purpose of war. why study war? oldest, most prevalent, and most salient issue in international...
TRANSCRIPT
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