The Nature of War - Essay Example

An Overview of War: Concepts, Motivations and the Future This essay will address the nature of war. More particularly, it will define the concept with reference to leading theorists, it will set forth a set of causal factors which are relevant to the commencement of war, it will discuss some common characteristics of war, and it will demonstrate how war is won. In addition, some personal projections as to the nature of war in the future will be presented. Towards a Workable Definition of War As an initial matter, it must be noted that war is at the same time both an expansive and a restrictive concept; as a result, there have been, throughout history, many competing definitions and theories of war. The further back in time one goes, the broader the definitions tend to be. Cicero defined war as simply "a contention by force" and Grotius argued quite generally that "war is the state of contending parties, considered as such" (Moseley, The Philosophy of War: np). Thus, early definitions leaned towards a more generalized notion of conflict among groups and parties. The theory of war was refined by Carl von Clausevitz, by implication, when he wrote rather famously that, "war is the continuation of politics by other means" (On War, 1909: np). Politics, being the province of organized states, suggests that war had become limited to state actors to the exclusion of lesser struggles and conflicts. This may be a slight overstatement, but the historical trend has been to define war by reference to states or countries. John Keegan, a military historian, was a major proponent of the "political-rational theory of war" (Moseley, The Philosophy of War: np). He defined war in a very mechanical and formulaic manner. This definition was based on four basic assumptions. First, war is a relatively orderly endeavor with countries as the combatants. Second, because the combatants are countries rather than non-state or pre-state actors, the participants are easily and readily identifiable. A third feature of war is that there is an identifiable commencement of the war and an identifiable conclusion to the war. The final feature is a significant degree of obedience and deference by subordinates to the demands of superiors. To be sure, by restricting his definition to countries, and by limiting war to conflicts with clearly identifiable beginnings and ends, Keegan excludes a great variety of conflict which might otherwise seem to be war in the common understanding of the concept. Consequently, it becomes necessary to distinguish a number of conflicts from the definition of war. There are, for instance, stateless hill tribes whom live on the northern border of Thailand. They have been in an almost constant state of conflict with the military government of Myanmar since the end of World War Two. This conflict, however, does not satisfy Keegan's definition because there is only one country fighting a stateless group. There are also conflicts, such as in the former Yugoslavia, which are characterized for political reasons as humanitarian interventions rather than war (Ficarrotta, np). America's occupation of Vietnam was declared a police action rather than a war; and, yet, there were a variety of countries involved. The question, therefore, becomes whether to classify war as an ultimate conflict involving countries or whether to incorporate every possible type of rebellion, skirmish, and uprising. For purposes of this essay, it will be argued that war is primarily concerned with combat between and among countries. A caveat, however, is that where states are torn by substantial and continuous civil strife, such as in the Koreas, the definition of war still holds. In addition, where peoples, because of historical claims or because of legitimate aspirations, initiate conflict for the purposes of obtaining statehood, then the conflict can also rise to the level of war. Conflicts in southern Thailand and East Timor are examples of these types of conflicts. Motivations and Causal Factors Why human beings engage in war, or its lesser cousins such as rebellions, is a complex question. It is complex because the question raises philosophical, ideological, and practical considerations. Philosophical questions might include whether our human nature, as hypothesized by Hobbes, is predisposed to destructive competition. It might also include an evaluation of Kant's theories suggesting that human beings are endowed with reason and therefore able to minimize the destructive urges outlined by Hobbes. From an ideological point of view, there are theorists whom believe that war is dependent on political, economic, and cultural institutions. Marx found the capitalist system inherently war-like, competing for resources and cheap labor, whereas Gandhi found that a pacifist resistance to oppression could, in the end, usurp the legitimacy of the opposing combatants. There have been hybrids, such as Nelson Mandela, whom combined Leninist militancy with a sort of pacifism in his search for the inclusion of blacks in the South African state. Finally, there are practical considerations. There are conflicts which are motivated by economic ambitions, by perceived national security threats, and by issues of face or prestige. All of these considerations are relevant to an analysis of the roads to war. From a philosophical point of view, the Hobbesian view seems too harsh. To conclude, without reference to ideological and practical considerations, that human beings are simply predisposed to destructive competition and war in not persuasive. More importantly, to accept this premise would be to accept war too completely. While we as human beings have shown ourselves to be capable of great destruction, we have also demonstrated, through the establishment of international organizations such as the United Nations, that we are also capable of deep self-reflection and moderation. The better view, it seems to me, is the one espoused by Kant; more specifically, human beings have the power, through reason, to moderate or to minimize the effects of conflict. Thus, from a philosophical point of view, it seems reasonable to conclude that human beings do have certain innate competitive drives and urges. However, at the same time, human beings are also possessed of reason and thereby able, to some extant, to control the onset and the conduct of war. The Geneva Convention, though not always honored, is one such example. From an ideological point of view, there do appear to be competitive drives which can lead to war. It must first be acknowledged that ideology is a broad notion. It includes cultural peculiarities, religious influences, economic assumptions, and can be a fluid rather than a static guiding framework. I have no doubt that capitalist systems strain relations between and among countries. This is not to suggest that these systems are more prone to cause wars, though history suggests they have started their share, but to suggest that the competitive drives mentioned by Hobbes have been institutionalized in this type of economic system. On the other hand, where Islam has been incorporated into state institutions, there is also a wealth of data demonstrating a predisposition to violence against perceived and actual enemies. In short, I believe that overly competitive countries and overly religious countries are more likely, from an ideological pint of view, to engage in war and lesser types of conflict. Finally, there are a number of causal factors which are based on more practical considerations. Countries fight for territory. Russia and Japan continue to argue about islands in dispute since World War Two; Great Britain fought Argentina over the Falkland Islands; Palestinians fight for a Right to Return to certain territories now claimed by Israel; and southern insurgents in Thailand are fighting to reestablish the Kingdom of Pattani on the northern border of Malaysia. In addition, there are conflicts driven by a competition for natural resources. Countries fight for oil and land to transport that oil. Countries fight for buffer zones, such as in the old Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. Countries fight for cheap labor in Latin America, for political influence, and for prestige. Overall, practical motivations for war seem to be driven mostly by issues of territory, economic benefit, and prestige. Characteristics of War: Fighters and Features It has been noted, citing Keegan, that war involves a conflict between or among countries. The nature of the conduct of the war, however, is more complex. To be sure, to state that a country wages war is a generalization. There are, after all, a number of actors who help to prosecute the war in a myriad of ways. First, there is a head of state which symbolizes the need for war. This may be a King of ancient lore, President Bush in Iraq, or the Japanese Emperor in World War Two. Second, there must be military leaders and soldiers. The military leaders tend to be drawn from the educated class whereas the soldiers are often drawn from the middle and lower classes. In many countries, such as South Korea and Israel, military service is compulsory. In addition, there are many others whom aid in the prosecution of war efforts. The media is often used as a propaganda tool; the business community is often mobilized for war production and support; traditionally disadvantaged segments of society, such as women, are put to work in factories or in the actual war; and, the evidence shows, law enforcement is tightened up domestically to monitor and to suppress dissent. In short, wars are fought by many different groups in many different ways. Countries mobilize all available resources, both human and material, in order to maximize their opportunities for prevailing or surviving. The characteristics of war and how wars are won are closely related. The Western model of war, with roots in ancient Greece, has long espoused the carrying out of war in locations far away from cities and towns. More recently, however, defensive strategies have obliterated this model and led to an increasing amount of urban warfare. Ground troops and aerial attacks are used in conjunction with the cutting off of supplies and access to allies and the outside world. The consequences of war remain gruesome. Despite rosy forecasts from media outlets about the precision of smart bombs and the enlightenment of the Geneva Convention, war remains a nasty business. Mutilations and rapes supplement death tolls. There are irreplaceable cultural losses, such as Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan, which are destroyed or looted and later sold to help finance fighting. There is famine and disease. Refugees are created and subsequently displaced. More significantly, history demonstrates that substantial social upheavals occur during and after wars. The communist revolution in Russia is one example; another example is the success of communism in China following World War Two. At the moment, the war in Iraq may very well bring to power an Islamic-oriented government closely aligned with Iran. Wars are won on a number of fronts. There are military, political, economic and social forces which contribute to victories and defeats. Political legitimacy at home, as was lacking in the latter stages of the Vietnam War, is one example. In short, the characteristics of war are brutal, they often neglect issues of humanitarianism, and wars are won by mobilizing a vast array of resources and allies. The Future of War The future, it seems, is already upon us. Keegan's definition of war as a conflict between and among countries is being mocked by current situations. There is a war in Lebanon, but this war is between Israel and a resistance group rather than Lebanon itself. In southern Thailand, the Buddhists are fighting Islamic secessionists. The point is that war seems to be evolving; more specifically, the participants seem to be shunning state affiliations. Countries that are sensitive to the goals of these groups, such as Iran, prefer to fight the wars by proxy. Thus, I believe that war will become more fragmented in the future. This is because it makes no sense for a small country to fight a giant like America. It is better to save the state and fight the war more discretely. In addition, I believe that economic competition will fuel most of the wars in the near future. There seems to be a growing consensus that population growth, for instance, will strain water resources and energy resources. So long as countries are dependent on economic growth, and so long as traditional resources are used, I believe that conflict is inevitable. Space and advanced technologies will continue to be developed for purposes of warfare. The crippling of information networks and commercial infrastructures will become even more dangerous for the advanced countries. I doubt that the future of war will be any cleaner or more civilized. Quite the contrary, I suspect it will be deadlier, bloodier, and more efficient in attempting to destroy enemy combatants. I am not encouraged for the future. Works Cited Beckerman, L. P. The Non-Linear Dynamics of War. Science Applications International CorporationASSET Group. Retrieved 10 September 2006. Ficarrotta, J.C. The Case of Intervention. Military Ethics Case Studies. Retrieved 10 September 2006. < http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Resources/Cases/Detail_military.aspID=40> Moseley, A. Just War Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University. Retrieved 10 September 2006. < http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm> Moseley, A. The Philosophy of War. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University. Retrieved 9 September 2006. < http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/w/war.htm#H1> Tzu, S. The Art of War. Translated by Lionel Giles, 1910. Project Gutenberg eBook. Retrieved 10 September 2006. < http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/132> Von Clausevitz, C. On War. Translated by Colonel J.J. Graham, 1874, republished 1909. Project Gutenberg eBook. Retrieved 10 September 2006 . Read More