Chapter 10 - Wars, weapons and the wonders of being human.

 

So why is there war?

Honestly, if I knew, or if it could be quickly listed or answered, I would not be where I am and the world would be different than today.

It could be argued that war is some how deep in our genetic code as our ancient ancestors competed for resources or some other anthropological argument. Economists might say wars are always driven by material or territorial concerns. Others would point out the importance of looking at the psychological or ideological aspects. Still others would stress culture, language or history (and the misperceptions thereof).

I'm not comfortable answering the "why" questions about most things. What do I know about why? Especially a topic as large as why war exists. But more importantly, it is one of your potential exam essay questions and it is a question I like asking, I must admit. So I don't want to tell you what I think and then have you repeat it to me - that's toooooooo dull (Did I make my point with the many os?) So I want to help give you different ways to think about war. And some helpful or useless details to think about on your path to thinking about war and coming up with a good answer to the war questions - which if not on an Exam 2, I bet will be on the final.

Remember the Hans Morgenthau quote from Week 1:

"This being a world of competing moral principles and conflict among them, absolute good can never be attained. Moral principles can never be fully realized. But at best, must be approximated through the ever temporary balancing of conflicts and the ever precarious settlement of disputes…(thus)…politics is always the choice of the lesser of evils."

Look, Hans got it spot on, as the English would say. One of the things that the study of political science must admit as its starting point is that this is a world of competing moral principles and conflict among them.

Maybe conflict, weapons and war are all part of being human. Can we even "get better" than that? Can we improve humans? That's a question I don't want to entertain as I'm am sure that is not the job of a political scientists nor a worthy goal, given all the attempts of the 20th century.

Is war the opposite of peace or an peace occur and be "interrupted" by war - or is it the other way around when peace only occasionally is the status quo?

Carl von Clausewitz, an author you will read if you are a political science major, famously asserts that "war is politics by other means." Lenin, of course, retorts, that "politics is war by other means"... Or did I get that confused? Look it up and see a debate that is over 100 years old.

Again your authors look at the issue form "decentralizing" and "centralizing" positions and this time it at least makes sense. It comes down to what you want to believe. Is peace or war the status quo? How much "global violence" is acceptable to call it peace? Which small ethnic/religious group's suffering gets ignored so we can all call it peace?

That's up to you - and all of us - to decide for ourselves. But I caution you to remember that thus is a world of competing and conflicting people of moral principle who believe they are correct. Conflict resolution may not always be enough to "solve" a problem.

If I had to bet, though, I would bet that violence never goes away. We humans are a pretty violent bunch when we have to be or are allowed to be (I'm not sure which). On the other hand, most people on the planet never kill another human, so maybe there's hope. But if I had to bet, I I don't, I'd bet on violence always being part of being human, on an individual, state and global level of analysis.

When listing nicely for you the cause of war, the authors give only two paragraphs to the cause of "domestic political causes." I believe that domestic politics ALWAYS plays into any decision to "go to war." I think this is as nearly an historical fact as anything else historians could proffer on the subject.

Also - they offer "the nature of the state" as another thing to think about and they are right. Not only in the debate they mention in the one paragraph they give the topic (on page 395) about "democratic" and "autocratic" regimes being more or less likely to go to war, there is also the many domestic issues that all national governments must always deal with - that, too, is the nature of any state. There are competing moral principles at work in most domestic politics as well.

Notice they question the validity of the "democracies don't go to war with each other" theory by mentioning "newly established democracies."

The question of what is democracy and what countries are democracies is a major questions in Political Science 2 - Comparative Politics (Modern World Government). I'm teaching Poli Sci 2 on campus next semester (Fall 2009) on Tuesday night at 6:50. Sign up now and avoid the rush!!!!

The nature of the international system may also have an impact on the level of violence around the world. A s I have mentioned in the past, never underestimate the long term consequences of colonialism and imperialism over the last three hundred years. Around the world, wars, uprisings, revolts, rebellions, coup de tat, massacres, genocides, they are all apart of the legacy of colonialism. And the current international system is still mostly controlled by the imperial powers of the last few centuries.

When discussing war, of course we cannot ignore the psychological/ emotional/perceptual aspects, but This is where political science meets "pop psychology" and I'm not sure how valid all the talk really ends up being.

Yes perception and misperception matter. But was World War I caused by the assassination of the Arch Duke or would something else have triggered it and so it was really caused by greater underlying realities.

Is the India/Pakistan problem just religious or emotional or about perception? Or are there real disputes over Kashmir and etc... What of the Tamil Tigers, or the many "terrorist" groups around the world. One person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Are all their claims just about "feelings" or do they have some legitimate issues that the domestic governments and the international systems continues to suppress or ignore?

In the movie Hoffa, he says: "...real disputes can be resolved, but a slight, that (guy's) gonna hate you the rest of his life..." There's truth in that little film clip/quote.

It is so easy to create a "them" and then dismiss them as less than us. The authors use the term al Qaedaism" and put it in quotes. "The Camp" (which is what the Arabic term means) uses religious language as a way of fighting against modernity. It appeals not just to a religious emotion or mind set but a larger deeper feeling of a world out of control and flooded by western and modern goods, values and problems. It is not about religion, almost every Muslim will tell you al Qaeda isn't exactly what they think "good muslims" should be like. And most of their claims are not supported by the Koran.

On page 297, your authors use as an example the 1983 Beirut killings. Reagan said at the time: "There's no where to run and no where to hide" and that we would find the bombers. Of course we did not. That's the same speech in which Reagan admitted (about the deployment to Lebanon in general) that "mistakes were made." (See, he didn't make them... no one really made any mistakes... they were just... umm... you know... made.) And he's remembered as a Great Leader and Great Communicator ("Well, there you go again...")

By the way, its still not clear to me who's misperception "caused" the Gulf War. Clearly, Sadam misperceived our ultimate resolve but we also clearly misperceived his intentions and we clearly misperceived the "power" of his so-called "republican guard" (twice). They were never what he claimed but also they were never as capable nor lethal as we thought.

I think it is clear that the Bush doctrine of preemptive war has been demonstrated to be silly at best if not dangerous. The US is the only global power and as such we must lead by actions. Violating our own laws, customs and principles is never a good start for the formation of policy.

After 9/11 a friend who I used to work in a law firm with said: "well what are we gonna do, just take these guys to court?"

He meant he wanted to bomb some one - bomb the shit out of them- whoever we figure out "them" is and take our retraction. He rejected the legal systems because it was too soft to give the terrorists a day in court.

But I believe that is exactly how we get terrorist organizations. we strangle their funds, we hassle their finances and treat them like what they are. Mobsters, gangsters and thugs. We round them up, kill as many as we can in combat and try the rest. We can send them to our deepest prisons here on US territory. If we can't prove in court that these guys did what we say (or think) we did than we let the go fee - or send them home where they will be tortured and killed in their domestic prison system. Don't pretend that court is kind 'cuz you've seen it on tv. Prison is worse. No one is safe in US prisons. Ask anyone who has ever been there - even for a visit.

On page 299, the authors give a good breakdown of the structural causes of war and this reflects their true nature as Realists.

A Final word about CBW and nucs... More than five countries have nucs - at least Israel has them. As far as the potential for terrorists or others to get their hands on old soviet nucs or the material therein, I think that may be the greatest threat to humanity as we move into the future. the russians don't really know how many weapons they have - remember the USSR was not big on honest record keeping.

And CBW may be an even more depressing topic. There are many biologic agents and chemicals that if dropped in a city's water supply would cause damage and death on a very large scale. then again industrial accidents do as much damage and are more routine than terrorist strikes (ask the people of Bhopal, Prince Williams Sound, etc).

It seems that lately every one is a terrorism expert and that terrorism is the "hot topic" of the day. I really hate that thinking. I spoke to a conference on terrorism at Cal. St. Domenguiz Hills in September of 2000. There were maybe 40 people in attendance. The next year, everyone is talking about terrorism like they know what they are talking about. It is depressing for me, I must admit.

Page 305 says land mines are the world's most dangerous weapons, and that they are. Or maybe humans are....