Lorie Jane Baez

War and Strife

II. Causes of War
Theories on Causes of International Conflict/ War
Psychology
These theories emphasize the role of individuals as leaders and participants:
1. Freud - believed aggression enables survival and therefore wards off death. When brute force used
by a party frustrates someone or constrains someone, they will manifest an aggressive instinct to
survive. We must inhibit our aggressions. Many species have inhibitors which inhibit them from
killing fellow members of the species. Examples: wolves will go for the jugular vein but won't kill
and ravens will pick out the eye of another raven but won't kill it.
2. Carl Jung - there exists a dark side of human nature projected onto an enemy who is imbued with
hateful traitstraits which actually originate within one's self.
3. Alfred Adler - interpersonal struggles for social dominance and the "inferiority complex"
4. Harry Stack Sullivan - fears and anxieties derived from inhibited communication, which in turn
give rise to terror-ridden distortions, which in turn produce a tendency to strike out at those who are
different and those who we cant understand.
5. Erik Erikson - social ambiguity in society can produce confusion in the individual and the
individual may seek refuge in "totalism" which leads to unquestioning identification with the state
along with rejection of selfhood of others. Peoples' personal integrity, moral awareness, and
wholeness becomes compromised by confusion and a tendency, then, to follow a misguided leader.
Social Psychology
These theories emphasize the role of people in groups in society:
6. Irving Janis - Group think sets in during crisis, negative impressions of adversaries spin out of
control, reduction of mental efficiency, shortcomings in information processing which block people
from comprehending consequences, "motivated misperceptions" combined with a self-righteous
"moral self-image". Groups can bring out the worst as well as the best in people. Group contagion
can give rise to panic, scapegoating, mindless conformity, and collective misjudgment
7. Stanley Milgram - Violence is the product of particular social circumstances and willingness to
obey authority.
Biological Theories
These theories emphasize the role of genetics in humankinds biological heritage:
8. Konrad Lorenz and modern sociobologists like Edward O Wilson- believe aggression is present
in humans for survival, but with the advent of modern technology and modern weapons, the
tendency for violence has become homo sapiens' greatest danger, especially along with "militant
enthusiasm" which is a form of communal aggression with a lack of restraint on violence. In
humans no built in inhibitors evolved. Pre-humans were prey to wild beasts for millions of years,
but a potential victim had only submissive gestures to protect himself. When pre-humans and
humans invented weapons things changed. Weapons, in addition to communal aggression (a
militant enthusiasm and unthinking single-mindedness which gave a feeling of intense satisfaction
and had a morale raising effect on the social structure) greatly escalated humans' ability to defend
themselves, but also enhanced their ability to inflict violence on other groups.
9. Barbara Ehrenreich- believes anxieties and fears were hard-wired into pre-human species during
a time when these species were prey to wild beasts and that Homo sapiens sapiens inherited fears
and anxieties of an "other" which had originally been wild beasts, but were later transferred to other
humans.
Anthropology
These theories emphasize the role of cultural conditioning in human societies:
10. Margaret Mead - Warfare is all learned behavior, it is not biologically innate. Mead cites many
tribal groups which don't know war and don't have words and concepts for violence and aggression
such as the Eskimos, the Lepchas of Sikkim (Himalaya Mountains), and the Pueblo's. She believed
since warfare was learned, it could be un-learned. Trial by combat was abolished, replaced by trial
by jury. Poor practices give way to better practices when people recognize the defects of old ways
and invent new ways of relating to each other.
Historians, Political Scientists, Economists
1. Karl Marx - The nation is a cause of war because nations compete for advantage and resources just
as people do. This competition for advantage and resources is most evident in capitalist systems
because capitalism does not recognize the limits of nature to continually provide resources to
supply capitalists' machines.
2. Barbara Tuchman - Thinks crisis decision-making and deadlines for mobilization are a cause of
war because peoples' full cognitive functions diminish in times of crisis, only a restricted range of

Lorie Jane Baez

War and Strife

3.
4.
5.
6.

options get considered, and there's a tendency to engage in grandiose thinking and exaggerate the
opponent's malicious intentions. Inflexibility and weak leadership are also evident in these
situations.
Michael Howard - war is caused by coolly reasoned actions and deliberations by leaders who
engage in power politics or "realpolitik" to extend their power and control.
Kenneth Boulding - the force of nationalism and leaders, poets, musicians, writers and other artists
who glamorize and legitimize acts of violence and heroism
Emanuel Wallerstein- theory of center and periphery - center cities or nations (G-7) are organized
and prosperous and elites in the center tend to live off and exploit the labor and resources of the
peripheral countries and peoples.
Michael Klare - interstate and interstate conflict caused by competition for wealth and security when human communities come under stress (economic, social, environmental) or when
communities engage in ethnic and religious competition, violence may break out

Peace Researchers
1. Johan Galtung - Globalization (international capitalism) has led to division of labor which has led to
global sweatshops which epitomize exploitation, inequality, and dependency. People in many
occupations are part of this exploitative system. Groups oppressed by globalization seek to
emancipate themselves and this could lead to violence and war.
2. John Burton - structural violence occurs when institutions and policies damage or destroy individual
values and development. Structural violence is a major source of crime and aggression in society. In
systems where structural violence is evident certain deep-rooted human needs such as the need for
identity, security, and control over one's life, fairness, recognition, and sense of belonging are not
met. In many societies conditions of structural violence are accepted and problems are suppressed.
In a power-oriented and hierarchical framework, behavior that is rewarded would be behavior which
coincides with the legal, social, and religious norms of a particular culture. For example, many observers
feel aggression and acquisitiveness are rewarded in American society. From the perspective of the field of
peace studies and conflict resolution, however, ideal behavior would be aimed at fulfilling human needs.
Therefore, attention would be paid to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and promoting the
security, safety, well-being, identity, fairness, and sense of belonging of everyone.
New understandings bring shifts in thinking and these shifts require new vocabulary. For example, the
term proventionhas been introduced to replace prevention. Provention means getting to the sources of
conflict and taking strong initiatives to prevent it.
The Individual
Both the characteristics of individual leaders and the general attributes of people have been blamed for
war. Some individual leaders are aggressive and bellicose; they use their leadership positions to further
their causes. Thus, according to some realists and liberals, war occurs because of the personal
characteristics of major leaders. It is impossible, however, to prove the veracity of this position.
Liberal Interpretation
According to liberals, misperceptions by leaders-seeing aggressiveness where it may not be intended,
imputing the actions of one person to a group can lead to the outbreak of war. Historians have typically
given a key role to misperceptions. There are several types of misperceptions that may lead to war. One of
the most common is exaggerating the hostility of the adversary, believing that the adversary is more
hostile than it may actually be or that the adversary has greater military or economic capability than it
actually has. This miscalculation may lead a state to respond, that is, take actions like building up its own
arms which, in turn, may be viewed as hostile activities by its adversary. Misperceptions thus spiral,
potentially leading to war. Events leading to World War I are often viewed as a conflict spiral, caused by
misperceived intentions and actions of the principal protagonists.
Realist Interpretation
If not because of the leaders, perhaps characteristics of the masses lead to the outbreak of war. Some
realist thinkers - St. Augustine and Reinhold Niebuhr, for example - take this position. St. Augustine
wrote that every act is an act of self-presentation on the part of individuals. For Niebuhr the link goes
even deeper; the origin of war resides in the depths of the human psyches. This approach is compatible
with that of sociobiologists who study animal behavior. Aggressive behavior is adopted by virtually all
species to ensure survival; it is biologically innate. Yet this view does not explain subtle differences
among species; some do engage in cooperative behavior. And human beings are seen by many as an
infinitely more complex species than animal species. If true, these presumptions lead to two possible
altern8tive assessments, one pessimistic and the other optimistic. For pessimists, if war is the product of
innate human characteristics or a flawed human nature, then there is no reprieve; wars will inevitably
occur all the time. For optimists, if war, or aggression, is innate, the only hope of eliminating war resides
in trying to fundamentally alter human nature.

Lorie Jane Baez

War and Strife
Yet war does not, in fact, happen all the time; it is the unusual event, not the norm. So characteristics
inherent in all individuals cannot be the only cause of war. Nor can the explanation be that human nature
has, indeed, been fundamentally changed, since wars do occur. Most experiments aimed at changing mass
behavior have failed miserably, and there is no visible proof that fundamental attitudes have been altered.
Thus the individual level of analysis is unlikely to provide the only cause of war, or even the primary one.
Individuals, after all, are organized into societies and states.
State and Society
Asecond level of explanation suggests that war occurs because of the internal structures of states. States
vary in size, geography, ethnic homogeneity, and economic and political preferences. State and society
explanations are among the oldest. Plato, for example, posited that war is less likely where the population
is cohesive and enjoysa moderate level of prosperity. Since the population would be able to thwart an
attack, an enemy is apt to refrain from coercive activity. Many thinkers during the Enlightenment,
including Kant, believed that war was more likely in aristocratic states.
Liberal Interpretation
Drawing on the Kantian position, liberals posit that republican regimes (ones with representative
government and separation of powers) are leastlikely to wage war; that is the basic position of the theory
of the democratic peace. Democracies are pacific because democratic norms and culture inhibit the
leadership from taking actions leading to war. Democraticleaders hear from multiple voices that tend to
restrain decision makers and therefore lessen the chance of war. Such states provide outlets for
individuals to voice opposing viewpoints, and structural mechanisms exist for replacing war-prone or
aggressive rulers. To live in such a state, individuals learn the art of compromise. In the process, extreme
behavior like waging war is curbed, engaged in only periodically and then only if necessary to make a
state's own democracy safe.
Other liberal tenets hold that some types of economic systems are more war prone than others. Liberal
states are also more apt to be capitalist states whose members enjoy relative wealth. Such societies feel no
need to divert the attention of the dissatisfied masses into an external conflict; the wealthy masses are
largely satisfied with the status quo. Furthermore, war interrupts trade, blocks profits, and causes
inflation. Thus, liberal capitalist states are more apt to avoid war and to promote peace.
Radical Interpretations
But not every theorist sees the liberal state as benign and peace loving. Indeed, radical theorists offer the
most thorough critique of liberalism and its economic counterpart, capitalism. They argue that capitalist
liberal modes of production inevitably lead to conflict between the two major social classes within the
state, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, for both economic dominance and political leadership. This
struggle leads to war, both internally and externally, as the state dominated by the entrenched bourgeoisie
is driven to expand the engine of capitalism at the expense of the proletariat and for the economic
preservation of the bourgeoisie.
In this view, conflict and war are attributed to the internal dynamics of capitalist economic systems.
Capitalist systems stagnate and slowly collapse in the absence of external stimulation. Three different
explanationshave been offered for what happens to capitalist states and \\'hy they must turn outward. First,
the English economist John Hobson (1858-1940) claimed that the internal demand for goods will slow
down in capitalist countries, leading to pressures for imperialist expansion to find external markets to
sustain economic growth. Second, to Lenin and others, the problem is not one of under demand but one of
declining rates of return on capital. Capitalist states expand externally to increase the rates of return on
capital investment. Third, Lenin and many twentieth-century radicals pointed to the need for raw
materials to sustain capitalist expansion; external suppliers are needed to obtain such resources. So
according to the radical view, capitalist states inevitably expand, but radical theorists disagree among
themselves on precisely why expansion occurs.
While radical explanations arc viable for colonialism and imperialism, the link to war is more tenuous.
One possible link is that capitalist states spend not only for consumer goods but also for the military,
leading inevitably to arms races and eventually war. Another link points to leaders who, in order to avert
domestic economic crises, resort to external conflict. This is called scapegoating. Such behavior is likely
to provide internal cohesion at least in the short run. For example, there is considerable evidence to
support the notion that the Argentinian military used the Falkland/Malvinas conflict in 1982to rally the
population around the flag and draw attention away from -the country's economic contraction. Still
another link suggests that the masses may push a ruling elite toward war. This View is clearly at odds.
With the liberal belief that the masses are basically peace loving. Adherents point to the SpanishAmerican war of 1898 as an example where the public might have pushed the leaders into aggressive
action.
Those who argue. That contests over the structure of states are a basic cause of war have identified
another explanation for the outbreak of some wars. Numerous civil wars have been fought over what

Lorie Jane Baez

War and Strife
groups, what ideologies, and which leaders should control the government of the state. The United States
own civil war (1861-65) between the North and the South, Russia's civil war (1917-19) between liberal
and socialist forces, China's civil war (1927,...49) between nationalist and communist forces, and the civil
wars in Vietnam, Korea, the Sudan, and Chad-each pitting North versus South-are poignant illustrations.
In many of these cases, the struggle among competing economic systems and among groups vying for
scarce resources within the state illustrates further the proposition that internal structures are responsible
for the outbreak of war. The United States civil war was not just over which region should control policy
but over a belief by those in the South that the government inequitably and unfairly allocated economic
resources. China's civil war pitted a wealthy landed elite supportive of the nationalist cause against an
exploited peasantry struggling, often unsuccessfully, for survival. And the ongoing Sudanese civil war
pits an economically depressed south against a northern government that poured economic resources into
the region of the capital. Yet in virtually every case, neither characteristics of the state nor the state
structures were solely responsible for the outbreak of war. State structure is embedded in the
characteristics of the international system.
International System
Realist Interpretations
To realists, the anarchical international system is governed only by a weak overarching rule of law, which
is easily dispensed with when states determine it is in their self-interest to do so. States themselves arc the
authority and ultimate arbiters of disputes; herein resides sovereignty. Such an anarchic system is often
compared to a state of nature after Hobbes's characterization. The international system is equivalent to a
state of war, where there are no enforcement instruments to make states cooperate. Thus, it is states that,
when feeling threatened, decide to go to war against other, similarly situated states. And the inexorable
logic of the security dilemmamakes such perceptions of insecurity all the more likely. War breaks
out,then, according to realists, because of the anarchical structure of the international system. This is the
logical course of action to take. After all, states must protect themselves. A state's security is ensured
military and economic power. One state's accumulation makes the others less secure, according to the
logic of the security dilemma.
In an anarchical system, there may be few rules about how to decide among contending claims. One of
the major categories of contested claims is territory. For thousands of years, the Jewish and Arab dispute
has rested on competing territorial claims to Palestine; in the Horn of Africa, the territorial aspirations of
the Somali people are disputed; and in the Andes, Ecuador and Peru have competing territorial claims.
According to the international system-level explanation, there are no authoritative and legitimized arbiters
to such disputed territorial claims.
Neither is there an effective arbiter to competing claims on national self-determination. Who decides
whether the Chechen, Bosnian, or Quebecois claims for independence are legitimate? Who decides
whether Kurdish claims against Turkey and Iraq are worthy of consideration? Absent an internationally
legitimized arbiter, authority is relegated to the states themselves with the most powerful ones often
becoming the decisive, interested arbiters.
In actuality, there are several realist variants attributing war to the anarchic nature of the international
system. One alternative explanation for war, represented in the work of Kenneth Organski, is power
transition theory. To Organski and his intellectual heirs, it is not just the inequality of capabilities that
leads to war. It is the changes in state capabilities that lead to war. War occurs when a dissatisfied
challenger state begins to attain the capabilities of the hegemon. The challenger will launch a war to
solidify its position. Power transition theorists find that war can be explained by a challenger approaching
the power of the dominant hegemon, as illustrated in the Franco-Prussian War (I 870-71), the Russian
JapaneseWar (1904-5), and the two world wars.
A variant derived from the power transition theory is that war is caused by the changing distribution of
power that occurs because of uneven rates of economic development. George Modelski and William
Thompson find regular cycles of power transitions since 1494. There are one hundred yearcycles between
hegemonic wars, wars which fundamentally alter the structure of the international system. Hegemonic
wars create a new hegemonic power; its power waxes and wanes, a struggle follows, and a new hegemon
assumes dominance. The cycle begins once again.
Radical Interpretation
To radicals, as well, the international system structure is responsible for war. Dominant capitalist states
within the international system need to expand economically, leading to wars with developing regions
over control of natural resources and labor markets, or with other capitalist states over control of
developing regions. The dynamic of expansion inherent in the international capitalist system, then, is the
major cause of wars, according to radical thinking. Both the realist and radical attention to only one level
of explanation may be overly simplistic.
The Case of Iraqs Invasion of Kuwait

Lorie Jane Baez

War and Strife
At the individual level: Perhaps Saddam Husseins individual characteristics, including his basic
insecurity and ruthless techniques, help to explain Iraqs actions. Hussein may have calculated
that his actions would not elicit a military response from the international community.
At the state level: Iraq was just acting in its own national interest. Iraq felt that the land (oil
fields) annexed had been illegally seized during the British occupation around the time of World
War I. The 198088 war with Iran had also reduced Iraqs oil revenues.
At the international system level: Several factors indicated that Iraqs actions would not be
resisted: the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Arab Leagues reluctance to criticize its members,
and the historical failure of the UN Security Council to act decisively.
The Case of South Ossetia
At the individual level: Saakashvilis efforts to restore Georgian pride and resist the Russian
bully raised tensions. The pressures of ethnic identity both raised tensions and provided a
reason for Russian interest in South Ossetia. Saakashvili and Medvedev both wanted to look
active and strong.
At the state level: Georgia was acting to promote its sovereignty over a breakaway region. Russia
was acting to increase its influence in part of the former Soviet territory.
At the international system level: There was no impartial arbiter to deal with any of the questions
at issue in the conflict. In a state of anarchy, both sides had to rely on their own strengths during
the conflict.
II. KINDS / CATEGORIES OF WARS
Once the decision has been made to go to war, to aggress against a foe or to support an ally, decision
makers are still faced with a variety of options for how to proceed. The nineteenth-century Prussian
general Carl von Clausewitz, in On War, describes the political nature of these decisions: "War is not
merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of
the same by other means."
General War
General war, a twentieth-century phenomenon, is war to conquer and occupy enemy territory. To
accomplish these goals, decision makers utilize all available weapons of warfare and target both civilian
and military sites. The wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were more limited with regard to
the goals to be achieved, the instruments utilized, and' the targets under attack. World War I and World
War II were critical turning points in making general war a policy option. And it was the invention of the
atomic bomb, its use against Japan to end World War II, and the subsequent development of sophisticated
nuclear weapons that made general war a less attractive and less rational option. Although nuclear war
may now be obsolete, other forms reminiscent of earlier eras are not.
Limited War
Wars can be classified as limited wars on the basis of the goals to be pursued, the type of weapons to be
used, and the targets. The Korean War, the Vietnam War,and the Gulf War are examples of wars fought in
limited ways from the perspective of the United States. The United States and its allies decided that the
enemy (North Korea and China, North Vietnam and its allies, and Iraq, respectively) were to be defeated
in a specified territory. The capitals of the enemy were not occupied; lines were drawn across which the
victorious forces would not pass. Equally as important, all available armaments were not unleashed.
Conventional weapons of warfare were used-the tank, foot soldiers, aircraft, and missiles- but despite
their availability, nuclear weapons were not deployed. Yet, from the viewpoint of the opposing forces in
each of these cases NorthKorea, North Vietnam, and Iraq-the war was not a limited one. Each country
was under attack and responded using all the force that it had available.
Civil War
Civil war is war between factions within a state over control of territory or establishment of a
government. Civil wars themselves can be general, as was the U.S. Civil War or the Russian Civil War, or
they can be limited, as the intermittent civil wars in numerous African countries have been. Increasingly,
civil wars have had international repercussions refugees from civil conflict flow into neighboring states,
funds are transferred out of the country, and weapons from uninvolved third parties flow in and out of the
country. Thus, civil wars can be both domestic and international events.

Lorie Jane Baez

War and Strife

Typology of War
Traditional typology
I.

International wars
A. Inter-state wars
B. Extra-systemic wars
1) Colonial
2) Imperial

Expanded typology
I.
II.

Inter-state wars
Extra-state wars
A. Colonial Conflict with Colony
B. Imperial State vs. Nonstate
III.
Intra-state wars
A. Civil wars
B. Regional internal
C. Intercommunal
IV.
Non-state wars
A. In nonstate territory
B. Across state borders