Harry Hurd

Is it sensible to talk about the causes of war, as opposed to the causes of wars?
When evaluating whether it is sensible to talk about the causes of war or wars; one has to determine first, whether there is a case for either, and secondly whether the two theories in question are mutually exclusive. For the purposes of this essay war shall mean inter-state armed warfare, due to the vast number of definitions and factors that could fall under the heading of war. However many of the issues addressed will apply to many different forms of war, whether it be civil war, economic or many others. Addressing the specific issue of whether talking about the causes of war is a sensible endeavour; the answer must be yes. It would be too narrow an outlook to simply study the specific factors of different wars without also addressing underlying issues that lie at the heart of all conflicts. War is atavistic; despite attempts all through history to attain peace. Therefore it must be sensible to discuss the causes of war in itself; ultimately with an aim of achieving less of it. Finally, war is defined, as in the Oxford English Dictionary, as a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. Kenneth Waltz, in his book Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis, argued that there were three distinct factors that led a state to war; these three different headings are what shall be used as the broad structure of the essay. There are evidently many different theories by many different authors on the topic, but Waltz provides a parsimonious structure with which to approach the question. The first cause of war, and I would argue the strongest, is human nature. Waltz believed that there was a case for basic human nature underlying the root of all warfare. If human nature is essentially erratic, irrational and based on passions; then it is possible that all wars are caused by our biological nature. It is Mans essence to be distrustful, selfish and against those which do not fit in with our own culture or life outlook1. If one approaches the topic of inter-state war from the micro level of the individual, and our own biological evolutionary nature, there would be evidence to suggest that in our own basic inter-personal nature we are, liked Hobbes argued in Leviathan, constantly in a state of war. That we evaluate situations and relations based on our own personal gain. John von Neumann, who first proposed Game Theory, and subsequently William D. Hamilton and George Price who developed the mathematical theory into a socially applicable one, struggled with the idea that altruism was simply an illusion based on every individuals need to survive and prosper at the expense of others.2 If this was scaled up to a state level, then one could clearly see how the concept of zerosum gain, based on the concept of game theory, could lead to inter-state warfare3. Indeed all conflicts could be based on the concept that if one state did not attack another, then they would ultimately lose out. Whether it be pre-industrialised warfare in Europe, where large hegemonic states where attacked by smal1 Richard Dawkins - the Selfish Gene 2 William D. Hamilton's Work in Evolutionary GameTheory K.Sigmund Institutefor Mathematics,Uniaersityof Vienna,ViennaA-1090,Austria [sic] 3 Game Theory and Politics By Steven J. Brams preface

Harry Hurd

ler coalitions to maintain the balance of power (e.g the Napoleonic Wars); or contemporary issues such as Israel threatening Iran with military strikes due to their alleged nuclear facilities, for fear of being attacked themselves. The concept of war as a manifestation of game theory is rife. Yet if game theory is the underlying cause of war; then one could equally argue that it is this that is the underlying factor of all human expression and relations; on a national warfare level, or an individual personal relationship level. Does this become too specific to be broadly applicable to discuss war on a state level? If one takes this line then it is possible to reduce all human actions to mere evolutionary impulses; mitigating any discussion of any topic. It has been shown that chimpanzees commit acts of warfare, with raiding and ethno-specific attacks between different cultures and tribes; that non-human species conduct war. 4 Perhaps this shows that the discussion of wars is non-sensible. Waltzs second image of the cause of war was due to domestic polity. The idea that good governance would lead to people and nations that would be unwilling or unlikely to resort to war between nations; and conversely that bad governance would lead to a nation who would resort to war. This, however, would apply more to intra-state warfare than inter-state warfare. Yet there are domestic policies which would lead to warfare between states. The most basic would be the concept that one of the most powerful ways to govern and to unite a population under a common banner, is through a common enemy. The essence of uniting against a common enemy is one which is present (and as such could as easily fall into the first image of the causes of war) in the psychology of all individuals and groups. 5 A recent proponent of this idea was a British documentary maker called Adam Curtis, who produced a series of documentaries and essays called The Power of Nightmares in which he argued that the causes of the cold war, and more recently the war on terror, was the work of the American Neo-Conservatives (specifically Paul Wolfowitz). He argued that for unpopular domestic policy to be advanced (in the United State), against a rising liberalism which would naturally favour the Democrat party, there needed to be a sense of fear instilled in the population against a distant enemy. He suggested that the War on Terror against Al-Qaeda was emphasised (after the collapse of the Soviet Union as enemy number one) as it allowed many conservative policies and illiberal laws in the USA, such as wire tapping, that otherwise would not have been tolerated by the public. 6 There is clearly some truth in this idea that a government can unite their people through the banner of a common enemy; yet in the modern concept of democratic representation, it may run into some issues. If one merely looks at the most recent wars, they have been shown to create some kind of national unity, but more often in opposition to a war rather than in support of them. The invasion of Iraq, from both a British and American perspective, can be said to have alienated support of the governments that enacted the war, rather than give them support. If it is national governments which cause war (and ultimately it is government which has the power to go to war, whether it be the Prime Minis4 The chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior Goodall, J. 5 The Psychohistory of Warfare: The Co-Evolution of Culture, Psyche and Enemy Ofer Zur California Institute of Integral Studies 6 http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

Harry Hurd

ter in the UK or congress in the USA), then it must be in said governments own interest to go to war. Yet this wasnt the case for the Iraq war. 7 In more contemporary times, with a greater number of democratic states, it can be said that no war would be possible without the consent of the individuals which elect their representatives. Many of the other factors leading to war, such as monarchical feuds or territorial ambitions might be offset if it were wholly the public who gave their consent and wish for war. Yet it would seem that populations generally desire to live in peace; which would suggest that the more democratic a country was, the less war would be enacted. Yet Democratic Peace Theory, as first proposed by Kant 8, has not shown this to be true. 9 The arguments for Democratic Peace Theory may in fact be one which, much like this question, has too many factors to be able to pinpoint one specific cause for peace. The concept that democratic nations will not fight each other could just as logically conclude that it is economic inter-dependence, the coincidence of similar cultural norms or many other factors that lead to peace. As Christopher Layne wrote; The selected cases favor democratic peace theory because, in each, the pacifying effect of democratic norms and culture was bolstered by complementary factors (e.g., economic interdependence, or special ties linking the disputants).
10

Finally, one could argue that the underlying root of war and specific wars is the international system, based on real politik. If the world system is based on individual sovereign states that are necessarily self interested (based on the first image of the nature of man), then there is no world system that could contain warfare and peace. Immanual Wallerstein, in his thesis of World Systems Theory argued that one couldnt understand individual nations and their ambitions unless one understood the world system in which they operated. Waltz suggested that one of the underlying causes of war is that there is no system in place which can realistically limit or prevent war. Using the Iraq war again, this view is bolstered by the view that if the powerful states which undertake war do not agree with the decision of the strongest form of world governance we have (the UN); they still have the ability in pure power projection terms to enact warfare. Indeed the UN is based on the premise of national sovereignty to enforce the collective decisions. It is the UN Security Council, made up of individual states, in which the real power resides. If one takes the Hobbesian view that the state of nature is one of anarchy in which there will always be conflict, then war is inevitable in a world system with no sovereign. Continuing with the idea of game theory, then it would be foolish for any individual state, operating in a world system with no certain guarantees of safety or security, to not prepare or consider war. To answer the question Is it sensible to talk about the causes of war, as opposed to the causes of wars?, we therefore must conclude whether these factors outlined above can conclusively describe and predict the outbreak of war. It is only
7 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-03/20/content_6553117.htm 8 Immanual Kant - Perpetual Peace 9 Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Volume 25, Number 4, November 2000 , pp. 273-297(25) 10 Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace Author(s): Christopher Layne Reviewed work(s): Source: International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 5-49 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539195 .

Harry Hurd

sensible to discuss the causes of war or wars if their is the possibility of affecting the prominence of war in the future. Clearly as outlined above, there are factors that contribute to, and have contributed to, all conflicts that have and will taken place. Human nature dictates that game theory and a universal distrust and desire to advance our own lot will lead to conflicts, yet is this useful as a theory to mitigate future conflict? It may simply be too broad to be useful. It is evident that in any conflict there are specific events which can be the straw that broke the camels back. I would argue that it is sensible to discuss both the cause of war and wars if we truly want to limit the outbreak of future war. It is necessary to understand the basic human traits that can lead to a possibility of war, yet at the same time if we did not analyse specific issues to individual wars; whether it be natural resources, ethnic tensions, religion; or any other of the multitude of factors, then we would be in danger of focusing too generally, and thus missing the immediate precursors. Thus it is sensible to talk of both the cause of war and wars; to do otherwise would be to either focus too broadly on general human traits and ignore and not learn from the specific events leading to war; or too focus to specifically and disregard the root causes of those specific events. The two are not mutually exclusive.