, USAs largest military base was set up in South Korea. Boosted by its victory in

the Korean War, USA attacked Communist Vietnam, but Russia backed its pro-

communist elements. Thus, the Vietnam War turned into a quagmire for USA. Not only

did it walk out empty handed, it suffered heavy losses. In 1969, it had no choice but to

withdraw its troops from Vietnam.

In the 1960s, the French general Andr Beaufre presented his well-known theory, the

details of which we will discuss some other time, Allah willing. In light of these

principles, USA reorganized its army. As a result, the power of Russia was to be curtailed

through a three-prong strategy.

First, by creating an atmosphere of awe, the enemy would be deterred from taking any

steps. This was termed the principle of Deterrence.

Second, if the tactic of awe failed, then by employing all might and power in a pre-emptive attack, the enemy would be prevented from making any moves to achieve its

targets. This was called the Pre-emptive Doctrine.

Third, the enemy was to be encircled so that it would be unable to expand its forces and

psychologically find itself restricted.

Keeping these principles in mind, USA restructured its armed forces and deployed its

troops in 52 locations. This way, it was able to encircle the world with its military might.

At the same time, during the 1960s, Russia decided to install missiles in Cuba, but it had

to face defeat, as the US threatened of an atomic war. Thus, Russia had to pull back itsplan and the Cuban Missile Crisis came to an end. Then in 1979, Russia in line with its

policy of expansion began searching for warm waters and invaded Afghanistan, aiming

to gain control till it reached the port of Gwadar. This is when the Jihad began in

Afghanistan. This became a turning point in history, when all the movements aimed at

the revival of Islam converged in Afghanistan and began their combat against the

Russians. When USA and Pakistan realized that the Mujahideen had put up a strong fight

against the Russians and contained its might, they decided to support the Mujahideen

to achieve their own goals. As a result, Russia faced defeat and in 1991, the Soviet Union

- U.S.S.R collapsed. This marked the end of the Cold War. Thus the world saw the

beginning of a unipolar world.

Although the Cold War apparently ended in 1991, it exposed the real face of the enemy

for the Muslim Ummah. In reality, the Cold War was USAs period of military and

economic build up and encirclement of the world. With Russia out of the way, the

Zionist-Christian alliance now had no obstacle in their path except the Mujahideen of

Islam. The strategies which USA had used against Russia during the Cold War now began

to be employed against the Mujahideen.


6/9

Here, we will delve into the ideology behind modern militarism.

Philosophy of Modern Militarism

In earlier times, wars were fought on land. Then they moved to the seas and now, inmodern times, they also take place in air space. In fact, they have now extended to

outer and cyber space (cyber wars). All these fields have their own importance, but

recent history has proven that for any country to be a global power, its naval force is

most critical. The West, being well aware of this fact, has in the last 400 years paid

special attention to strengthening this specific area.

Unfortunately, with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Muslim Ummah lost all

control over the seas and eventually came under the control of Taghut forces. To

understand this take-over by the Taghut, it would help to go over the principles of

modern day militarism to see the impact it has had on the Muslim Ummah. Once wehave understood this philosophy, it will be easy for us to assess the underlying realities

of the Cold War between USA and Russia.

Following the French Revolution it is important to study Modern Militarism through

three military ideologies:

Those philosophies which were presented after the termination of the monarchyand papal rule to restructure the modern day armies. Among these, Clausewitzs

philosophy of war is most critical, the result of which national armies or in

other words Clausewitz Armies came into existence.

Those ideologies according to which western powers took control over the worldand succeeded in forming the global colonial system. Among these, Mahans

theory of sea power is crucial.

Those principles which the West employs in its military operations.

Clausewitzs Theory of War

For any army, its theory of war is of greatest importance. Fuelled by this philosophy,soldiers fight and sacrifice their lives. The philosophy of war is a combination of a few

questions, e.g.

What is war? Why does man wage wars? Where does man derive the motivation to fight? What drives a man to kill others like himself, and who can grant permission to do

so?


7/9

Which wars are justified, and which are not? Who has the authority to wage war and who does not?

and so on.

Those believers, who believe in the one Lord, Allah, find answers to all these questionsin their faith, belief and Deen. But following the secularist revolution of France and the

denial of Allahs existence, the West had to provide its soldiers with these answers to

motivate them towards war. The solution to this problem was given by Clausewitz.

Today, all national armies operating under the secular system (including those of

Muslim countries) function on the ideology of war presented by Clausewitz and declare

and fight wars in accordance with it.

Goals as Defined by Clausewitz

In the restructuring of armies, Clausewitz kept the following goals in mind:

Reshaping the kings army into a national army Converting kings soldiers into national soldiers To alter the philosophy of war To restructure the organizational framework of armies according to this new

philosophy.

Clausewitzs Ideology

To achieve the aforementioned goals, Clausewitz presented the following principles:

Just Force

According to Clausewitz, the only rightful authority to declare war is the democratic

state. Other than this, there is no just power that can permit war. Neither God, Deen,

Shariah, nor scholars we seek refuge in Allah from this blasphemy, none of these have

the right to sanction war.

War: a Continuation of State Policy

In his view, war is a tool of state politics or a continuation of the state policies. It is a

consequence of this ideology that armies of the Muslim Ummah, despite having all themight and ability, do not perform Jihad in accordance with the command of Allah.

Instead, they operate under the rule of the democratic state, fighting only to protect

national interests. Therefore, if the Shariah commands fighting, but the state policy is

not in its favour, then these armies refuse to participate in such a war. On the other

hand, if there is a war which the Shariah does not deem legitimate, but the state policy

declares it otherwise, then these armies would disregard all laws of Shariah and plunge

into war.


8/9

The Regiment and its History: The Motivation for War (Partisanship of Jahiliyyah

[ignorance])

According to Clausewitz, the basic unit of an army is the regiment. Regiments together

form a division. And a division forms a unit of an armed force. In Clausewitzs view, the

regiment is an institution in itself. Clausewitz believed that man is motivated to fight

due to two factors: one being collective - his patriotism - and the second beingindividual - his deep connection with his regiments history. Therefore the kings soldier,

who was previously motivated by the belief that he was fighting for the Representative

of God, was now given a new stimulant by Clausewitz a deep connection with the

legacy of the regiment. Thus the kings soldier is converted into a national soldier.

Experience shows that while patriotism plays a vital role in motivating a soldier to join

the battlefield, it is the desire to illuminate the legacy of his regiment and to elevate its

honour, that a soldier is driven during combat to fight valiantly and sacrifice his life. In

short, it is the regiments legacy that works as a stronger driving force during battle than

patriotism.

Thus, if a soldier is exposed to the bleak history of his regiment, his motivation to fight

can be easily diminished.

Civilized and Uncivilized War

According to Clausewitz, wars are of two kinds: civilized and uncivilized. Civilised war is

one which is declared by the state, since the state is the rightful upholder of modern

civilization. Therefore the war, which the state fights, is the only one which has the right

to be called civilized. Non-constitutional elements, (such as the Mujahideen or scholars)

do not have the right to declare war, and if they do, such a war is termed as an

uncivilized war.

The Legal Right to Bear Arms

Based on these principles, he divided society into two groups: legal armed personnel

and illegal armed personnel. A soldier is a legal armed personnel of the society, but if

the remaining people bear arms, it is illegal for them to do so. In fact, according to

Clausewitz, the permission to bear arms can only be sanctioned by the democratic state.

Other than this, no one else has the right to permit a person or group to bear arms. And

since the state has allowed the army, police, etc. to bear arms, thus it is legal for them

to do so, while it is illegal for everyone else.

Army RecruitmentSpecial attention was paid to the members of the society for the selection of soldiers

into the national army. For this, the theories of the martial race and military mind

were presented. According to these theories, every country and nation has people who

possess a weak personality and static thinking but aggressive aims. People of such

character are well suited to be soldiers. A weak personality and static thinking would

ensure that the person does not betray his country or army, and driven by his aggressive

aims, he would be every ready to cause harm to the enemy forces.


9/9

Summary

After studying the philosophy of Clausewitz, we can easily understand how he aligned

the royal army with the democratic state.

To begin with, a person of weak personality is chosen. Then he is instilled with

patriotism and a strong relationship is nurtured between him his regiments history. A

further connection is created between the regiment, brigade, division and the army.During training, it is drilled into the minds of this soldier that the right to declare war

rests solely with the democratic state and no other authority can sanction war. Along

with this, he is indoctrinated with the belief that only he who is attired in uniform,

whom the state allows to posses arms, is civilized and can fight a just war. Anyone else

who lifts arms, even if it is someone who does so for the cause of Jihad, is uncivilized

and engages in illegal actions.

Points of Benefit

All armies of the world, be they of the West or of Muslim countries, have been

organized according to the un-Islamic principles of Clausewitz. Therefore, for thesearmies to contribute to the establishment of the Khilafah or to participate in Jihad in

Allahs Cause is a far-fetched idea. These armies possess their own permanent set of

principles and independent philosophy. Their ideology, organization and structure,

purpose and targets are far removed from the Ummah. In fact they are on a collision

course with Islam itself. Therefore it is impossible for these armies to transform into

Islamic armies with slight changes. These armies are not our armies. They are the

armies of the West. For them to perform Jihad is a fanciful idea. In reality, these

armies are the main obstacles in the path of Jihad and the establishment of Khilafa. May

Allah rid us of them. Ameen.

(To be continued).

modern militarism: history and ideology

Documents