War Occurs Because There Is Nothing to Prevent It - Essay Example

War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it Introduction The topic for this paper is “War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it”. Since the dawn of the world, humanity has been at war. Peoples, divided along ethnic, communal or the modern nation state lines have been fighting each other in the name of religion, country or ethnic divisions. We have had wars fought between countries (Korean War), groupings of nations (World War I and II), between nations and non-state actors (War on Terror). Each of these classifications of war has been described as First generation to Fourth generation warfare. The argument of this paper is that according to the realist theory of international relations, War happens because individuals and nation states have imperfections built into them and thus there is always a need for security, identity and survival. The concept of war as a “continuation of politics by other means” as laid out by Clausewitz has proved to be the norm rather than the exception if the 20th century is an indication. This premise that the world is governed by realism rather than idealism is laid out in the next sections. They flow from the topic of this essay and from the realist perspective that ties into it. War occurs because of inherent instability in the world order The argument of this paper is essentially derived from Kenneth Waltz’s seminal work Man, the State, and War. Waltz argued that under anarchy, without a supranational authority to make and enforce law, "war occurs because there is nothing to prevent it. . . . Among states as among men there is no automatic adjustment of interests. In the absence of a supreme authority there is then the constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force." Thus this view of war is that anarchy is the characteristic of the international system and hence force is necessary to obtain strategic objectives of nation states. This was the major motivation for several wars in this century. According to the realist theory, the international system operates on checks and balances method that is flawed to a certain extent given the ethnic and cultural dissimilarities between the peoples of the world. Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” argues that the fault lines between civilizations lead to war. This has proved in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks against the US. Other commentators like Robert Kagan have pointed to the resurgence of Russia and the recent conflict in the Caucasus between Russia and Georgia as an example of how “history returns” whenever certain nations fall from pre-eminence and then assert themselves to regain the lost glory. In his recent work, “The Return of History and the End of dreams”, Keegan forcefully makes the point about how the 21st century might look like when it comes to international relations. The realist perspective seems a good prism to look at the complex dynamics shaping war. This can be seen from the fact that in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Collapse of Communism, the then US president George Bush Sr. made a case for a “New World Order” and proclaimed that “we are at the threshold of a new era that has been dreamed by generations of men but has always eluded them”. However, the euphoria was short lived as Iraq, under Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and subsequently this led to American intervention and the first Gulf war. Thus, we have history repeating itself in 2008 when Russia asserted itself in South Ossetia. Some of the reasons why war happens are that nations might want to “prevent” potential enemy nations from acquiring significant capabilities that might threaten the security of the host nation. There is also the concept of the “pre-emptive” war (laid out in the National Security Strategy of 2002 by the US) that seeks to eliminate threats not only preventively but also ensure that other nations do not acquire them as well. Though this concept of war has come in for criticism, it was the rationale behind the Iraq War where the US acted in a way so as to ensure that threats are eliminated before they arise as such. War for Interest of self above everything else The Realist perspective of war is that nations are guided by their self interest and any moral considerations are secondary and nations must wage war to secure their borders, ensure territorial integrity, and recover lost territory and also to intervene for humanitarian causes. This is a rehash of the notion prevalent in the early 20th century epitomized by the slogan “My country, right or wrong”. In recent times, the US has been at the forefront of many wars and these have been fought over a variety of issues. As we shall see in the next sections, they have been preventive and pre-emptive causes for war. There have been wars for humanitarian reasons – an example oft this has been the intervention of the US in the Balkans in the 1990’s. There have been several adherents to the realist theory of international relations, prominent among them being Henry Kissinger, Zbignew Brezenski and George Keegan. Some commentators have described this phenomenon as realpolitik in the affairs of countries where national interest is paramount and other considerations are deemed to be the by-product of the “just war”. This has given rise to phrases like “collateral damage” that is often used by the media to describe non-combatant casualties that occur as a result of war. However, there has been much debate over these deaths and sometimes have led critics to question the notion of a “clinical” or “surgical” strike capabilities brought upon by the next generation of war machinery. Conclusion In conclusion, there have been “pivotal” moments in the history of the world whenever there was a chance for peace and stability. For instance, the formation of the United Nations after World War II was with the intention of regulating the affairs of the nations and ensuring that another war of that magnitude does not break out. But, this did not prevent the Cold War that gave rise to several “proxy” conflicts. As described in the previous sections, the first Iraq War and the current war in Iraq as well as the war on terror have happened at times when the world was looking forward to stable peace. Thus, the realist perspective of war seems to have won the ideological battle as far as the reasons for war are concerned. Though it is not the intention of this essay to dismiss the aspirations for peace that governs our daily lives, the opportunities presented by the pivotal moments have always been squandered given the inherently flawed international structure that we have. Thus, we can only hope for the “lofty idealism” to prevail in a pragmatic world and we see less of conflict. Sources Huntington, Samuel. 1991, The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of the World, Penguin, London. pp. 150-55 Fukuyama, Francis. 1991, The End of History and the Last man, Penguin, London. pp 15-16 Kenneth Waltz. 1959, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, New York, Columbia University Press, p. 188. Kagan, Robert. 2008, The Return of History and the End of Dreams, New York, Alfred P Knopf. pp. 26-28 Clausewitz, Carl von. 1830, On War, p. 18 Read More