Amos Fox
To continue on the topic of proxy not being pejorative, it is important to understand how technology diffusion in proxy strategies benefits and hurts states using proxy strategies in 21st century armed conflict. Many scholars and commenters have outlined that proxy strategies are a cost-effective way for one party to wage war against another party through an intermediary actor. To be sure, scholars like Tyrone Groh refer to a state’s use of proxy strategy as “the least bad option” for how to address many of the changes of strategic competition.
Considering the idea of a ‘least bad option,’ many features contribute to a good proxy strategy. This includes how to control (or manage) the proxy force in the field, how to overcome (or offset) a proxy’s agency costs, and how to support the proxy with technology to enable it to compete with state-based opponents. This latter consideration – technology diffusion to proxies – is a long-standing pillar of good proxy strategy. Technology diffusion, or providing proxies with weapon systems, intelligence gathering tools, and communications systems, is crucial for any proxy strategy to succeed, but it is not without cost.
This article examines the benefits and pitfalls that a state experiences when engaging in technology diffusion to proxies. I address this subject by looking at two questions. First, how does technology diffusion to proxies impact a conflict’s duration? Second, how does the diffusion of technology to proxies impact an adversary’s ability to understand principal-provided technology? This article uses the US-led war to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the Russo-Ukrainian War to support three findings.
No comments:
Post a Comment