PURPOSE OF WAR

WHY STUDY WAR?• OLDEST, MOST PREVALENT, AND MOST SALIENT ISSUE IN

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

• SECURITY COMES FIRST IN IR – ALL OTHER COMPETING VALUES PRESUPPOSE SECURITY (HUMAN RIGHTS, ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)

• NUMBER AND INTENSITY OF WAR HAS DROPPED BY HALF SINCE 1991

• THEORISTS DISAGREE OVER THE INEVITABILITY OF WAR

• REALISTS ARGUE IT IS INEVITABLE (PRISONER’S DILEMMA)

• LIBERALS ARGUE ELIMINATION OF WAR THROUGH EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONS

• CONSTRUCTIVISTS SAY WAR IS RESULT OF SOCIALIZATION IN WHICH CONFLICT IS ASSUMED TO EXIST

WHAT STATES FIGHT OVER• PURPOSE ISN’T TO FIGHT, BUT TO OBTAIN SOMETHING A STATE WANTS

• PROBLEM: BARGAINING OVER OBJECT OR ISSUES OF VALUE TO MORE THAN 1 STATE

• TERRITORY

• CONTRIBUTE TO WEALTH: OIL, NATURAL GAS, MINERALS

• INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

• ETHNIC, CULTURAL, OR HISTORICAL REASONS

• POLICIES

• POLICY BENEFITS THE STATE, BUT HARMS ANOTHER

• REPLACE OFFENDING REGIME WITH FRIENDLIER ONES (IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN)

• REGIME TYPE

• COLD WAR

• VIETNAM WAR

NEW CONCEPTS• PREEMPTIVE WAR – WAR FOUGHT WITH THE

ANTICIPATION THAT AN ATTACK BY THE OTHER SIDE IS IMMINENT

• PREVENTIVE WAR – WAR FOUGHT TO PREVENT AN ADVERSARY FROM BECOMING STRONGER IN THE FUTURE

• SECURITY DILEMMA – STATES SEEKING TO INCREASE THEIR DEFENSE CAPABILITY END UP THREATENING OTHER STATES, INCREASING TENSIONS & CHANCE OF WAR

• DEMOCRATIC PEACE – DEMOCRACIES VIRTUALLY NEVER FIGHT EACH OTHER

CAUSES OF WAR: THE INDIVIDUAL

• BOTH CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL LEADERS & GENERAL ATTRIBUTES OF PEOPLE

• R – CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MASSES LEAD TO WAR. AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IS ADOPTED BY ALL SPECIES FOR SURVIVAL.

• L – MISPERCEPTIONS BY LEADERS, SUCH AS SEEING AGGRESSIVENESS WHERE IT MAY NOT BE INTENDED, OR ATTRIBUTING ACTIONS OF ONE PERSON TO AN ENTIRE GROUP, LEAD TO WAR.

CAUSES OF WAR: STATE AND SOCIETY• WARS OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE INTERNAL STRUCTURES OF

STATES

• L – SOME TYPES OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS (ARISTOCRACIES) ARE MORE WAR-PRONE THAN OTHERS. DEMOCRATIC REGIMES ARE LEAST LIKELY TO WAGE WAR BECAUSE NORMS & CULTURE INHIBIT THE LEADERSHIP FROM TAKING ACTIONS LEADING TO WAR

• RADICAL – CONFLICT & WAR ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF CAPITALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEMS: COMPETITION & STRUGGLE LEADS TO WAR.

CAUSES OF WAR: THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM• R –THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM IS EQUIVALENT TO A STATE OF WAR:

ANARCHIC & GOVERNED BY A WEAK AND OVERARCHING RULE OF LAW. WAR BREAKS OUT BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP IT. STATES THEMSELVES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITIES AND THE ULTIMATE ARBITERS OF DISPUTES; HEREIN RESIDES SOVEREIGNTY.

• STATE’S SECURITY ENSURED ONLY BY MILITARY & ECONOMIC POWER

• VARIANT: POWER TRANSITION THEORY: CHANGES IN STATE CAPABILITIES LEAD TO WAR.

• RADICAL – DOMINANT CAPITALIST STATES WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM NEED TO EXPAND ECONOMICALLY, LEADING TO WARS WITH DEVELOPING REGIONS OVER NATURAL RESOURCES & LABOR MARKETS.

CASE STUDY: IRAQ’S INVASION OF KUWAIT• INDIVIDUAL LEVEL: SADDAM HUSSEIN’S INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

– INSECURITY & RUTHLESSNESS – HELP EXPLAIN IRAQ’S ACTIONS. HUSSEIN MAY HAVE CALCULATED THAT HIS ACTIONS WOULD NOT ELICIT A MILITARY RESPONSE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

• STATE LEVEL: IRAQ WAS ACTING IN ITS OWN NATIONAL INTEREST. IRAQ FELT THAT THE LAND (OIL FIELDS) ANNEXED HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY SEIZED DURING THE BRITISH OCCUPATION ~WWI. THE 1980-88 WAR WITH IRAN ALSO REDUCED IRAQ’S OIL REVENUES.

• INTERNATIONAL 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, & HISTORICAL FAILURE OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO ACT DECISIVELY

CATEGORIZING WARS• INTERSTATE WARS – WARS BETWEEN 2+ STATES; EASIEST TO STUDY & CAUSE THE

MOST DAMAGE

• INTRASTATE WARS – WARS BETWEEN GROUPS WITHIN A STATE, WITH OR WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION

• TOTAL WAR – WARS INVOLVING MULTIPLE GREAT POWERS; SIGNIFICANT DESTRUCTION & LOSS OF LIFE; ALL PARTS OF SOCIETY & ECONOMY FOCUSED ON WAR EFFORT

• LIMITED WAR – OBJECTIVE IS NOT SURRENDER & OCCUPATION OF ENEMY TERRITORY, BUT RATHER TO ATTAIN LIMITED GOALS

• KOREAN WAR & GULF WAR EXAMPLES

• LAST A LONG TIME, WITH PERIODS OF FIGHTING & CALM

• HUMAN COSTS ARE HIGH

• FOOD SUPPLIES INTERRUPTED

• DISEASES SPREAD

• MONEY DIVERTED FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PURCHASING ARMAMENTS

• ENTIRE GENERATIONS MAY GROW UP KNOWING ONLY WAR

HOW WARS ARE FOUGHT

• CONVENTIONAL WAR – WAR BETWEEN DESIGNATED SOLDIERS REPRESENTING SPECIFIC SIDES, USING CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS (EFFECTS CAN BE LIMITED IN SPACE & TIME)

• WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION – CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHOSE EFFECTS CANNOT BE LIMITED IN SPACE OR TO LEGITIMATE TARGETS

• ASYMMETRIC CONFLICT - WARFARE CONDUCTED BETWEEN PARTIES OF UNEQUAL STRENGTH

HOW WARS ARE FOUGHT• UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE – WARFARE IN WHICH ONE OR

MORE SIDES REFUSE TO FOLLOW ACCEPTED CONVENTIONS OF WAR (CONDUCT OF WAR, REFUSAL TO ACCEPT OUTCOMES OF BATTLE)

• GUERILLA WARFARE – USE CIVILIAN POPULATION TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES; HIT-AND-RUN TACTICS (TALIBAN)

• TERRORISM – ONE SIDE ATTEMPTS TO INSTILL FEAR IN THE OTHER TO FORCE CONCESSIONS; INVOLVES:

• PREMEDITATION

• MOTIVATION

• NONCOMBATANT TARGETS

• SECRETIVENESS

JUST WAR TRADITION• JUS AD BELLUM - JUSTICE OF ENTERING A WAR

• JUS IN BELLO – JUSTICE OF HOW A WAR IS FOUGHT

• SEVERAL CRITERIA JUSTIFY ENTERING WAR

• JUST CAUSE

• LEADER HAS CORRECT INTENTIONS

• LEADER WANTS TO END ABUSES & ESTABLISH PEACE

• EXHAUST ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES

• REMOVE FORCES RAPIDLY AFTER ABUSES END

• ALSO ADDRESSES CONDUCT IN WAR

• COMBATANTS & NONCOMBATANTS MUST BE DIFFERENTIATED

• VIOLENCE USED NEEDS TO BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE ENDS ACHIEVED

DISCUSSION TOPICS

• HOW CAN WE AVOID THE SECURITY DILEMMA?

• IS WAR EVER “JUST?”