The Modern Siege
When we think of the word siege in military terms, images of fortified walled cities in antiquity surrounded by huge armies for months come to mind. The reasons for besieging a city are many and varied in the annals of human history. Most of the time, the reason was obvious: neither the attackers nor defenders could gain the upper hand, and a months or years long siege would result from the stalemate. In antiquity, it was far too easy for the besiegers to become besieged themselves; sometimes from a relieving army allied with the defenders, sometimes from disease, and all too often, from the onset of winter. So it was not often that an attacking army would choose to besiege a city when they could gain the upper hand in combat easily.
From the attackers' perspective, the purpose of a siege was simple: surround the city, thereby cutting off the lines of communication, supply, and reinforcement from the outside, and eventually, the defenders would capitulate or starve in defiance.
With the evolution of warfare into the modern era, the concept of a walled city became obsolete and sieges have become a thing of the past. (The German siege of Stalingrad in World War II being the last siege in the traditional sense of the word that I can recall.) That being said, however, I realized the other day that, in fact, the idea of the siege is actually very much alive and well in the strategic planning of wars today. The difference now, however, is that the siege is no longer merely applied to one city, but rather an entire enemy state at once.
I speak, of course, of the deceptively benevolent sounding "economic sanctions" deployed by today's major powers against their enemies. If the purpose of a siege was to cut off the lifeblood of a city, then the purpose of economic sanctions is, of course, to cut off the lifeblood of an entire nation. Economic sanctions are the modern equivalent of the siege.
When economic sanctions are levied against an enemy, the United Nations is very careful to direct them against the government, since it is not politically correct to say "we are going to starve these people out." But that is, in fact, exactly what is going on. While economic sanctions are usually levied to achieve some political outcome, a reasonable person cannot help but conclude that the only people who are actually hurt by economic sanctions are regular citizens. It's simple: if you are the despotic leader of some small aggressor country, and the world body has decided to cut you off, are you going to let yourself and your friends starve or are you going to keep on eating while some poor people at the bottom of your society starve instead?
So what is the point of the modern siege? Is it to soften up the defenders while the attackers muster the strength to overcome their defenses and invade? Sort of.
Since we all know that militarily, the major world powers need absolutely no softening of their enemies to make short work of them, the real purpose of economic sanctions, then, must be to provide political gain. And in fact, this is exactly what economic sanctions are for: it is unpopular in the modern world for powers to run roughshod over enemies, regardless of who they are or how deserving they are. So it is necessary to put on the farce for a while, giving the despot a "chance" to change their evil ways, before the major powers go in and run roughshod over the pathetic defenders.
The problem with this modern siege is the same problem the ancients had: besieged people are not happy people. How can it be a surprise, then, that after a decade long siege of Iraq, the people haven't rushed out and embraced their conquerors? Indeed, the program of economic sanctions, this modern-day equivalent of the siege, has created a whole generation of fighters who will fight the only way they have any chance of not being slaughtered en masse: through terrorism.
