Chapter 8 War and Strife

War: The Data 14,500 armed struggles in history, depending on how we define war Approximately 3.5 billion deaths Since 1816, between 224 and 559 international and intrastate wars War incidence has declined after 1991. Number of battlefield deaths has declined by 80% since 1991.

War: What is it good for? What causes war? Why do states fight?

Is War Inevitable? Realist Answers War can be managed but never eliminated. States exist in an anarchic system States are thus insecure and must rely on self-help to find security. Insecurity can lead to the “security dilemma.”

Irony of the Security Dilemma As one state seeks to ameliorate its insecurity, it seeks power. Once state A gains power, it inadvertently makes state B insecure. State B then seeks more power, which it might not have otherwise done. As state B gains power, state A again becomes insecure and seeks more power.

Irony of the Security Dilemma RESULTS: Vicious circle of power accumulation Permanent condition of tension

Liberals: Is War Inevitable? Anarchy is a structural restraint. States can learn to cooperate because of benefits of peace (self-interest). International institutions act as cooperation enablers by reducing transition costs and increasing cheating costs—“cooperative competition.”

Liberals: Is War Inevitable? Benefits of cooperation will push more states to become democratic. More liberal, democratic states = more peace

Marxists: Transcending War Capitalism turns human nature toward greed and relentless, destructive competition. The state supports repressive forces of capitalism at the expense of the majority of people, both domestically and worldwide (imperialism). War will exist so long as capitalism exists. War can be eliminated through the triumph of socialism, which fosters sharing of resources and labor.

Constructivists: Reducing War Threats are socially constructed. Implications of material objects are socialized as threatening. Different types of socialization can lead to different outcomes. Example: United Kingdom versus Iran owning nuclear weapons

Causes of War Individual Level of Analysis Individual(s)—realists and liberals Personal characteristics of leaders Misperceptions Communications failures

Causes of War State Level of Analysis State and society—liberal and radical views Struggles over internal structures and characteristics of states cause war. Liberals—democracy restrains leaders, provides outlets for opposing viewpoints. More importantly, democracies generally do not fight one another Also, interdependence can constrain Marxists –class competition (capitalist classes)

International System as the Cause of War International system—realist and radical views Anarchy, no final arbiter of disputes System in state of nature (Hobbes) Realists—war is caused by states challenging international hierarchy due to Changing state capabilities Changing distribution of power among states

International System as the Cause of War Marxists—dominant states need to expand, leading to war over resources.

Categorizing Wars Interstate war—between states, as they have recognizable leadership and locations and formal militaries Intrastate/civil war—between factions within state over control of territory or institutions; many have international repercussions; can last decades; high human costs

Categorizing Wars Total war—massive loss of life, widespread destruction; many participants, including multiple powers; all available weapons utilized; civilians and military targeted Limited war—may be limited by goals pursued, type of weapons used, amount of resources used; targets

Explaining the Decline of Total War Memories of World War II Nuclear war too costly Development of security communities Realists: rise of U.S. hegemony Liberals: democratic peace, economic interdependence, international organizations Constructivists: people socialized into attitudes, values, and beliefs in peace

How Wars Are Fought Conventional warfare—weapons can be limited in time and space; precise targeting; easily available Problems: chemical weapons; indiscriminate Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—nuclear, chemical, biological Problems: radiation, indiscriminate

How Wars Are Fought Unconventional warfare—ignores conventions of war Guerilla warfare, revolutionary guerilla warfare, asymmetric conflicts, terrorism

Terrorism as Asymmetric Warfare Elements of terrorism Act is political by nature or intent Committed by non-state actors Combatant or non-combatant targets (depends on definition) Use unconventional means at unpredictable places and intervals

Just War Tradition— Jus ad Bellum Just conditions for going into war Just cause: self-defense; defense of others; massive violation of human rights Declaration of intent by appropriate authority Have intentions of ending abuses and establishing a just peace Must have exhausted all other alternatives Forces must be removed quickly after objectives are achieved.

Just War Tradition— Jus in Bello Just conduct in war Distinguish between combatants and noncombatants Noncombatants protected from harm Violence proportionate to ends Undue human suffering avoided Individual responsibility for actions taken

Key Questions about Humanitarian Intervention How massive do human rights abuses have to be before intervention is just? Who decides when a humanitarian intervention is necessary? The United Nations? A coalition within the region? Any powerful state? Is the humanitarian intervention occurring for legitimate reasons or as an excuse to achieve other objectives? Do states have a responsibility to protect (R2P)? How can some interventions be justified while other situations cannot?

Realist Approaches: Managing Insecurity Balance of Power—states, as rational actors, make decisions to increase their own capabilities and undermine those of others Use of alliances to balance power both internationally and regionally (external balancing) Increase military and economic capabilities to counter potential threats (internal balancing) Emphasis on relative versus absolute gains Most important technique for realists

Realist Approaches: Managing Insecurity through Deterrence Goal Prevent the outbreak of war by credible a threat of the use of force. Assumptions Decision makers are rational. The threat of damage (or destruction from nuclear warfare) is too great. Alternatives to war are available. Communication must be clear and credible. Difficult to prove.

Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century The rise of nonstate actors decreases the possibility that deterrence will work. Nonstate actors do not hold territory, so a threat to destroy territory is not effective. The presence of flexible, geographically spread groups makes eliminating networks difficult. Willingness to use suicide terrorism undermines deterrence logic

Arms Control and Disarmament Assumptions Fewer weapons means greater security. Regulate arms proliferation (arms control) or reduce amount of arms and types of weapons (disarmament) Costs of security dilemma are reduced. Major agreements include bilateral, regional, and global treaties covering conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Challenges to State-Centered View of Security More intrastate violence and advancing technology means that contain war are becoming less likely. Role of more private actors Piracy Outsourcing security tasks to private companies “Soldier-employees” do not always have national ties to “state-employer.”

Rethinking Security Are we moving from state (national security) to human security? Human security includes Economic and social well-being Literacy Adequate health care Clean environment General personal safety