Comparison of The China-Vietnam-Indonesia Guerrilla War In The Perspective of The Universal War

Abstract

The history of war in several countries proves that universal war is a reliable strategy to win a battle. This universal war is used by weak military forces by utilizing national resources to fight against stronger and more modern forces in weaponry, as was done by China, Vietnam and Indonesia. War is caused by several factors, among others, psychological, cultural, ideological, economic and political. In writing this literature review, the author uses methods and theories by collecting data and information through the help of various materials contained in literature (books) or also known as phenomological research types associated with qualitative descriptive and defense philosophy. From the results of literature research, the writer finds that the universal war waged by each country that has adopted this strategy is different in its implementation and the objectives to be achieved. However, the universal war that has been carried out has brought very good results in accordance with the objectives of the struggle of each country that has used it.

Relationship Between Money Politics and Corruption: How They Threaten Nirmilitary Defense

“…Transnational phenomena, such as terrorism, drugs, human trafficking, environmental degradation, population increase, food and energy scarcity, economy, corruption, politics, refugees, identity crises, natural disasters, and also threats from radical movements, to the problem of national disintegration. [16]. Problems that arise from non-military threats cannot be solved by military confrontation because this generally attacks the personal and private morality of the state community.…”

“…Cases of corruption are no longer new to the Indonesian people as a crime committed by officials, this is something that has often been heard of. However, few of the parties are aware that the seeds of officials who will commit corruption have been seen from the campaign era they were doing [16]. There is a close relationship between the funds disbursed by prospective officials and the high risk that they will seek profit during their tenure.…”