Is War Inevitable - Essay Example

War is Inevitable Name: Institution: Course: Instructor: Date: War is Inevitable Introduction War can be regarded as actual, widespread, as well as an intentional armed conflict between two or more political communities (Hough, 2008, p.66). The most violent way of determining what takes place in any given territory is through war. According to Orend (2008), war has often been used as a violent way to make decision on a variety of issues where peaceful resolutions have failed. As such, war then becomes inevitable. For instance, war has often been used between and among states across the world to decide who gets power, wealth and resources, determine who says what in any given territory, whose ideals hold and prevails, where the boarder lies, what laws get made, as well as much tax is levied among others decisions. Thus, war can be said to be a phenomenon that occurs only between entities which are states or intend to become states, political pressure groups, as well as terrorist organizations with political purpose such as influencing certain ideologies within a state or aspiration to statehood (Moseley, 2010). Statehood and governance are at the centre of warfare and hence, in essence war is inevitable. The purpose of this paper is to provide reasons why war is inevitable. Why War is Inevitable Determinism and materialism is a significant reason why war is usually inevitable. Materialism refers to the theory that aims at explaining the nature that exists in the universe. It explains this as an entity which is material and which also permits. In this case therefore, materialists are also determinists. Determinists explain that every event is caused by an event that had earlier occurred. Therefore, the theory of deterministic materialism dictates that people are subject to the forces that exist in the universe. It goes ahead to explain that they do not have the ability to choose their destinies. This goes ahead and explains that people cannot do anything or rather do not have the power to do anything about war (Moseley, 2002, p. 42). It therefore means that when the time of war comes, people do not have anything that they can do about it. Mistrust among countries is a potential cause of war and when it deepens may lead to war being inevitable. A country may exaggerate in great ways the extent to which some of the events that take place pose risks to its own security or that of a region (Lustic, 2006, p. 91). Experts may continually give warnings of threats to nations, especially regarding terrorism. These threats could be imaginary. This could lead to rebellion directed towards countries that are thought to pose risks and also people and groups that come from such countries where high potential risks are associated with (Capan, 2004, p. 26). This is specifically so with the American war on terror where people living in Muslim countries were perceived by the people of America and even other parts of the world as being terrorists. Here, even people who lived in such countries yet were not Muslims developed terrorist groups so as to fight for themselves. Misperception, disagreement between leaders and personal judgments of leaders due to differences in personality, psychological makeup, perceptions as well as beliefs influence their reaction to international situations. Such factors facilitate war between states. For instance, Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II made fateful decisions during the July crises of 1914 and the contribution of Adolf Hitler’s personality towards World War II in Europe (Cashman & Robinson, 2007, p. 4 and 5). Misperception and disagreement among especially with regard to distribution of power and capabilities have the potential to trigger war. This was the reason why the war that took place between North Korea and China was inevitable. The war was caused by the assumption by the Korean belief that the Chinese communist did not have the capacity to intervene them. This led to war with the Chinese due to the decision of the Korean leader, MacArthur’s assumption that his country had more power than the Chinese. This also led to the prolonging of the war by even more than two years (Stoessinger, 2010, p. 409). This was also the case with the war between Vietnam and the United States of America. This was done as the American military was perceived to be strong. It was also with the aim of giving the American militarism more legitimacy (Zinn & Arnove, 2002, p. 150). World War I took place between 1914 and 1918 and was one of the major events that took place in Europe in the twentieth century. World War I was inevitable due to several factors. These factors included nationalism and internal dissent, the formation of Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, militarism, mistrust and suspicion among European powers, and competition for overseas colonies. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the state of international relations was a tense one as this age was characterized by what was considered progress. The perceived progress was in terms of acquisition of material wealth popularly referred to as material prosperity as well as scientific and technological advancement that made people believed was at the verge of creating utopia that they had dreamed of for many centuries (Spielvogel, 2011, p. 534). Prior to the beginning of the war, Europe had been optimistic of the prospects of western civilization especially the progress made in science and technology (historylearningsite.co.uk, 2011). Great European powers like British, the French, the Germans, the English, Austria-Hungary, Italians, the Russians, Ottomans and Serbians among others were striving to acquire material wealth and advance their science and technology in order to be in a position to protect their interest in Europe and overseas (Hamilton & Herwig, 2003, p. 451). These factors built over time and exploded into war with assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne in Sarajevo, Bosnian in June 1914 (Spielvogel, 2011, p. 534). This is why World War I was inevitable. Political models in the sub-state level are another reason why war becomes inevitable once it begins. This is where decisions are made by a group of individuals in the sub-nation. This could be by officials of a court, a cabinet or even a junta. War could be raged if the governments in such countries come up with policies that are not agreeable and viewed by factions in the country as not right. If a government decides to engage in such a process yet other factions are not involved, war could be the only choice left. War would be the only way in which such interests would be promoted. This would lead to war between the groups which support the government against the groups that are anti-government (Cashman & Robinson, 2007, p. 8). On the other hand, war could be caused by just the mere size and power that a country has. Here, such large countries might have certain interests in other nations. They might also be defending the status quo or might be seeing themselves as the only guarantors of the order of the world (Miller, 2007, p.88). These countries therefore engage in war so as to gain from the country that they are engaging in war with like was the case of the Falklands war between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Here, a junta in Argentina was fighting for the control and detachment of the Falklands islands from the United Kingdom so as to reduce the opposition that the junta faced (Cashman & Robinson, 2007, p. 10). The prevention of the effects that an uprising in a neighbouring country would have on the specific country may also get a country involved in that war. When a country engages in the internal affairs of a neighbouring country war becomes inevitable (Maley, 2002, p. 4). Here, if a country goes into strife like in the case of Afghanistan and the soviet republic, the stable country would go into war with the neighbouring country with the aim of protecting itself. The soviet republic went into war with Afghanistan so as to prevent the effects that came with the overthrowing of its once friendly country from affecting the population made of mostly Muslims in its soviet central Asia (Arnold & Wiener, 2012,p.3). This was also the case with the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Although the Israel government was attacked because the reasons for the invasion, some leaders justified that the war was an act of self defence from Lebanon (Cromer, 2004, p. 60). Conspiracy to go to war is a significant reason why war is inevitable. Kegley (2009, p.411) notes that when states conspire to go to war for preventative purposes, the war becomes inevitable as it becomes extremely hard to prevent them from doing so. A state may attack another state which seems as a security threat to its citizens, economy or to other nations. A state deemed to promote terrorist activities and or participates in illegal arm production /distribution will be attacked by another state which is against such practices. For example, the US attacked Iraq on suspicion that Iraq sponsored and was home to Al Qaeda terrorists and was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The US considers such activities as illegal hence, as part of its foreign policy the US went to war with Iraq. Another example to this regard is the war between North Korea’s attack on South Korea (Sjoberg, 2006, p.173-175). There was a cause of the Iraq war that made it necessary for the United States of America to engage in war. This was the fear by the United States that the regime in Iraq would supply terrorist networks with weapons that would enhance both international terrorism and mass destruction. This is another reason that leads to war between nations. This could be linked with the earlier discussed security threats. However, this also brings out another fact that some countries would engage into wars despite the fact that there would be no party that would want to engage into war. This indicates that anarchy between some states would make them work on their worst case scenarios hence engaging in actions that would have unintended consequences (Hallenberg & karlsson, 2005, p. 9). Differences in opinions and policies between parties bring about such conflicts, which if unresolved end up in a war. As already been stated above, war is primarily between states. A state may stage war to another state for protection of its economic policies e.g. capitalism or communism. When such a reason is behind the reason for going to war, the states involved find it hard to restrain from war especially when preparations for it have been made. For example, Vietnam War was inevitable due to the fact that it was based mainly on economic ideologies. It all begun when the US president John F. Kennedy in early 1961 secretly sent 400(Green Beret) soldiers to teach South Vietmese soldiers how to fight counterinsurgency war against communism guerrillas. Communists’ states disregarded democracy, infringed on human rights, became military aggressive and established closed door economies that barely interacted with capitalistic countries. As a capitalistic state, America regarded these activities as contagious disease that could spread to other states. Ass a result, America engaged in war mainly to protect its capitalistic interests (John, 1999). Conflicts may arise between states over territorial and maritime borders. Border disputes that have existed between India and her neighbours notably Bangladesh, China and Pakistan have been the cause of a major war between the states involved. Pakistan and China fought India over disputed borders (Eur, 2002, p.6). Such disputes when not resolved in an amicably manner, can make war between conflicting states inevitable in future. Just like territorial or border disputes, limited resources can also lead to and make war between two or more states inevitable. For instance, the recent war over between Southern and Northern Sudan over oil rich Abyei region led to the world’s longest humanitarian crisis. The war between the two states led to displacement of human population, killing and injuring of innocent civilians, sexual violence and acts of human rights infringement on citizens. The war ended up with Southern Sudan becoming the world’s newest state after split of Sudan into the North and the South (Human Rights Watch, 2009, p. 20). Conclusion Despite the fact that war is inevitable, states should co-exist, emphasize peaceful relation and embrace each other in policy formulation and enhancement in its foreign relations. Disputes arising between states should be handled fairly by mediating parties and should be all inclusive by all the affected parties. International organizations such as the UN and states should always preach peace to other states and develop various programmes that promote peace to its leaders and citizens. References Arnold, J. R. & Wiener, W. (2012). Cold War: The Essential Reference Guide. Santa Barbara, Carlifonia: ABC-CLIO, LLC. Capan, E. (2004). Terror and Suicide Attacks: An Islamic Perspective. Somerset, NJ: The Light Inc. Cashman, G. & Robinson, L. C. (2007). An Introduction to the Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War 1 to Iraq. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Cashman, G. & Robinson, L.C. (2007). Causes of War. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Cromer, G. (2004). A War of Words: Political Violence and Public Debate in Israel. Oxon: Routledge. Eur (2002). Far East and Australia. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Hallenberg, J. & Karlsson, H. (2005). The Iraq War: European Perspectives on Politics, Strategy and Operations. Oxon: Routledge. Hamilton, R.F. & Herwig, H.H. (2003). Origins of World War I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Historylearningsite.co.uk. (2011). Causes of World War One. Website, March 26, 2012 from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes.htm Historylearningsite.co.uk. (2012). Long term causes of World War Two. Website, March 26, 2012 from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/long_term_causes_of_world_war_tw.htm Hough, P. (2008). Understanding global security. New York: Routledge. Human Rights Watch. (2009). The way forward: ending human rights abuses and repression across Sudan. New York: Human Rights Watch Publication. John, E. (1999). The Oxford Companion to American Military History. New York: Oxford University Press. Kegley, C.W. (2009). World politics: trend and transformation. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Lustic, I. (2006). Trapped in the War on Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Maley, W. (2002). The Afghanistan Wars. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Miller, B. (2007). States, Nations, and the Great Powers: The Sources of Regional War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moseley, A. (2002). A Philosophy of War. New York: Algora Publishing. Moseley, A. (2010). The philosophy of war. Retrieved, March 26, 2012 from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/ Orend, B. (2008). "War", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved, March 26, 2012 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/ Sjoberg, L. (2006). Gender, justice, and the wars in Iraq. Oxford: Lexington Books. Spielvogel, J.J. (2011). Western civilization: A brief history, Boston: Wadsworth, Centage Learning. Stoessinger, J.G. (2010). Why Nations go to War. Boston: Cengage Learning Center. Zinn, H. & Arnove, A. (2002).Terrorism and War. New York: Seven Seas Stories Press. Read More