lec3 - the causes of war Flashcards
intro - causes of war?
movie: the council of the gods
- German industrialists behind the rise of Hitler (bc rearmament and war leads to business)
- they then support the US during cold war
button: no war for oil = Iraq war 2003 + other war
is this explanation sufficient? are there other explanations?
why do we care? if war is the disease, we want to find the cause so we can cure it = idea of war as a disease we could potentially cure
‘Towards Perpetual Peace’
Kant: “A Dutch innkeeper once put this satirical inscription on his signboard, along with the picture of a graveyard. We shall not trouble to ask whether it applies to men in general, or particularly to heads of state (who can never have enough of war), or only to the philosophers who blissfully dream of perpetual peace.”
= Joke, but what is he trying to deliver? with a sign of a graveyard at the door an inn
associated with a graveyard: only peace is the peace of the death
also with sufficient alcohol
‘satirical inscription’: applies to
- men in general (violent tendency)
- heads of state (who can never have enough of war) -> is it possible to have peace when leaders constantly fight each other
- philosophers who blissfully dream of perpetual peace (-> is it a fantasy)
is the search for perpetual peace a fantasy?
how should we think about peace?
- absence of war (temporary and limitations on war)
- PERPETUAL PEACE = peace guaranteed by higher authority
how we think about peace is directly related to how we think about the causes of war
(Einstein and Freud)
Einstein (after WW1): is there a way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?
- with advance of modern science it is a matter of life and death for civilization
- how can a small clique bend the will of the majority? : otherwise peaceful people are pressed by propaganda by leaders (education, media, religion)
Freud: maybe an option is some sort of central control (League of Nations), but how suc6ful can it be without enforcement mechanism?
two things are needed:
- supreme court
- adequate executive force
(founding declaration UNESCO)
since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed
idea = if we change attitudes towards one another, we can contribute to peace
Thucydides + Thucydides trap
Peloponnesian war
“What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta”
- balance of power theory
- preventative war: Spartan power was threatened by growing power of the Athenians
Allison: book destined for war
war between China and US probably inevitable
- still need a spark
- hopes that by recognizing this we can find a way to resolve things peacefully
why is it so diff to identify the causes of war?
there are lots of types of wars:
e.g.
- total wars
- limited wars
- conventional wars
- guerilla wars
- ethnic wars
- inter-state wars
- high-tech wars
- low-tech wars
- two states
- more than two states
- coalition war
- world wars
-> is there one cause that accounts for all types of war? or do we need at each individual type of war?
-> can we really talk about a single war phenomenon?
does time matter for the causes of war? where there diff causes in C19 and C20?
historians vs political scientists
approach to explaining war
historians:
- treat every war as unique, with unique causes
- no interest in generalizations
political scientists:
- shift attention from particular wars to the general phenomenon
- look for patterns/similarities between causes of diff wars
the nature of causation (how should polsci analyze the causes of wars)
- not one determining factor but an important contributing factor
we often try to establish that there are multiple causes, but that some seem more probably or have more of a causal effect than others - distinction between causing something (e.g. war) anytime vs causing at a specific time
underlying vs immediate/proximate causes (what sparked it, e.g. assassination archduke Franz Ferdinand) vs underlying causes - scope conditions (e.g. applies only to autocracies)
- can we describe the pathway to war/create a plausible story?
(the steps) - compare and contrast alternative explanations
will be on exam
e.g. underlying causes of WW2 vs proximate causes
underlying:
- Treaty of Versailles: guilt clause + harsh reparation pushed on Germany
- depression
- rise of Hitler
- German rearmament = making German conquest possible
- policies of UK, France, Soviet Union = if they had taken action e.g. with Anschluss Austria, maybe we wouldn’t have had WW2
proximate:
- A.J.P. Taylor: Hitler as just another stateman, actions not taken by allied diplomats -> Hitler decision to invade Poland
(not all historians agree with this)
tries to put origins of WW2 at the specific moment it started
“the ONLY cause of war is anarchy”
a cause of war, but also present in all societies:
- hate and fear
- eco rivalry
- factions and ideologies
- religious differences
- cultural antipathies
- individual acts of injustice
-> but you don’t always have war, we would expect fighting within states (on larger scale than now)
-> more likely to have peace if we have state authority: international system does not have such higher authority -> no peace
-> idea of a world government to which the states should answer -> UN, but UN not powerful enough bc states wanted to keep authority
anarchy as THE CAUSE arguments for and against
for:
- wars begin bc there is no authority to stop them
- unlike domestic societies in which most govs hav a monpoly of force
- realist view: the structure of power in international relations determines the oportunities for the use of force
- rissing powrs and declingin poers often find themselves at war (power transition theory)
against
(constructivism, structuralism, liberalism)
- international society is governed by norms, agreements, and rules that mitigate conflict between states
- international anarchy does not account fo tthe importance of other causes as human nature
- does not provide a good explanation for civl wars - which seem to result from issues of identity, greed, corruption, domestic grievances
- if anarchy -> war, than why do we also have some peace?
3 levels of analysis or images we need to understand to explain war
Waltz
- individual (minds of men, human nature)
- state (internal structure of societies, e.g. liberal democracy, autocratic)
- is it the nature of the central authority of the state that determines how likely the state is to go to war? - international system (anarchy)
Waltz: do wars occur bc there is nothing that prevents states from initiating them?
structure of state system does not directly cause state A to attack state B
- perhaps state A has something state B wants
- state A’s fear of state B’s growing power
need to consider special circumstances: location, size, power, interest, type of gov, past history
different types of explanations
interstate wars:
- human nature: genetically programmed towards violence? or is it learned behaviour?
- frustration: feelingo f aggression can be channelled into harmless pursuits as sports
- misperception: misunderstanding and miscalculation can be prevented by better communications/ more accurate informatino
- group explanations: democratic states fight others but not themselves
- bargaining model: focus on political causes such as inflexibility in resolving disputes
civil wars:
- greed and grievance: eco motivations, oppressions, inequality, discrimination
Marxist analysis for cause of war
“In the final analysis the major causes of war are determined by the nature of the economy, although the immediate causes may lie or may appear to lie in another sphere, since economic causes very often enter the picture in a mediated form.”
underlying causes = economic
proximate causes can vary
Marxist analysis of peace
capitalism = USA = ruling circles, wall street, military-industrial complex
- subgroup US is pushing US state, is pushing allies
acknowledges divisions within ruling circles
peace results when war becomes bad for leading business interests
- competition between groups in ruling circles determine whether or not you will see war
no nuclear war bc:
nuclear war could lead to destruction of capitalism, thus need to control arms race
war due to perceived weakness/failure to deter
wanting a million dollar doesn’t cause people to rob banks but if it were easier to rob banks there is a higher probability of more banks being robbed
now think of this with nuclear weapons: if you have strong deterrent, no one is going to mess with you -> best security system is nuclear weapons
Trump voters: “peace through strength” = idea that if you are strong, no one is going to mess with you -> peace
= peace through armament rather than through de-armament
stability-instability paradox
nuclear weapons -> certain level of peace bc others are afraid
(less total wars)
but you also get more wars, but at a diff level
(more limited wars)
you may limit wars but you will not stop them
why the decision for X to invade Y in Year Z?
should we focus on:
- personalities of leader of country X
- nature of dispute/grievance
- X’s perceived ability to triumph over Y
- what makes year Z special (why not Z-1 or Z+1)
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
official reasons
war is always justified: to the public and to the international system
(justification/discourse is not always true, e.g. Germany WW2 said Poland attacked first)
official reasons:
- WMD/preventative war
- post-1991 revelations
- idea Iraq was building nuclear weapons, and might use them or give them to terrorists - terrorism link
“We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” - US National Security Advisor
- we don’t want them to use the nuclear weapon, we need to attack them before they attack us
CIA official: “My corner of the intelligence community produced nothing during the first year of the Bush administration that could be construed as an impetus for more aggressive action against Iraq”
but: didn’t say there was an immediate/immanent threat
others argue the official discourse is not what was the main cause: they wanted democratization
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
Bush
- easily manipulated (widely regarded as weak leader, e.g. idea that vice-president Cheney that was behind it)
- inadequacies compared to Bush Sr.
- personal revenge (idea that terrorists had tried to assassinate Bush’ father)
- groupthink: senior people behind Bush were saying the same thing + Bush didn’t really had ideas of his own
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
Gore Presidency - counterfactual
Frank Harvey thesis - what if Al Gore had won in 2000? would there still have been a war against Iraq in 2003?
Al Gore’s statements on Iraq and US power in the world not too dissimilar from Bush’s and neocons
this was also true of many of Gore’s likely senior advisers
Democrats overwhelmingly voted for war anyway
Gore voted for war in 1991 unlike other Democrats
-> if Al Gore had won, he also would have gone to war (according to a scholar, but professor doesn’t agree: they weren’t really pushing for a military regime change)
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
9/11
as underlying cause
= necessary condition
without 9/11 no willpower of the population to go into war, it would not have been imaginable without 9/11
it gave US an excuse for the war against terrorism
9/11 created conducive circumstances to push policy that would otherwise not be approved
9/11 -> democratic opposition was muted
public rage + militarization
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
neocon-ism explanation
intellectuals around Bush : spreading liberal democracy in Middle East
domino effect to create democratic middle east that will reduce terrorism threat
problems:
why still unwavering support for authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
necessary for war but insufficient to account for it?
- yet who put forward idea of invading Iraq in the first place?
- other countries were also talked about going after immediately after 9/11 -> why Iraq?
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
- special interests
- oil lobby
(Trump: US should have taken Iraq oil, war now a waste of lives and money, if we were after that we would have gotten it) - Israel Lobby
- Defense industry
Iraq was “not a classic resource war, in the sense that the US did not seize oil reseves for profit and control” rather ,the US awarded production contracts to Chiense and Russian companies
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
- oil counterfactual as necessary condition
If Iraq’s oil had magically dried up during the 1990s, would the 2003 war have happened?
- The United States would still be concerned about the threat posed by Iraq, especially in light of Saddam Hussein’s past record of aggressive behavior
If oil had never been discovered in the Persian Gulf, would the 2003 war have happened?
- This scenario alters the entire strategic context for the United States. Its interests in the Middle East would have been smaller, and the Carter Doctrine probably would not exist.
- The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and CENTCOM might not exist or would be very different.
In addition, al-Qaida might not have existed and the September 11 attacks might never have happened. - The United States would be less likely to intervene in the Persian Gulf, just as it rarely makes major interventions in Africa.
why the decision to invade Iraq 2003?
power demonstration
after 9/11 the US looks weak -> not to respond would look ridiculous, Afghanistan was not enough (it was too easy, didn’t get Bin Laden)
-> war because it could (Iraq as weak link in the axes of evil: Iraq, Iran, North Korea (originally not North Korea, but Syria, script writers removed it bc it would be 3 muslim countries)
- 9/11 threatened US hegemony and deterrence
- US feels the need to regain status and establish itself as a global power
- Achieving this means fighting and winning a war
- Likelihood of defeating Iraq very high (e.g. easier than Iran)
- Afghanistan in 2001 was insufficient to generate such a fearsome reputation
- Defeat of Saddam would serve this ‘performative’ purpose
- North Korea and Iran too difficult
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
Maersheimer:
US was responsible
Putin started the war + responsible for how it is waged
(immediate cause)
but US is underlying cause
“the United States is principally responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis. This is not to deny that Putin started the war and that he is responsible for Russia’s conduct on the battlefield. Nor is it to deny that America’s allies bear some responsibility, but they largely follow Washington’s lead on Ukraine. My key point, however, is that the United States has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and his colleagues see as an existential threat to their country—a point they have made repeatedly for many years.”
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
- three general explanations
- Putin’s worldview and imperial ambitions
- regime security considerations
- strategic response to Urkaine’s growing geopolitical allignment with the West
all 3 explanations ahve analytical and evidentiary problems
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
1. Putin’s worldview
- imperial fantasies, historical nostalgia, resentment towards the West
- driven by a sense of historic mission to rectify perceived injustices and to regather lost Russian lands
- ““Putin seems to have succumbed to his ego-driven obsession with restoring Russia’s status as a great power with its own clearly defined sphere of influence.”
- “Putin has had expansionist designs from his first days in office.”
problem with just looking at the individual reason:
- difficult to explain the timing of the attack: why not during Trump’s first term? (he had a friend in the white house -> NATO/US less of a threat)
*possible explanation: some point prior to 2022 he lost touch with reality (perhaps during covid: effect of isolation) - massive scope of attack in 2022 does not fit previous pattern of more modest military interventions
- too much focused on one person as opposed to broader milieu: individuals always work within limits set by external constraints and incentives
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
- regime preservation
idea that if Ukraine was democratizing and eco succesful, it provides model for other Russians to try to emulate
need to eliminate democracy in Ukraine bc we don’t wnat to give our own people the idea of democracy
- driven by domestic political factors and considerations
- democracy contagion: Kremlin was concerned that a democratizing Ukraine could serve as an inspiration for Russians to rise up against the regime
- attempts to deflect the Russian population’s attention away from growing internal problems
BUT:
- Putin maintained high popularity ratings -> regime was not insecure?
- risk of pro-democracy spillover from Ukraine into Russia was low:
- Long track record of silencing voices of liberal dissent through a combination of preventive repression, information control, and co-optation
- Most Russians did not view Ukraine as a role model to emulate
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
- balancing the West
(similar to Mearsheimer’s explanation)
- response to perceived aggressive actions by the West, specifically prospect of entry of Ukraine into NATO (which was not remotely likely/possible)
- any other great power when confronted with the same circumstances would have acted int he same or a similar manner
- Russia ostensibly took similar action in Georgia in 2008 to derail NATO membership
BUT: structural argument probs insufficient
- Available evidence suggests that Moscow is guided not just by defensive considerations, but also by offensive aims and objectives
- Intent to enforce a regime change in Kyiv and occupy portions of eastern, southern, and central Ukraine over longer-term
- Self-defeating.
- The war has reinforced Ukraine’s desire and urgency to join Euro-Atlantic institutions in general and NATO in particular
- War has reinvigorated NATO, including stronger presence in E. Europe
- Russia’s military actions have provoked concerns on the part of other neighboring states, pushing them to build closer ties with the Western alliance (The most obvious example is the NATO accession of Finland and Sweden)
point 3: Russia didn’t know this
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
- other factors
belief in easy military victory over Ukraine
belief in lack of Western response: bc that was the case in earlier cases, e.g. Ukraine 2014
- nobody said after Ukraine 2014: if you do this again we will intervene militarily (they did threaten with eco sanctions, but this was apparently not sufficient)
why the decision to invade Ukraine in 2022?
All three perspectives shed light on the causes of Russia’s attack on Ukraine.
No single reason is able to provide a fully convincing explanation
Need to integrate elements of each (systemic, domestic and individual-level factors) rather than focus entirely on one set of factors
However, merely providing a laundry list of factors is insufficient
conclusion
- Each war may be a unique event
- BUT … similarities and patterns also observable
- Classification in groups: human nature, misperception, the nature of states, structure of the international system
- Distinction between underlying and immediate/proximate causes
- Interest in determining causes of war is linked to desire to prevent war (identify symptoms to cure the disease)
- Attempting to identify a single cause for a single war is difficult, attempting to identify a single cause for all wars is FUTILE (basically impossible, a fool’s errant)
Q&A
do leaders use proximate causes as justifications?
- they can also use structural causes, but do often emphasize the spark
- also sometimes point to longer run-up
- you need some excuse why now is the time to go to war
