Positive and Negative Benefits of War - Essay Example

War Introduction Human beings have engaged in war for as long as they have existed. War can be described as the ofarmed conflict between autonomous entities or coalitions of such parties. War is often associated with extreme collective aggression, destruction of structures and property, and high mortality. When there is no war, there is peace. In other words, the absence of war is tranquility. Evn though some scholars are of the view that war is universal as well as an ancestral component of human nature, others posit that warfare is only attributed to the certain socio-cultural or ecological situations. War has been reported as the sixth biggest problem that faces humanity. Even though war leads to destruction of the environment, infrastructure, reduction in social spending, mass migration from the war zone, and mistreatment of the civilians, the major effect of warfare is mortality and injuries. The deadliest war is measured in terms of casualties. In this case, the deadliest war in the history of humanity is the World War II that resulted in the deaths of about 65 to 85 million people. Warfare usually varies and its effects also vary. In this regard, the paper will discuss war by focusing on why individuals or nations go to war, the psychological effects of the occupiers and occupied, what the soldiers have to go through during the war from the stand point of the local population, soldiers, and the American community of the current U.S military involvement in the Middle East. Discussion When a nation or an individual engages in chemical, asymmetric, civil, conventional, globalized, nuclear, and unconventional warfare, there are usually reasons behind it. In this perspective, people or groups of people start war for the following reasons: religion, revenge, asymmetric information about the potential drawbacks and benefits of war, the inability to enforce a bargaining agreement, indivisibilities of resources which can change hands in a war, so that not all the likely mutually advantageous bargaining agreements are realistic, agency problems where the leader’s incentives differ from those of the populations which they represent, multilateral interactions where every potential agreement is blocked by some coalition of states, and ethnic cleansing (Jackson and Morelli 3). First, war can be instigated by religion. The aim of this war is to either increase the population of one religion or eliminate the other. This makes this war to be compatible with the well being of another population. This makes the religious wars to be comprehended on a rational perspective. For example, the Crusaders were motivated to engage in warfare by a genuine religious inspiration. As a result, they conquered numerous territories in the East. Another religious-based war is the long standing conflict between the predominant-Muslim Palestine and predominant-Christian Israel (Jackson and Morelli 5-7). The second reason is revenge. People engage in war as a result of the emotional actions that are inspired exclusively by anger for a past action. Even though the war driven by revenge are rare, they effects are equally deleterious (Jackson and Morelli 8). The third cause is asymmetric information about the potential drawbacks and benefits of war. This may come about as a result of the relative strengths of the nations because of the differences in what they know each other with regard to the quality of military personnel and tactics, political climate, geography, and determination. The imperfect information about the opponent’s strength is a source of conflict. For example, the current conflict between the U.S and Iran with regard to Iran having nuclear weapons. If war would occur relies on the extent to which private information would be credibly revealed. More to the point, if two states are convinced that they would benefit from the war; war can erupt because they believe that they can compensate for the war costs (Jackson and Morelli 10-12). The next factor that causes war is the inability to enforce a bargaining agreement. When a person or a country fails to reach an agreement they are highly prone to engage in war. The fifth factor is the indivisibilities of resources which can change hands in a war, so that not all the likely mutually advantageous bargaining agreements are realistic. When there is failure to agree on the manner in which the resources can be divided, war can erupt (Jackson and Morelli 13-16). The sixth factor is the agency problems where the leader’s incentives differ from those of the populations which they represent. Conflict may emerge if there are differences between the decision-makers and the general population. War occurs if the leader of a country is biased. In this perspective, they way in which the leaders come into power can influence the degree into which they represent the population in general. The dictatorial regimes are more prone to war as compared to the large coalitions (Jackson and Morelli 19). The other cause of war is the multilateral interactions where every potential agreement is blocked by some coalition of states. Countries that are unitary actors rarely engage in war due to the multilateral connections. On the other hand, the solitary nations are more likely to engage in war due to individuality in decision making (Jackson and Morelli 20). Next, some scholars have argued that war is a product of inherited biology by man. They incorporate the genetic evolution theory and game theory to explain the occurrence of war and violence. Another explanation of the cause of war are derived from Plato’s idea that wars and battles are attributed to the body and its desires. This means that the reasoning capacity of man is overwhelmed by desire resulting in moral degeneration (Moseley). Lastly, people or nations start war for ethnic cleansing or other ideological reasons. A state or a group of people may rationalize the elimination of a particular ethnic group or minority ideological group in an effort to acquire a larger social presence both in the present and future (Esteban and Ray 2186). It is as a result of such war being generally uncompromising that the international law prohibits ideological mass killings. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that prohibits the ‘intent to destroy’ humanity by ethnic purification that is conducted with the purpose to expel a certain a group from a geographic area by forced deportation, killing, or any other method (Gelletely and Kiernan 67). There are various psychological factors that come into play for the occupiers, occupied, and nations during war. The social psychologists have found out that war can lead the people to behave in a particular way in the presence of others in addition to the conditions under which certain behaviors along with feelings can occur. As for the U.S military, one factor that comes into play as they have engaged in war is propaganda and persuasion, for instance, the Vietnam War a failure on a national scale. The war resulted in a waste of the resources, time, and the precious lives of the young Americans. Over 15,000 U.S service persons were killed and 109,500 wounded. The war was also costing the nation about $25 billion every year (Hixson 15). In spite of these negative effects, President Kennedy’s administration informed that nation that they were winning the war. The government influenced the people towards the idea that the U.S by southern Vietnam being a communist state would a threat to the American national security. Supporters of the war asserted that communism was a threat to free governments and America was protecting its national interests (Bowman 34). In the novel, Legacy of Discord: Voices of the Vietnam Era, Dorland discusses the serious as well as unresolved issues relevant to the Vietnam War. Some people saw participating in war was a honorary achievement. The author quotes Barry McCaffery saying, “The combat was the most…..worthwhile thing I had ever done in my life” (Dorland 67). Senator John Kerry who was a commander of a small boat during the combat asserted that he had a wonderful time in all its craziness during the Vietnam War (Dorland 89). Also, Senator John McCain said that the “war was very exciting in many respects” (Dorland 157). This shows that some of the participants of the war really liked the experience irrespective of the known war outcomes. Most of the people, including students, labor unions, government officials, middle class households, and church groups were opposed to the Vietnam War movement due to the fact that they not only did not want America to fight in an international civil war because they believed the war did not concern them, but they were also psychologically oppressed by the war (Tindall and Shis 76). Besides, there were many casualties during the war. Hixson (23) notes that at the end of the conflict, about 58,200 American soldiers had died, 200,000 Laotians, 200-300,000 Cambodians, and about 0.8 million Vietnamese both civilian and service members. Studies have demonstrated that war also results in aggression. The parties engaged in combat often use aggressive force so as to realize their aims. In some instances, the use of aggressive force leads to the obedience of authority. Another psychological factors that come into play during war is self-concept. These are beliefs that people have with regard to themselves. In this regard, during war numerous civilian casualties are reported as compared to the trained militants. This is because the civilians do not know the manner in which to handle a threat as compared to the soldiers. The soldiers have the ‘self’ that thay can process information relating a hostile environment quickly and react accordingly (Markus 63-64). War also drives fear in the general population. From the interviews and studies conducted on war veterans by psychology scolars, there is an overall consensus that the Americans soldiers are often despised and feared by their enemies. Another psychological factor that comes into play for the occupiers and occupied during war is interpersonal attraction. These are forces that make people to like each other and establish relationships. Social psychologists have found out people of the similar backgrounds, worldviews, attitudes, and other traits are more likely to attract to each other (Byrne 713). The people who are oppressed often develop interpersonal attraction to each other because they often face similar problems. Finally war results in group thinking, especially for the soldiers. The groupthink is often carried in the presence of a highly directive group leader. The decisions are made in alignment with the objectives of engaging in the war. The groupthinking affects performance and productivity. For example, there is a tendency among the soldiers to work faster and harder when they in the accompaniment of others. This view is supported in the book War that was written by Sebastian Junger. In combat, the soldiers only think of protecting each other. The shared objective of all the soldiers at the base, as Junger emphasizes, was the safety of the group. Junger writes, “The only reason we were alive at Kerongol Outpost……was because every man there was willing to die defending it” (45). This shows how the platoon members value collective thinking and defense for their survival. The safety of the soldiers was based on brotherhood. Most people are of the assumption that soldiers in combat instinctively respond to enemy fire by shooting back as well as soldiers in a kill-or-be-killed circumstance such as in Vietnam. However, informal interviews that were carried out by S.L. Marshall on thousands of American soldiers who fought during the Second World War found out that approximately 75 percent of the soldiers never fired their weapons during the warfare. Psychologists have found out that the soldiers did not fire their weapons because there is within most men an intense resistance to kill their counterparts. The resistance is so strong that in most situations the soldiers in combat often die before they can overcome it. In the same way, it is surprising to find out that it is sometimes not possible for the soldiers to kill others even when their lives are in danger. This implies that very few persons can seek out a chance to kill others. this explains the differences between the soldiers and society between fighting a war that soldiers are told to win and one that turns into a "holding action" (Roscoe 485-487). The society may be feeling the military failed to accomplish their mission by winning the war, while the soldiers were actually held into action and therefore to using their weapon to eliminate the enemy. Proceeding further, the other difference is that while the society views the use of superior weapons as the ultimate reason to win a war; the soldiers have cited other factors that make them to be ‘held into action’ while they have the ability to engage in the war. One such reason is the use of combat realistic training exercises. The recruits who practiced on human-shaped targets are more likely to shoot to kill as compared to those who trained on stationary bull’s-eye (Grossman 45). This shows that the aversion to kill is rooted in the minds of the soldiers. For decades, the U.S has been a major military player in the Middle East. As a result of engaging in this war, there has been various consequences. War has always had a considerable impact on those who engage in combat. The major consequence of the Middle East war is death. For example, the Afghan war resulted in deaths and injuries to the soldiers, Taliban, and civilians. According to a United Nations report, about 3,021 civilians died because they were often used as human shields by the Taliban insurgents, 3% of the Afghan security forces, and more than 500 American soldiers also died. When a soldier dies in combat, it disrupts the family patterns. The same applies for civilians who are parents and have families. The other effect of war is that most war veterans and soldiers have reported that killing the enemy is one of their most haunting memories. Upon return from deployment, most soldiers exhibit psychiatric symptoms and mental disorders. These symptoms often range from vivid flashbacks to sleeping difficulties, to what is commonly known as post-traumatic stress disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder is described as an anxiety that is triggered by trauma (Breslau 923). The wives of the military men on deployment also suffer from PTSD. More to the point, they also suffer from panic disorder. While the military husbands are away on deployment, their wives usually suffer from Anticipatory Grief Syndrome. Henderson (41) asserts that Pratt wrestled with serious depression. This means that the wives live in constant fear that their husbands may be killed in combat. War also breaks up family relations. Marriages together family relationships are strained due to the anxiety and stress. A soldier can die in combat or take a long period of time before returning. Henderson (309) shares the view that by the time Pratt’s husband returned from Iraq, they had been separated longer as compared to the time they had known each other. War can also eliminate a generation of men leading to women raising the children on their own.. Besides that, the civilians, especially children can suffer from the effects of trauma as a result of the war. Next, the wars in the Middle-East significantly diverted resources from the American government. It is estimated that the cost of deploying one American soldier in Afghanistan exceeds US$1 million annually. According to Fry (58), the other effect of war is that the bombs, landmines, and other explosive materials used in combat cause environmental pollution. This later effects the lives of both the civilians and soliders. Lastly, war displaces many people from their original homes. The UN estimated that 2.2 million people were refugees in Afghanistan. This adds to the 547,600 internally displaced persons as of 2013. On the contrary, war has its positive impacts too. It promotes research and development as the armies try to come up with superior fighting techniques and weapons. As a result, education is also promoted. Also, war raises the overall living standards by driving the economy positively. Immediately a war comes to a halt, the losing countries are in some instances required to pay war reparations to the winning nations, for example, ceding of land (Fry 48). Lastly, war also increases solidarity and patriotism in the country. Conclusion In summary, war has existed throughout human history. A person or a country engages in war for various reasons including religion, revenge, failure to reach at agreements, if the benefits of the war outweigh the costs, indivisibility of resources, agency problems where the leader’s opinions differ with the general public, blockage of multilateral interactions by some coalition of states, and ethnic cleansing among others. As people engage in warfare, they are both positive and negative benefits. To that effect, some of the positive benefits of war include promotion of research and development, boost economic development, and create peace. On the other hand, the negative effects of war are: death, psychological disorders, injuries, environmental pollution, destruction of property, breaks up families, destroys family patterns, and eliminate essential services. The negative effects of war outweigh the benefits. This is because the aforementioned effects adversely impact on the local population, the soldiers, and the community waging the war. In spite of the differences to society and soldiers between a war that soldiers are told to win and turns out to be a holding action results in the aversion to kill, it reassures us that war is not an unavoidable part of human life. However, it gives us hope that it is possible for use to stop engaging in warfare. Humans need to avoid engaging in wars at all costs since it results in more harm than good. Among the ways we can protect the existence of humanity and encourage social and economic development is to make sure that there is stability in the country and to practice tolerance and respect for each other. Works Cited Breslau, Naomi. “Epidemiologic studies of trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other psychiatric disorders.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47(2002): 923-929. Bowman, John. The Vietnam War Day by Day. New York: Mallard Books, 1989. Print. Byrne, D. "Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity have a direct correlation” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62.2(1961): 713-715. Dorland, Gil. Legacy of Discord: Voices of the Vietnam War. New York: Potomac Books Inc., 2002. Print. Esteban, J. and D. Ray. "On the Salience of Ethnic Conflict," American Economic Review, 98.1(2008): 2185-2202. Fry, Douglas. Beyond War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Gelletely, Robert,and Ben Kiernan, The specter of genocide: Mass murder in historical perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print. Grossman, Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, 1995. Print. Henderson, Kristin. While Theyre At War: The True Story of American Families on the Homefront, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006. Print. Hixson, Walter. The Vietnam Antiwar Movement, New York: Garland, 2000. Print. Jackson, Mathew and Massimo Morelli. Reasons for wars: An updated survey. http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/war-overview.pdf>. Web. December 2009. Accessed April 29, 2015. Junger, Sebastian. War, New York: Twelve publishers, 2010. Print. Markus, Hazel. "Self-Schemata and Processing Information," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35.1(1977): 63–78. Moseley, Alexander. The Philosophy of War. http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/>. Web. 2015. Accessed April, 29, 2015. Roscoe, P. “Intelligence, Coalitional Killing, and the Antecedents of War.” American Anthropologist, 109.3(2007): 485-495. Tindall, George, and David, Shis. America: A Narrative History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. Print. Read More