Lorie Jane BañezWar and Strife

II. Causes of War Theories on Causes of International Conflict/ War

PsychologyThese theories emphasize the role of individuals as leaders and participants:

1. Freud - believed aggression enables survival and therefore wards off death. When brute force used by a party frustrates someone or constrains someone, they will manifest an aggressive instinct to survive. We must inhibit our aggressions. Many species have inhibitors which inhibit them from killing fellow members of the species. Examples: wolves will go for the jugular vein but won't kill and ravens will pick out the eye of another raven but won't kill it.

2. Carl Jung - there exists a dark side of human nature projected onto an enemy who is imbued with hateful traits…traits which actually originate within one's self.

3. Alfred Adler - interpersonal struggles for social dominance and the "inferiority complex"4. Harry Stack Sullivan - fears and anxieties derived from inhibited communication, which in turn

give rise to terror-ridden distortions, which in turn produce a tendency to strike out at those who are different and those who we can’t understand.

5. Erik Erikson - social ambiguity in society can produce confusion in the individual and the individual may seek refuge in "totalism" which leads to unquestioning identification with the state along with rejection of selfhood of others. Peoples' personal integrity, moral awareness, and wholeness becomes compromised by confusion and a tendency, then, to follow a misguided leader.

Social Psychology These theories emphasize the role of people in groups in society:

6. Irving Janis - Group think sets in during crisis, negative impressions of adversaries spin out of control, reduction of mental efficiency, shortcomings in information processing which block people from comprehending consequences, "motivated misperceptions" combined with a self-righteous "moral self-image". Groups can bring out the worst as well as the best in people. Group contagion can give rise to panic, scapegoating, mindless conformity, and collective misjudgment

7. Stanley Milgram - Violence is the product of particular social circumstances and willingness to obey authority.

Biological TheoriesThese theories emphasize the role of genetics in humankind’s biological heritage:

8. Konrad Lorenz and modern sociobologists like Edward O Wilson- believe aggression is present in humans for survival, but with the advent of modern technology and modern weapons, the tendency for violence has become homo sapiens' greatest danger, especially along with "militant enthusiasm" which is a form of communal aggression with a lack of restraint on violence. In humans no built in inhibitors evolved. Pre-humans were prey to wild beasts for millions of years, but a potential victim had only submissive gestures to protect himself. When pre-humans and humans invented weapons things changed. Weapons, in addition to communal aggression (a militant enthusiasm and unthinking single-mindedness which gave a feeling of intense satisfaction and had a morale raising effect on the social structure) greatly escalated humans' ability to defend themselves, but also enhanced their ability to inflict violence on other groups.

9. Barbara Ehrenreich- believes anxieties and fears were hard-wired into pre-human species during a time when these species were prey to wild beasts and that Homo sapiens sapiens inherited fears and anxieties of an "other" which had originally been wild beasts, but were later transferred to other humans.

Anthropology These theories emphasize the role of cultural conditioning in human societies:

10. Margaret Mead - Warfare is all learned behavior, it is not biologically innate. Mead cites many tribal groups which don't know war and don't have words and concepts for violence and aggression such as the Eskimos, the Lepchas of Sikkim (Himalaya Mountains), and the Pueblo's. She believed since warfare was learned, it could be un-learned. Trial by combat was abolished, replaced by trial by jury. Poor practices give way to better practices when people recognize the defects of old ways and invent new ways of relating to each other.

Historians, Political Scientists, Economists 1. Karl Marx - The nation is a cause of war because nations compete for advantage and resources just

as people do. This competition for advantage and resources is most evident in capitalist systems because capitalism does not recognize the limits of nature to continually provide resources to supply capitalists' machines.

2. Barbara Tuchman - Thinks crisis decision-making and deadlines for mobilization are a cause of war because peoples' full cognitive functions diminish in times of crisis, only a restricted range of

Lorie Jane BañezWar and Strife

options get considered, and there's a tendency to engage in grandiose thinking and exaggerate the opponent's malicious intentions. Inflexibility and weak leadership are also evident in these situations.

3. Michael Howard - war is caused by coolly reasoned actions and deliberations by leaders who engage in power politics or "realpolitik" to extend their power and control.

4. Kenneth Boulding - the force of nationalism and leaders, poets, musicians, writers and other artists who glamorize and legitimize acts of violence and heroism

5. Emanuel Wallerstein- theory of center and periphery - center cities or nations (G-7) are organized and prosperous and elites in the center tend to live off and exploit the labor and resources of the peripheral countries and peoples.

6. Michael Klare - interstate and interstate conflict caused by competition for wealth and security - when human communities come under stress (economic, social, environmental) or when communities engage in ethnic and religious competition, violence may break out

Peace Researchers 1. Johan Galtung - Globalization (international capitalism) has led to division of labor which has led

to global sweatshops which epitomize exploitation, inequality, and dependency. People in many occupations are part of this exploitative system. Groups oppressed by globalization seek to emancipate themselves and this could lead to violence and war.

2. John Burton - structural violence occurs when institutions and policies damage or destroy individual values and development. Structural violence is a major source of crime and aggression in society. In systems where structural violence is evident certain deep-rooted human needs such as the need for identity, security, and control over one's life, fairness, recognition, and sense of belonging are not met. In many societies conditions of structural violence are accepted and problems are suppressed.

In a power-oriented and hierarchical framework, behavior that is rewarded would be behavior which coincides with the legal, social, and religious norms of a particular culture. For example, many observers feel aggression and acquisitiveness are rewarded in American society. From the perspective of the field of peace studies and conflict resolution, however, ideal behavior would be aimed at fulfilling human needs. Therefore, attention would be paid to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and promoting the security, safety, well-being, identity, fairness, and sense of belonging of everyone. New understandings bring shifts in thinking and these shifts require new vocabulary. For example, the term proventionhas been introduced to replace prevention. Provention means getting to the sources of conflict and taking strong initiatives to prevent it.

The IndividualBoth the characteristics of individual leaders and the general attributes of people have been blamed for war. Some individual leaders are aggressive and bellicose; they use their leadership positions to further their causes. Thus, according to some realists and liberals, war occurs because of the personal characteristics of major leaders. It is impossible, however, to prove the veracity of this position. Liberal InterpretationAccording to liberals, misperceptions by leaders-seeing aggressiveness where it may not be intended, imputing the actions of one person to a group can lead to the outbreak of war. Historians have typically given a key role to misperceptions. There are several types of misperceptions that may lead to war. One of the most common is exaggerating the hostility of the adversary, believing that the adversary is more hostile than it may actually be or that the adversary has greater military or economic capability than it actually has. This miscalculation may lead a state to respond, that is, take actions like building up its own arms which, in turn, may be viewed as hostile activities by its adversary. Misperceptions thus spiral, potentially leading to war. Events leading to World War I are often viewed as a conflict spiral, caused by misperceived intentions and actions of the principal protagonists.Realist InterpretationIf not because of the leaders, perhaps characteristics of the masses lead to the outbreak of war. Some realist thinkers - St. Augustine and Reinhold Niebuhr, for example - take this position. St. Augustine wrote that every act is an act of self-presentation on the part of individuals. For Niebuhr the link goes even deeper; the origin of war resides in the depths of the human psyches. This approach is compatible with that of sociobiologists who study animal behavior. Aggressive behavior is adopted by virtually all species to ensure survival; it is biologically innate. Yet this view does not explain subtle differences among species; some do engage in cooperative behavior. And human beings are seen by many as an infinitely more complex species than animal species. If true, these presumptions lead to two possible altern8tive assessments, one pessimistic and the other optimistic. For pessimists, if war is the product of innate human characteristics or a flawed human nature, then there is no reprieve; wars will inevitably occur all the time. For optimists, if war, or aggression, is innate, the only hope of eliminating war resides in trying to fundamentally alter human nature.

Lorie Jane BañezWar and Strife

Yet war does not, in fact, happen all the time; it is the unusual event, not the norm. So characteristics inherent in all· individuals cannot be the only cause of war. Nor can the explanation be that human nature has, indeed, been fundamentally changed, since wars do occur. Most experiments aimed at changing mass behavior have failed miserably, and there is no visible proof that fundamental attitudes have been altered.Thus the individual level of analysis is unlikely to provide the only cause of war, or even the primary one. Individuals, after all, are organized into societies and states.

State and SocietyAsecond level of explanation suggests that war occurs because of the internal structures of states. States vary in size, geography, ethnic homogeneity, and economic and political preferences. State and society explanations are among the oldest. Plato, for example, posited that war is less likely where the population is cohesive and enjoysa moderate level of prosperity. Since the population would be able to thwart an attack, an enemy is apt to refrain from coercive activity. Many thinkers during the Enlightenment, including Kant, believed that war was more likely in aristocratic states.

Liberal InterpretationDrawing on the Kantian position, liberals posit that republican regimes (ones with representative government and separation of powers) are leastlikely to wage war; that is the basic position of the theory of the democratic peace. Democracies are pacific because democratic norms and culture inhibit the leadership from taking actions leading to war. Democraticleaders hear from multiple voices that tend to restrain decision makers and therefore lessen the chance of war. Such states provide outlets for individuals to voice opposing viewpoints, and structural mechanisms exist for replacing war-prone or aggressive rulers. To live in such a state, individuals learn the art of compromise. In the process, extreme behavior like waging war is curbed, engaged in only periodically and then only if necessary to make a state's own democracy safe.

Other liberal tenets hold that some types of economic systems are more war prone than others. Liberal states are also more apt to be capitalist states whose members enjoy relative wealth. Such societies feel no need to divert the attention of the dissatisfied masses into an external conflict; the wealthy masses are largely satisfied with the status quo. Furthermore, war interrupts trade, blocks profits, and causes inflation. Thus, liberal capitalist states are more apt to avoid war and to promote peace.Radical InterpretationsBut not every theorist sees the liberal state as benign and peace loving. Indeed, radical theorists offer the most thorough critique of liberalism and its economic counterpart, capitalism. They argue that capitalist liberal modes of production inevitably lead to conflict between the two major social classes within the state, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, for both economic dominance and political leadership. This struggle leads to war, both internally and externally, as the state dominated by the entrenched bourgeoisie is driven to expand the engine of capitalism at the expense of the proletariat and for the economic preservation of the bourgeoisie.In this view, conflict and war are attributed to the internal dynamics of capitalist economic systems. Capitalist systems stagnate and slowly collapse in the absence of external stimulation. Three different explanationshave been offered for what happens to capitalist states and \\'hy they must turn outward. First, the English economist John Hobson (1858-1940) claimed that the internal demand for goods will slow down in capitalist countries, leading to pressures for imperialist expansion to find external markets to sustain economic growth. Second, to Lenin and others, the problem is not one of under demand but one of declining rates of return on capital. Capitalist states expand externally to increase the rates of return on capital investment. Third, Lenin and many twentieth-century radicals pointed to the need for raw materials to sustain capitalist expansion; external suppliers are needed to obtain such resources. So according to the radical view, capitalist states inevitably expand, but radical theorists disagree among themselves on precisely why expansion occurs.

While radical explanations arc viable for colonialism and imperialism, the link to war is more tenuous. One possible link is that capitalist states spend not only for consumer goods but also for the military, leading inevitably to arms races and eventually war. Another link points to leaders who, in order to avert domestic economic crises, resort to external conflict. This is called scapegoating. Such behavior is likely to provide internal cohesion at least in the short run. For example, there is considerable evidence to support the notion that the Argentinian military used the Falkland/Malvinas conflict in 1982to rally the population around the flag and draw attention away from -the country's economic contraction. Still another link suggests that the masses may push a ruling elite toward war. This View is clearly at odds. With the liberal belief that the masses are basically peace loving. Adherents point to the Spanish-American war of 1898 as an example where the public might have pushed the leaders into aggressive action.Those who argue. That contests over the structure of states are a basic cause of war have identified another explanation for the outbreak of some wars. Numerous civil wars have been fought over what

Lorie Jane BañezWar and Strife

groups, what ideologies, and which leaders should control the government of the state. The United States’ own civil war (1861-65) between the North and the South, Russia's civil war (1917-19) between liberal and socialist forces, China's civil war (1927,...49) between nationalist and communist forces, and the civil wars in Vietnam, Korea, the Sudan, and Chad-each pitting North versus South-are poignant illustrations. In many of these cases, the struggle among competing economic systems and among groups vying for scarce resources within the state illustrates further the proposition that internal structures are responsible for the outbreak of war. The United States’ civil war was not just over which region should control policy but over a belief by those in the South that the government inequitably and unfairly allocated economic resources. China's civil war pitted a wealthy landed elite supportive of the nationalist cause against an exploited peasantry struggling, often unsuccessfully, for survival. And the ongoing Sudanese civil war pits an economically depressed south against a northern government that poured economic resources into the region of the capital. Yet in virtually every case, neither characteristics of the state nor the state structures were solely responsible for the outbreak of war. State structure is embedded in the characteristics of the international system.

International SystemRealist InterpretationsTo realists, the anarchical international system is governed only by a weak overarching rule of law, which is easily dispensed with when states determine it is in their self-interest to do so. States themselves arc the authority and ultimate arbiters of disputes; herein resides sovereignty. Such an anarchic system is often compared to a state of nature after Hobbes's characterization. The international system is equivalent to a state of war, where there are no enforcement instruments to make states cooperate. Thus, it is states that, when feeling threatened, decide to go to war against other, similarly situated states. And the inexorable logic of the security dilemmamakes such perceptions of insecurity all the more likely. War breaks out,then, according to realists, because of the anarchical structure of the international system. This is the logical course of action to take. After all, states must protect themselves. A state's security is ensured military and economic power. One state's accumulation makes the others less secure, according to the logic of the security dilemma.

In an anarchical system, there may be few rules about how to decide among contending claims. One of the major categories of contested claims is territory. For thousands of years, the Jewish and Arab dispute has rested on competing territorial claims to Palestine; in the Horn of Africa, the territorial aspirations of the Somali people are disputed; and in the Andes, Ecuador and Peru have competing territorial claims. According to the international system-level explanation, there are no authoritative and legitimized arbiters to such disputed territorial claims.

Neither is there an effective arbiter to competing claims on national self-determination. Who decides whether the Chechen, Bosnian, or Quebecois claims for independence are legitimate? Who decides whether Kurdish claims against Turkey and Iraq are worthy of consideration? Absent an internationally legitimized arbiter, authority is relegated to the states themselves with the most powerful ones often becoming the decisive, interested arbiters.In actuality, there are several realist variants attributing war to the anarchic nature of the international system. One alternative explanation for war, represented in the work of Kenneth Organski, is power transition theory. To Organski and his intellectual heirs, it is not just the inequality of capabilities that leads to war. It is the changes in state capabilities that lead to war. War occurs when a dissatisfied challenger state begins to attain the capabilities of the hegemon. The challenger will launch a war to solidify its position. Power transition theorists find that war can be explained by a challenger approaching the power of the dominant hegemon, as illustrated in the Franco-Prussian War (I 870-71), the Russian JapaneseWar (1904-5), and the two world wars. A variant derived from the power transition theory is that war is caused by the changing distribution of power that occurs because of uneven rates of economic development. George Modelski and William Thompson find regular cycles of power transitions since 1494. There are one hundred yearcycles between hegemonic wars, wars which fundamentally alter the structure of the international system. Hegemonic wars create a new hegemonic power; its power waxes and wanes, a struggle follows, and a new hegemon assumes dominance. The cycle begins once again.Radical InterpretationTo radicals, as well, the international system structure is responsible for war. Dominant capitalist states within the international system need to expand economically, leading to wars with developing regions over control of natural resources and labor markets, or with other capitalist states over control of developing regions. The dynamic of expansion inherent in the international capitalist system, then, is the major cause of wars, according to radical thinking. Both the realist and radical attention to only one level of explanation may be overly simplistic.

The Case of Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait

Lorie Jane BañezWar and Strife

At the individual level: Perhaps Saddam Hussein’s individual characteristics, including his basic insecurity and ruthless techniques, help to explain Iraq’s actions. Hussein may have calculated that his actions would not elicit a military response from the international community.

At the state level: Iraq was just acting in its own national interest. Iraq felt that the land (oil fields) annexed had been illegally seized during the British occupation around the time of World War I. The 1980–88 war with Iran had also reduced Iraq’s oil revenues.

At the international system level: Several factors indicated that Iraq’s actions would not be resisted: the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Arab League’s reluctance to criticize its members, and the historical failure of the UN Security Council to act decisively.

The Case of South Ossetia At the individual level: Saakashvili’s efforts to restore “Georgian pride” and resist the Russian

“bully” raised tensions. The pressures of ethnic identity both raised tensions and provided a reason for Russian interest in South Ossetia. Saakashvili and Medvedev both wanted to look active and strong.

At the state level: Georgia was acting to promote its sovereignty over a breakaway region. Russia was acting to increase its influence in part of the former Soviet territory.

At the international system level: There was no impartial arbiter to deal with any of the questions at issue in the conflict. In a state of anarchy, both sides had to rely on their own strengths during the conflict.

II. KINDS / CATEGORIES OF WARSOnce the decision has been made to go to war, to aggress against a foe or to support an ally, decision makers are still faced with a variety of options for how to proceed. The nineteenth-century Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, in On War, describes the political nature of these decisions: "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means."

General WarGeneral war, a twentieth-century phenomenon, is war to conquer and occupy enemy territory. To accomplish these goals, decision makers utilize all available weapons of warfare and target both civilian and military sites. The wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were more limited with regard to the goals to be achieved, the instruments utilized, and' the targets under attack. World War I and World War II were critical turning points in making general war a policy option. And it was the invention of the atomic bomb, its use against Japan to end World War II, and the subsequent development of sophisticated nuclear weapons that made general war a less attractive and less rational option. Although nuclear war may now be obsolete, other forms reminiscent of earlier eras are not.

Limited WarWars can be classified as limited wars on the basis of the goals to be pursued, the type of weapons to be used, and the targets. The Korean War, the Vietnam War,and the Gulf War are examples of wars fought in limited ways from the perspective of the United States. The United States and its allies decided that the enemy (North Korea and China, North Vietnam and its allies, and Iraq, respectively) were to be defeated in a specified territory. The capitals of the enemy were not occupied; lines were drawn across which the victorious forces would not pass. Equally as important, all available armaments were not unleashed. Conventional weapons of warfare were used-the tank, foot soldiers, aircraft, and missiles- but despite their availability, nuclear weapons were not deployed. Yet, from the viewpoint of the opposing forces in each of these cases NorthKorea, North Vietnam, and Iraq-the war was not a limited one. Each country was under attack and responded using all the force that it had available.

Civil WarCivil war is war between factions within a state over control of territory or establishment of a government. Civil wars themselves can be general, as was the U.S. Civil War or the Russian Civil War, or they can be limited, as the intermittent civil wars in numerous African countries have been. Increasingly, civil wars have had international repercussions refugees from civil conflict flow into neighboring states, funds are transferred out of the country, and weapons from uninvolved third parties flow in and out of the country. Thus, civil wars can be both domestic and international events.

Lorie Jane BañezWar and Strife

Typology of War

Traditional typology I. International wars

A. Inter-state warsB. Extra-systemic wars

1) Colonial2) Imperial

Expanded typologyI. Inter-state wars

II. Extra-state warsA. Colonial – Conflict with ColonyB. Imperial – State vs. Nonstate

III. Intra-state warsA. Civil warsB. Regional internalC. Intercommunal

IV. Non-state warsA. In nonstate territoryB. Across state borders