World Politics

Theories of War

Here we get into the most difficult and important issue in international relations: why is there war, and can it be avoided?  We’ve already touched on this issue, as it motivated the development of Idealist and Realist theory, and we’ve talked about a number of wars: the wars of reformation, Napoleon I’s wars, the wars of Italian and German unification, WWI and WWII.  But now we are going to look at more recent wars and try to understand why war exists, and how we can study it.

Think of this as a puzzle: Why is it that people fight and kill each other?  Why is it that we do in international politics, with uniforms and respect, what on the streets would be a crime?  War is something different, something more: it is mass violence and even murder.  It is a direct violation of the ethical norms and standards of society.  Yet it is seen as a necessity, even honorable.  Look at the commercials for the armed forces; they aren’t acting like they are hiring murders, but they are trying to get people to defend freedom, who have honor, who should be respected.  So, war is a unique social phenomenon, a puzzle even.

Most common explanation:  Violence arises from conflict.  Humans are aggressive, often turn to violence.  Individuals get in fights, nations do too.  But when nations fight, that leads to warfare.

A couple of points:

Modern warfare or TOTAL WAR is relatively recent.  In the past there were specialized armies, war was called “the sport of kings” and it didn’t mobilize whole societies.  Not that civilians were immune: cities were plundered at times, rape and the like were often in existence.  Whole communities were destroyed; wars of mass execution were common at many points in history.

War as a modern phenomenon seems to be connected to:

 1) the nation-state system

 2) nationalism

 3) technology

 4) population growth

War is less likely when these things are missing.  The current rise of terrorism could be a sign that warfare is changing – non-state actors can create a real threat, and military power may not be as important in the same way as before.  We’ll get to those issues later, let’s start first with traditional approaches to the question of war.

A couple common explanations for why modern war exists in the modern state system:

1.  War as a break down in diplomacy and deterrence.

This is a favorite explanation of especially the realists.   Deterrence: the notion of peace through strength, or any attempt to be strong enough to deter the attack of another state.  Wars are often explained by stating that a state did not deter an aggressor adequately.

Diplomacy: this can also be a type of deterrence, peace through strength with diplomacy is supposed to be a carrot and stick approach.

2.  War as a result of revolutionary powers.

Again: this is a common realist argument.  Some powers or leaders can’t be satisfied.  They will cause a war.  Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. have always been around, this shows war inevitable.  States in anarchy can never be sure such people won’t be able to start a conflict.

3.  War as an unintended consequence of the security dilemma.

Rather straightforward.  Most states don’t want war, but afraid to take steps to prevent it.  We talked about the security dilemma last week, any questions about it?

4.  War as a result of psychological factors between leaders of different states.

Misperception and mis-communication?

A lot of cognitive biases and errors exist:

   * attribution error common

If your opponent does something bad, blame his/her nature

If you do something bad, blame the situation

If your opponent does something good, blame the situation

If you do something good, blame your nature

This bias is ALWAYS in your favor.  The driving example (you are in a car and someone cuts in front of you to get to an exit on the Interstate, you get bad, think the driver is a @#%& idiot!  Then you suddenly realize you have to cut over to get to your exit, and when another driver honks at you, you think, “geez, I had to cut over, it’s the situation).  In politics: Vietnam and Afgahanistan, and American/Soviet perspectives on each.

   * conflate possibilities with probabilities

Worst case scenarios are considered more likely than they really are.  This feeds into the security dilemma, and is more likely in an anarchy where there is no trust.

   * Generational learning

We saw that in the examples of WWI and WWII.  Chamberlain learned from his experiences that you have to go the extra mile to avoid a war no one really wanted.  Later people learned from WWII that “appeasement doesn’t work.”  Often people “overlearn” these lessons, and don’t recognize that in different conditions different actions may be needed.

   * assume other knows what you mean, you assume you understand what the other means

Really common -- think of disagreements with friends, misperceptions in e-mail exchanges, etc.  We think we are being clear, and that we understand clearly the other side.  They think the same.  Yet we may be misunderstanding and feeding a potential conflict.  (VERY common in war, Korea an example, the mideast...)

5.  War as a result of economics: Scarce Resources, fight for wealth

Back in the “hunter gatherer era” people could move on if they met, they didn’t have fixed land, and populations were low.  In areas where you may have to struggle for scarce resources, violence becomes more likely.  Once we moved to agriculture, we started having concepts of private property that needs to be defended.

Arguably, this makes sense.   Violence and war are not necessary, but one result of scarcity.  But of course, that doesn’t necessarily explain all war.  But this does segue into other similar explanations, namely economic ones.

Economic theories along these lines are with us today, the classic ones being the Marxian and the capitalist explanations for war.

Marxian argument: We touched on this when we discussed Leninism in the last unit.  Marxists argue that competition between states, capitalism, makes war more likely.  Trade and markets led to WWI and set ground work for WWII, resources in Mideast to this day create a danger of conflict.  Bottom line: capitalism is like an economic war, as different groups compete.  Ultimately this will lead to world war as capitalists will try to use the power of their state to protect their claims to markets.  Currently: third world exploitation (more on that next week).

Capitalists: Capitalists argue that war is a result of political distortions of capitalism.  Claim: capitalism leads to interdependence.  We need free trade, if everyone produces and trades, everyone is better off.  States and borders are the problem, politics, not economics.  The more free trade, the better.

Problem: protectionism, trade wars, etc.  If economics were free trade, no protections, no “buy American” campaigns, then cooperation would flourish and everyone would be wealthy. War: results when politics ignores the economic logic of capitalism, and tries to exercise control over the economy.

So Communist and Capitalist explanations are very different.  Each may have some validity.  Remember: in a multicausal, complex world, there is the danger of over-determination.

6.  War as a result of cultural beliefs/fears

All societies develop norms, myths, ways of organizing life.  And if you run into someone who does it differently, that can cause friction.  Take religion: difference on who is master of the universe.  That can be a point of contention!  Samuel Huntington, for instance, has a book out called The Clash of Civilizations, arguing that the next century will be full of cultural clashes, between Islam and the West, or Asia and the West.  Here culture is the cause, not economics.  Similarly:

7.   War as a cultural belief system

War: defined as an act of honor, people desire it, learn and understand it that way.  No longer murder.  We play with toy soldiers, learn that uniforms and metals are “good,” and that soldiers don’t “kill,” but “sacrifice” and put their lives on the line.   That creates a cultural predisposition to accept war; Germany had a proud and long military tradition (from Prussia) for instance (though lately germans are much more pacifistic).

Think of all the things at play culturally: Religion: Good vs. Evil.  Heathen vs. Blessed.  Honor to defeat evil...war becomes part of a morality play, a battle of good vs. evil.   This is often mixed with another cultural attribute: nationalism.   Both religion and nationalism, when added to the mix, go beyond “natural” conflict.  You don’t naturally kill someone for believing in a different God or having a different flag.  Rather, you are supposed to have conflict over territory, self defense.

a.  War: honorable, fight to protect way of life, King, etc.

b.  Religion: Truth, need to spread, protect

c    Nation: Home, Country, way of life

8.  Multicausal definitions: lateral pressure, different sorts of issues.

Result: Many things seem to potentially cause war.  Lateral pressure: increases in technology, population, and the need for more resources drive states outward.  That may be true, but high tech also makes territory less important.  In any event, it does seem like no one explanation for war hits all of them, that is why so many different theories and approaches to ending or limiting war are feasible.

Still, it’s easy to over-emphasize war’s occurrence:

 * only 2% of all people will engage in it

 * still mostly a man’s game

 * more peace than war

“ignorance of the non-occurrence”: We see war everywhere, but we don’t see where there is no war.  Peace is much more common than war.

So what is war, exactly?

We’ve discussed WWI, WWII, the Franco-Prussian war, etc.  All of these are major conflicts between armed forces, armies attacking each other.  This is still war in many parts of the world, especially involving third world countries.  However, it could be that changes in technology are changing the very nature of war.  Some said last unit that militaries may be less important.  Perhaps.   Or they may be different than before.  The reason:  technology.  Just as gunpowder revolutionized warfare before the reformation, weapons of mass destruction and technology alter warfare now.  Major powers like the US can minimize (though obviously not eliminate) casualties suffered while fighting.