Short Paper #1
Students are to write a 2-4 page thought paper on the following topic: How do we explain the continuing resort to war as a means to address political conflict? Are the causes of war fundamentally the same as war centuries ago? If not, what has changed?
In writing your paper, you need to form an argument (not simply offer an opinion). In order to do so, you will need to refer to the assigned readings thus far in the semester. What do you make of the arguments raised there? Why are some more convincing to you than others? Make sure you specifically cite positions put forth by the authors (you may cite them simply parenthetically: for example: (Clausewitz). How, specifically, do the readings you’ve done inform your understanding of this topic?
Each paper should be word-processed in 12-point font, double-spaced, on numbered pages with one-inch margins throughout. They should be saved as a Word, Google doc or .rtf file.
Causes of War
War as a means to address political conflicts persists in various parts of the world, supporting the argument that domestic and international struggles are an essential part of politics. The Clausewitzian tradition explains why war is an everyday reality in society. The view is supported by Hedges, who suggests that “War forms a culture its own culture” (5). In some countries, such as Syria, political players rush to war any time they disagree. Thus, war occurs to address political conflicts through a power struggle since those seeking power are highly unlikely to find an amicable solution (Dimitriu 645). The same point of view emerges in Schelling, suggesting that war is a bargaining process between political actors, especially in disagreements or when one side seeks to have its way (Schelling 171). Thus, the political idea of war explains the convergence of two relating factors, political objectives and power struggles within a setting that enables and restrains the two forces. Although the causes of war have changed over the years, the interrelation between the two forces remains prevalent; hence, the argument from this perspective is that the causes of war are complicated and politically motivated.
Various factors explain why the continuing resort to war as a means to address political conflict. From a political perspective, Hedges suggests that war gives actors meaning. Regardless of the destructive nature and carnage, war is an important part of life since it gives people what they long for in life (Hedges 6). War, as a bargaining force, gives people meaning and purpose. Therefore, it is common for people to resort to war at any time they want to achieve something in life. The view is supported by Schelling, who argues that it is a process than political actors us to bargain or when they want to achieve an objective (Schelling 171). The bargaining process argument relates to the threat or real use of force to gain political mileage. For example, the Palestinian uprising was aimed at removing Israelis from Gaza and the West Bank, as well as gaining power in East Jerusalem and Gaza City (Hedges 6). Regardless of the change, war remains a necessary evil that combat officers would rather avoid but have to engage in to achieve the desired political objective or address a political conflict (Killing and the Existence of Resistance 14). Thus, war remains a political process that allows the warring parties to gain the upper hand in a political conflict.
While the political factors that lead to war are fundamentally the same, significant local and international changes have taken place that has changed the dynamics of war. According to National Research Council, political conflict after the Cold War changed considerably, probably due to changes in the political arena and new actors’ entry, such as market forces (National Research Council 4). Thus, while power struggles still explain the reason for war, the dynamics have changed since the people and institutions engaging in the struggle have increased. For example, the post-Cold War era ushered in a shift in power from the centralized state-oriented political model to a market-controlled environment in which other actors play a critical role. The market forces play a key role in the decision on whether to engage in warfare. For instance, many states prefer to avoid a large scale war to protect economic interests if the cost of the war is greater than an amicable settlement of political conflicts. However, events, such as the war in Syria and similar internal conflicts reveal that the argument does not apply equally globally. In the new environment, other non-state actors and new political organizations also engage in the power struggle, increasingly limiting the effectiveness of war as a means to achieve political goals.
The factors that lead to war have remained the same, but the arena has changed. National Research Council suggests that while war is still a political process, many aspects have changed, such as the Western political systems’ fragmentation, making it hard for political actors to wage war without the mediating effect of non-state actors (National Research Council 4). For example, market forces play a key role in determining whether a political conflict can turn into a war. Many countries avoid war due to the economic ramifications that might affect them negatively. Besides, the current political environment has witnessed an increase in suboptimal strategies and the involvement of various parties in political decision-making, influencing war in the modern state. Before war breaks out in a country, many mediators, including the market and other non-state actors, determine the direction a political conflict takes.
The causes of war are the same, emanating from power struggles and the bargaining process, but the nature of war has changed due to various factors, such as the engagement of international bodies to settle disputes. In the reading, “The Bloodiest Century”, the nature of war has changed since ancient times, but wars remain a reality nevertheless. A critical argument in the reading is that wars appear to have reduced in the recent period due to UN and other peace-keeping organizations (The Bloodiest Century 44). However, the argument does not suggest that wars have reduced since they have only changed in their nature. Peace-keeping operations have transformed the nature of war, such as those between two states. For example, since the world wars, the world has not experienced such large scale bloody wars. However, war remains a reality, evident in new forms, such as terrorism, to achieve a political objective. The reason for the war remains relatively the same, a bargaining process to achieve political mileage, but the battlefield and war strategies have changed considerably.
War is still a means to address political conflict, but its dynamics have historically changed, especially during the post-Cold War era. The cause also remains fundamentally the same, power struggles and a bargaining process, within the policy environment, but the political arena has changed how they operate to cause a political war. Besides, many actors have come in and influenced the political climate and decision-making process, such as market actors and international organizations, such as the UN. As a result, the possibility of war and the direction it takes, such as approaches to addressing them, are no longer limited to political actors, nationally and internationally. Thus, conflict resolution practitioners should change how they understand war as a political process and the approaches they use to address modern conflicts. They should research how the nature of war has changed in the recent past and the possibility of new factors that cause war. While it might be hard to understand the future of warfare, more changes might occur and influence how state and non-state actors deal with political disputes.
Works Cited
Dimitriu, George. “Clausewitz and the Politics of War: A Contemporary Theory.” Journal of Strategic Studie, vol. 43, 2020, pp. 645-685.
Hedges, Chris. Haunted by war: An excerpt from his book “war is a force that gives us meaning”, Anchor Books, 2003.
National Research Council. International conflict resolution after the Cold War. National Academies Press, 2000.
Schelling, Thomas C. The diplomacy of violence, pp. 169-183
Section I, Killing and the existence of Resistance: A world of virgins studying sex, pp. 1-36
Section II, The Bloodiest Century, pp. 23-44
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
