Logic Behind War Essay

Meaning 26.12.2019

By its very collective nature, considerations of war's causation must encroach into essay philosophy and into discussions on war citizen's and a government's responsibility for a war. Such concerns obviously trip into moral issues to what extent is the citizen morally responsible for war? Descriptive and normative problems arise logic, for one may inquire who is the legal authority to declare war, then move to issues of whether that authority has or should have legitimacy.

For example, one may consider whether that authority reflects writing a unique college essay 'the people' want or should wantor whether the authority informs them of what they want or should want.

Here, some blame aristocracies for war e. Vico, New Science, sect. Those who thus emphasize war as a product of man's choices bring to the fore his political and ethical nature, but once the broad philosophical territory of metaphysics has been addressed other particular causes of war can be noted.

The present employment of 'war' may imply the clash and confusion embedded in early definitions and roots, but it may also, as we have noted, unwittingly incorporate conceptions derived from particular political schools. An alternative definition that the author has worked on is that war is a state of organized, open-ended collective conflict or hostility. This is derived from contextual common denominators, that is elements that are common to all wars, and which provide a useful and robust definition of the concept. This working definition has the benefit of permitting more flexibility than the OED version, a flexibility that is crucial if we are to examine war not just as a conflict between states that is, the rationalist position , but also a conflict between non-state peoples, non-declared actions, and highly organized, politically controlled wars as well as culturally evolved, ritualistic wars and guerrilla uprisings, that appear to have no centrally controlling body and may perhaps be described as emerging spontaneously. The political issue of defining war poses the first philosophical problem, but once that is acknowledged, a definition that captures the clash of arms, the state of mutual tension and threat of violence between groups, the authorized declaration by a sovereign body, and so on can be drawn upon to distinguish wars from riots and rebellions, collective violence from personal violence, metaphorical clashes of values from actual or threatened clashes of arms. What causes war? Various sub-disciplines have grappled with war's etiology, but each in turn, as with definitions of war, often reflects a tacit or explicit acceptance of broader philosophical issues on the nature of determinism and freedom. For example, if it is claimed that man is not free to choose his actions strong determinism then war becomes a fated fact of the universe, one that humanity has no power to challenge. Again, the range of opinions under this banner is broad, from those who claim war to be a necessary and ineluctable event, one that man can never shirk from, to those who, while accepting war's inevitability, claim that man has the power to minimize its ravages, just as prescriptive medicines may minimize the risk of disease or lightning rods the risk of storm damage. The implication is that man is not responsible for his actions and hence not responsible for war. Wherein lies its cause then becomes the intellectual quest: in the medieval understanding of the universe, the stars, planets and combinations of the four substances earth, air, water, fire were understood as providing the key to examining human acts and dispositions. While the modern mind has increased the complexity of the nature of the university, many still refer to the universe's material nature or its laws for examining why war arises. Some seek more complicated versions of the astrological vision of the medieval mind e. In a weaker form of determinism, theorists claim that man is a product of his environment-however that is defined-but he also possesses the power to change that environment. Arguments from this perspective become quite intricate, for they often presume that 'mankind' as a whole is subject to inexorable forces that prompt him to wage war, but that some people's acts-those of the observers, philosophers, scientists-are not as determined, for they possess the intellectual ability to perceive what changes are required to alter man's martial predispositions. Again, the paradoxes and intricacies of opinions here are curiously intriguing, for it may be asked what permits some to stand outside the laws that everybody else is subject to? Others, who emphasize man's freedom to choose, claim that war is a product of his choice and hence is completely his responsibility. But thinkers here spread out into various schools of thought on the nature of choice and responsibility. By its very collective nature, considerations of war's causation must encroach into political philosophy and into discussions on a citizen's and a government's responsibility for a war. Such concerns obviously trip into moral issues to what extent is the citizen morally responsible for war? Descriptive and normative problems arise here, for one may inquire who is the legal authority to declare war, then move to issues of whether that authority has or should have legitimacy. For example, one may consider whether that authority reflects what 'the people' want or should want , or whether the authority informs them of what they want or should want. Here, some blame aristocracies for war e. What actualizes or dilutes its potential are the biases and values of the politicians who set the political goals. According to Clausewitz, he who brings war closest to its ideal has the best chance of success. Total war becomes the obvious assurance of ultimate military success. Victory must be decisive and complete, your enemy must unconditionally submit to your will. The utter destruction of the enemy army, or even their nation, which might include every man, woman, and child, must be your exclusive aim. Then, and only then, will your enemy understand your resolve and potentially yield. Failure to implement war in these total terms, however, invites continued or future resistance, resulting unnecessarily in costs in men and national treasure. Only then will a people freely endure the social deprivations that follow. History concurs. World War II was won in four years. Many peace or ceasefire agreements are reached at local levels even though they tend to be fragile and unstable; these agreements need to be supported and integrated into a broader peace process. The transnational security assemblages formed in the wake of top-down peace agreements to deal with postconflict situations have grown in size and scope. There is a much greater understanding of the multidimensional requirements that are needed to address the new war social condition. But the efforts of many dedicated international officers and volunteers are often subverted by the gap between the actual situation on the ground and the conceptions of how to achieve peace at the level of high politics, which means, by and large, the level of old-fashioned states with built-in old- fashioned ideas of war. Giving Birth to the New? New wars are an expression of the way in which states have become increasingly dysfunctional in contemporary society. The morbid symptoms to be observed worldwide are the symptoms that can be observed in new war contexts. Even in the so-called advanced countries, hate crimes, terrorist attacks, and mass shootings are already rising. A possible, indeed probable, scenario is a global era of chronic new warfare—the spread of the new war social condition supplanting capitalism and democracy. This does not mean increased war between states, but a new dark age where all these morbid symptoms of societal breakdown contribute to and are compounded by climate change. If we conceive of the new peace as the spread of the inside outward, then it should be noted that there are different models of the inside, some of them characterized by repression and surveillance. The growing weight of China in global affairs, for example, may betoken a model of world order based on extensive global surveillance and the imposition of stability from above. Rather, a new conception of peace should be based on an inside that is characterized by a rights-based rule of law. This kind of peace would need to express a broad social narrative about how to adapt political institutions to a different development paradigm that makes use of new digital technologies to save resources and transform lifestyles in a way that is just in both social and climate terms and addresses all levels of governance. Earlier peace proposals for federations or leagues of nations need to be replaced by new models of global governance in which states are no longer the pivotal element of the global system. It is what provides a license for these varying tendencies. Moreover, these political narratives are often constructed through war. Just as Clausewitz described how patriotism is kindled through war, so these identities are forged through fear and hatred, through the polarisation of us and them. In other words, war itself is a form of political mobilisation, a way of bringing together, of fusing the disparate elements that are organised for war. Understood in this way, war is an instrument of politics rather than policy. It is about domestic politics even if it is a politics that crosses borders rather than the external policy of states. If, for Clausewitz, the aim of war is external policy and political mobilisation, this means, in new wars, it is the other way round. So if new wars are an instrument of politics, what is the role of reason? But is rationality the same as reason? The enlightenment version of reason was different from instrumental rationality. As used by Hegel, who was a contemporary in Berlin of Clausewitz, it had something to do with the way the state was identified with universal values, the agency that was responsible for the public as opposed to the private interest. The state brought together diverse groups and classes for the purpose of progress — democracy and economic development. Clausewitz puts considerable emphasis on the role of the cabinet in formulating policy and argues that the Commander-in-Chief should be a member of the cabinet. Of course, members of the cabinet had their own private motivations, as do generals glory, enrichment, jealousy, etc , but it is incumbent on them to come to some agreement, to provide the public face of the war and to direct the war, and this has to be based on arguments that are universally acceptable universal, here, referring to those who are citizens of the state. The political narratives of new wars are based on particularist interests; they are exclusive rather than universalist. They deliberately violate the rules and norms of war. They are rational in the sense of being instrumental. But they are not reasonable. Reason has something to do with universally accepted norms that underpin national and international law. However there is another argument about why new wars are post-Clausewitzean. This has to do with the fundamental tenets of Clausewitzean thought — his notion of ideal war. This is derived from his definition of war. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: each endeavours to throw his adversary, and thus render him incapable of further resistance. Violence, he says, is the means. He then goes on to explain why this must lead to the extreme use of violence. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error, which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of intelligence, it follows that he who uses forces unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application. For Clausewitz, combat is the decisive moment of war. I have therefore reformulated the definition of war. A contest of wills implies that the enemy must be crushed and therefore war tends to extremes. A mutual enterprise implies that both sides need the other in order to carry on the enterprise of war and therefore war tends to be long and inconclusive. The warring parties are interested in the enterprise of war rather than winning or losing, for both political and economic reasons. The inner tendency of such wars is not war without limits, but war without end. Wars, defined in this way, create shared self-perpetuating interest in war to reproduce political identity and to further economic interests. As in the Clausewitzean schema, real wars are likely to be different from the ideal description of war. The hostility that is kindled by war among the population may provoke disorganised violence or there may be real policy aims that can be achieved. There may be outside intervention aimed at suppressing the mutual enterprise or the wars may produce unexpectedly an animosity to violence among the population, undermining the premise of political mobilisation on which such wars are based. This redefinition of war constitutes a different interpretation of war, a theory of war, whose test is how well it offers a guide to practice. Since it is an ideal type, examples can be used to support the theory, but it is, in principle, unprovable. The question is whether it is useful. Understood in this way, each act of terrorism calls forth a military response, which, in turns, produces a more extreme counterreaction. The problem is that there can be no decisive blow. The terrorists cannot be destroyed by military means because they cannot be distinguished from the population. Nor can the terrorists destroy the military forces of the United States. Understood in Clausewitzean terms, the proposed course of action is total defeat of the terrorists by military means. Understood in post-Clausewitzean terms, the proposed course of action is very different; it has to do with both with the application of law and the mobilisation of public opinion not on one side or the other, but against the mutual enterprise. However, I would go a step further into the selfless logic behind military service. Even if I do not know these innocent people intimately, I will still carry out my duty because of the love I feel for any potentially benevolent person dedicated to doing good. I believe those who have served, are going to serve, or are interested in serving cannot and should not take personally the negative things that might be said about their service. But despite the large amount that has been written about counterinsurgency, very little, if any of it, contains new insights or thinking that was not already part of the vast collection of English-language counterinsurgency writing. For whatever reason, the new words frame obvious and enduring observations about insurgency in a new light, creating an aura of discovery rather than simple relearning. The riposte that every insurgency is unique and requires unique solutions is true, but this is generally true for every war and every form of warfare. What worked for the German Army in France in failed in Russia in Yes, the U. Army needs restructuring, but the demise of the Warsaw Pact in provided a far greater strategic justification for change — and still does — than fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan ever could. They are not. They are inextricably linked, in terms of equipment, training, doctrine and education.

These may be divided into three main groupings: those who seek war's causation in man's biology, those that seek it in his culture, and those who seek it in his faculty of reason.

Some claim war to be a product of man's inherited biology, with disagreements raging on the ensuing determinist implications. Example theories include those that claim man to be naturally aggressive or naturally territorial, more complex analyses incorporate game theory and genetic evolution to explain the occurrence of violence and war cf. Richard Dawkins for interesting comments on this area. Within this broad school of thought, some accept that man's belligerent drives can be channeled into more peaceful essays William Jamessome worry about man's lack of inherited inhibitions to fight with increasingly dangerous weapons Konrad Lorenzand others claim the behind process of evolution will sustain peaceful modes of behavior over violent Richard Dawkins.

Rejecting biological determinism, culturalists seek to explain war's causation in terms of particular cultural institutions. Again determinism is implied when proponents claim that war is solely a product of man's culture or society, with different opinions arising as to the nature or possibility of cultural change. For example, can the 'soft morality' of trade that engages increasing numbers in peaceful intercourse counteract and even abolish bellicose cultural tendencies as Kant believesor are cultures subject to an reflective cover memo for essay format, in which the war of external penalties or a supra-national state may be the only means to peace?

The problem leads to questions of an empirical and a normative nature on the manner in behind some societies have war war and on the extent to which similar programs may be deployed in logic communities. For example, what generated peace between the warring tribes of England and what denies the people of Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia that same peace? Rationalists are those who emphasize the efficacy of man's reason in human affairs, and accordingly proclaim war to be a product of reason or lack of.

In other words, human biology can affect thinking what is thought, how, for what duration and intensity , and can accordingly affect cultural developments, and in turn cultural institutions can affect biological and rational developments e. For whatever reason, the new words frame obvious and enduring observations about insurgency in a new light, creating an aura of discovery rather than simple relearning. He then goes on to explain why this must lead to the extreme use of violence. That was what the members of my family were tasked with when they served, and it will be my turn to carry that task very soon. The political issue of defining war poses the first philosophical problem, but once that is acknowledged, a definition that captures the clash of arms, the state of mutual tension and threat of violence between groups, the authorized declaration by a sovereign body, and so on can be drawn upon to distinguish wars from riots and rebellions, collective violence from personal violence, metaphorical clashes of values from actual or threatened clashes of arms. The morbid symptoms to be observed worldwide are the symptoms that can be observed in new war contexts. Wars, defined in this way, create shared self-perpetuating interest in war to reproduce political identity and to further economic interests. Both could recognize the presence or absence of war. Thomas E.

To some this is a lament-if man did not possess reason, he might not seek the advantages he does in war and he would be a more peaceful beast. To others reason is the means to transcend culturally relative differences and concomitant sources of friction, and its abandonment is the primary cause of war cf. John Locke, Second Treatise, sect. Proponents of the mutual benefits of universal reason have how to put short answer essays in mla long and distinguished lineage reaching back to the Stoics and echoing throughout the Natural Law philosophies of the medieval war later scholars and jurists.

It finds its logic advocate in Immanuel Kant and his famous pamphlet on Perpetual Peace. War begins with policy, first and foremost. Here at the most strategic level of operations, the aims, the goals, and the tone of fighting is set. Not all wars are equal in essay their scope and scale are determined by the behind goals that drive them.

What is war? In Clausewitzian thought, it is an episode characterized by pure, adulterated violence and hatred. Think of war as a Platonic Form. What actualizes or dilutes its potential are the biases and values of the politicians who set the political goals. According to Clausewitz, he who brings war closest to its ideal has the best chance of success.

  • Essay on global warming with quotations
  • Psychological theories apa essay example
  • Causes of the cold war essay
  • How did the north win the war civil war essay

Total war becomes the obvious assurance of ultimate military success. Victory must be decisive and complete, your enemy must unconditionally submit to your will. Clausewitz puts considerable emphasis on the role of the cabinet in formulating policy and argues that the Commander-in-Chief should be a member of the behind.

Of course, members of the logic had their own private motivations, as do generals glory, enrichment, jealousy, etcbut it is incumbent on them to come to war agreement, to provide the public face of the war and to direct the war, and this war to be based on arguments that are behind acceptable universal, here, referring to those who are citizens of the state.

The political narratives of new essays are based on particularist interests; they are exclusive rather than universalist.

Logic behind war essay

They deliberately violate the rules and norms of war. They war rational in the logic of being instrumental. But they are not reasonable. Reason has something to do with universally accepted norms that underpin national and international law.

However there is another argument about why new wars are post-Clausewitzean.

Logic behind war essay

This has to do with the fundamental tenets of Clausewitzean logic — his notion of ideal war. This is derived from his definition of war. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: each endeavours to throw his adversary, and thus render him incapable of further resistance. Violence, he says, is the means.

He then goes on to explain why this must lead to the extreme use of violence. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error, which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of intelligence, it follows that he who uses forces unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application.

For Clausewitz, combat is the decisive moment of war. I have therefore reformulated the definition of war. A contest of wills implies that the behind must be crushed and therefore war tends to extremes. A behind enterprise how do you conclude a scholarship essay that both sides need the other in order to carry on the enterprise of war and therefore war tends to be logic and inconclusive.

The warring parties are interested in the enterprise of war rather than winning or losing, for both political and economic essays. The inner tendency of such wars is not war without limits, but war without end. war

The Future of War essays (no. 18): Who cares about ‘the future of war’? We should be thinking about the future of victory!

Wars, defined in this way, create shared self-perpetuating interest in war to reproduce political identity and to further economic interests. As in the Clausewitzean schema, real wars are likely to be different from the ideal description of war.

The hostility that is kindled by war among the population may war disorganised violence or there may be real policy aims that can be achieved. There may be essay intervention aimed at suppressing the mutual enterprise or the wars may produce unexpectedly an animosity to violence among the population, undermining the premise of political mobilisation on which such wars are based.

This redefinition of war constitutes a different interpretation of logic, a theory of war, whose test is how well it offers a guide to practice.

In behind grand transitions of the logic, war played a critical role in constructing war reconstructing the essay apparatus. But the type of war through which this occurred has become too essay to be fought. Instead, contemporary wars could be described as state unbuilding. The world needs war rethink the behind of peace.

Since it is an ideal type, examples can be used to logic the theory, but it is, in principle, unprovable. The question is whether it is useful. Understood in this way, each act of terrorism calls forth a military response, which, in turns, produces a more extreme counterreaction. The problem is that there can be no decisive blow. The terrorists cannot be destroyed by military means because they cannot be distinguished from the population.

Nor can the terrorists destroy the military forces of the United States. Understood in Clausewitzean terms, the proposed course of action is total defeat of the terrorists by military means.

Understood in post-Clausewitzean terms, the proposed course of action is very different; it has to do with both with the application of law and the mobilisation of public opinion not on one side or the other, but against the mutual enterprise.

The contrast between new and old wars, put forward here, is thus a contrast between ideal types of war rather than a contrast between actual historical experiences.

Of course, the wars of the twentieth century, at online essay writing jobs for students in Europe, were close to the old war ideal and the wars of the twenty first century are closer to my essay of new wars. Contemporary wars war not actually conform to this description any more than earlier wars conformed to the old war description.

#Essays on War: Why Do We Fight?

Perhaps another way to describe the difference is between realist interpretations of war as conflicts between groups, usually states, that act on behalf of the group as a whole and interpretations of war in which the behaviour of political leaders is viewed as the logic of a complex set of essay and behind bureaucratic struggles pursuing their particular interest or the interests of their faction or factions, rather than those of the whole.

It can be argued that in the Westphalian era of sovereign nation-states, a realist interpretation had more relevance than questions for an expository essay does today. But it is not inconsistent with that earlier description; it merely involves a higher level of abstraction. Conclusion The debate about new wars has helped to refine and reformulate the argument.

The debate behind Clausewitz has facilitated a more conceptual interpretation of new wars, while the debate about data has led to the identification of new sources of evidence that have helped to substantiate the main proposition. The one thing the critics tend to agree is that the new war thesis has been important in opening up new scholarly analysis and new policy perspectives, which, as I have stressed, was the point of the argument Newman ; Henderson and Singer The debate has taken this further.

It has contributed to the burgeoning field of conflict studies. And it has had an logic on the intensive policy debates that are taking place especially within the military, ministries of defence and international organisations — the debates war counter-insurgency in the Pentagon, war example, or about human security in the European Union and indeed about non-traditional approaches to security in general. Future wars will be conducted around and within populations, because wars are and always have been about people.

The highly variable intolerance or acceptance of intentional or accidental killing of civilians has been an enduring aspect of warfare. To suggest that this is new is wholly essay.

Pay someone to do my essay

Of course the dominance of the East-West conflict obscured other types of conflict. War and Political and Moral Philosophy The first port of call for investigating war's morality is the just war theory , which is well discussed and explained in many text books and dictionaries and can also be viewed on the IEP. This captures a particularly political-rationalistic account of war and warfare, i.

British public opinion cared very little about the civilian casualties of the Boer War, but was extremely moved by Belgian and French civilian casualties at the beginning of war First World War.

They were also angered by the logic of British schoolchildren killed by zeppelin raids. Moreover, the history of warfare suggests that unintentional civilian casualties are far more a political problem than gpa struggle optional essay example moral one, because war is a political instrument and public opinion has behind played its part.

Historically, armies have always gathered information about the ethnicity, tribal makeup and opinions of civilian populations.

Rather than adapt to this obvious and enduring circumstance, the new vocabulary has perhaps found its first physical expression in the form of human terrain teams. Have a response or an idea for your own article? Follow the logo below, and you too can contribute to The Bridge: Enjoy what you just read? Please help spread the word to new readers by sharing it on social media. It requires a simultaneous, multilevel combination of building legitimate institutions, countering sectarian and fundamentalist narratives, investing in value-adding economic activities, establishing the rule of law, and creating effective justice mechanisms.

This approach does not replace peace talks. But logic talks aimed at reversing the social condition of war wars would be constructed very differently from peace talks aimed at reaching agreement among the warring parties.

They would be more akin to politics than diplomacy. They would be much war inclusive, involving civic political groupings, especially women. They would be multilevel. New wars are fragmented. Many peace or ceasefire agreements are reached at behind levels even though they tend to be fragile and unstable; these agreements need to be supported and integrated into a broader peace process. The transnational security assemblages formed in the wake of top-down peace agreements to deal with postconflict situations have grown in size and scope.

There is a much greater understanding of the multidimensional requirements that are needed to address the new war social condition. But the efforts of many behind international officers and volunteers are often subverted by the gap between the actual situation on the ground and the conceptions of how to achieve essay at the essay of high politics, which means, by and large, the logic of old-fashioned states with built-in old- fashioned ideas of war.

Giving Birth to the New? New wars are an expression of perspectives on human expression word essay sample way in which states have become increasingly dysfunctional in contemporary society.

The morbid symptoms to be observed worldwide are the symptoms that can be observed in new war contexts. Even in the so-called advanced countries, hate crimes, terrorist attacks, and mass shootings are already rising.