War Is A Human Endeavor

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

War is the fuel that ignites chaos, death and destruction throughout the world. Novelist Michael Marshall wisely stated in his book Blood of Angels, “There has been no war without atrocity. War is atrocity, pure and simple: only greed, nationalism and faith help us pretend otherwise.” The quotes anti-war stance accurately details wars horrific nature and the unjust circumstances endured by the innocent. Furthermore, it reflects on the idea that patriotism blinds people and significantly contributes to men feeling obliged to join the fight. Finally, it refers to the lust for power and wealth that particular countries possess and how it drives them to make barbaric decisions.

Most theories offered on the causes of war are done through the lens of historians; however, this essay uses the perspective of political scientists. The new lens allows for readers to look information in a new dynamic. Figure I lays out of the steps a hostilities must take to expand into war. Vasquez states that more than one step from each area is required to bring about combat (Vasquez). Vasquez defines a world war as:

War unfortunately still exists in the modern world and even though the characteristics of this human activity change from time to time, war is not going away for the foreseeable future. This reality makes understanding what war is and how its underlying features will be expressed in our present times, as well as the near future, a critical endeavor for constant study. One reason for this is that whatever the current understanding of war is, at any given time, effects the ways in which parties involved create and execute their strategies for carrying it out. Whether this be for the hopes of a quick end to violence from a moral humanitarian perspective or the desire for a decisive victory in order to minimalize resource expenditure, it remains necessary to have an appropriate strategy that works within the context of what war is. In their books The Nature of War in the Information Age and The Utility of Force, David Lonsdale and Rupert Smith, respectively, present useful arguments for helping to understand just that, what war is and is not in the modern world.

Clausewitz said that war is more than a chameleon, that simply changes its appearance as its environment changes. War being is more than a true chameleon; it is actually a paradoxical trinity that, in short, is made up of primordial violence, chance, and reason with these three variables constantly in tension with each other. The example of the Iran-Iraq war underlines that war has some consequences on domestic policy. Indeed, this war allowed to the Islamic Republic to increase its hold on the Iranian society by legitimating the

Clausewitz developed many theories on the conduct of war, but he is perhaps best known for his attempt to describe the nature of war. Clausewitz understood the importance of history and explained, “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” While most theorists can find some common ground on the

One of the perennial realities of human existence is war. From the earliest recorded events of human history all the way through to modern times, human communities have engaged in armed conflict as a method of dispute resolution. While war has been a constant part of the human experience, there has also been a tendency within virtually all human civilisations to limit the extent of war and the methods by which warfare may be conducted.(1) In Western civilisation, this limitation on warfare has taken shape as an effort to limit both the determination of when war is appropriate and the means used in battle.(2) Within the Western moral, legal, and political arena, the connected

From ideal war, Clausewitz also discussed about the nature of real war. Clausewitz absolute war only means war as an abstraction, ‘war on paper’. Most real events are driven by incomprehensible forces like chance, emotion, bureaucratic irrationalities, and intraorganizational politics. Moreover many strategic decisions are made unconsciously, often long before the outbreak of hostilities. In explored why real war is so different from his abstract model, Clausewitz imposed that real war is constrained by the ever-present social and political context, by human nature, and by the restrictions imposed by time and space. While it’s true that war is an act of force to compel our enemies to do our will, but it is clearly much more than that. Its violence alone cannot account for our actual experience of the phenomena of war. Other modification

From Von Clausewitz, known as the Prussian military thinker with influence on the modern organizations of mass violence in the West, and Karl Marx on the economic experiments of Russia, warfare is continuance of politics with the combination of other means (). War is typically not the goal itself, but rather, it

There have been varying views as to the definition of war, while others have a broader definition to include even conflicts at home, between family circle, within and out of the immediate family; others limit the concept of war to social phenomenon which occurs only between political communities or within intellectuals. In all war according to Encarta English dictionary is “a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air or sea battles.” While many have questioned the justification of war because it elicit tremendous cruelty and suffering, others have held high that war is “a peculiar human activity, in that it can bring out some of our best traits, such as courage and self-sacrifice.” (David – 2000) The big questions are: Is there anything like just war? Or can war ever be morally justifiable? What is the relationship between human nature and war? Or is war part of human nature that is inevitable? These and many other ethical issues and questions raised by war and what some define as just war will be considered in my paper.

Clausewitz military genius is immutable. Even though his writings are almost two hundred years old, the application of Carl Von Clausewitz’ theories on war are relevant for today and in the future. Technological advancements will present unique challenges, but as long as the true nature of war remains unaffected, his paradoxical trinity will continue to provide visionary insight and value to future leaders attempting to address wars’ most difficult questions. The distinction between absolute vs. real war and his theories on the relationship between war and politics, and the concept of friction remain timeless. What we are really dealing with is another change in the character of war which Clausewitz has helped leaders deal with in the past and will again in the future.

These politics do not have to be just foreign or international politics, but also domestic politics. To achieve these objectives, Clausewitz believed in two levels of war: strategic and tactical (Echevarria, 1995). One must also remember that Clausewitz did not believe war could be down to a science, it is far too diverse and unpredictable. He was a strong believer that a theory is an explanation, not a solution. In “On War” Clausewitz states, "the primary purpose of any theory is to clarify concepts and ideas that have become confused and entangled” (Clausewitz, 1832). His theory harps on this idea that if conflict of politics reaches an emotional high, organized violence can breakout. Clausewitz’s theory today is taught with “policy” and “politics” as interchangeable components. However, Clausewitz created his theory based around a dual meaning. He believed war could lose sight of its policy aims, but war could never escape politics. On this basis, he combined three forces into one, which is referred to as ‘wondrous trinity’ (Echevarría 1995).

On War is not just a manuscript on of how to understand war; it also provides insight into what Clausewitz thought about the dynamics of human thinking. Similar to what Claxton outlined in Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind, Clausewitz believed that, “knowledge must be absorbed into the mind that it almost ceases to exist in a separate, objective way.” (Clausewitz, p147). In other words, Clausewitz believed knowledge

Traditionally, according to Clausewitzean school of thought, war is considered to be “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will”. These traditional wars, also known as “Old Wars” are generally characteristically financed by states and occur between states as a means to achieve states interests by using regular national armed forces which generally have a discernable vertical structure and hierarchy. Historically, it could be seen that these Old Wars were primarily fought because of geopolitical or ideological reasoning and the method use to finish the war would be through decisive battles where territory was gained to

As long as one can remember, war has always been prevalent in society. Whether cavemen hitting each other with clubs and rocks, to America dropping an atomic bomb on japan and killing over 100,000 people with a single press of a button, violence seems to have always been humanities go to way of solving conflict. As society evolves intellectually, one can only expect the battles to become more complex. One of the most significant times that warfare is seen to have evolved is through the Napoleonic wars and into WWl and WWll. Looking deeper into the significance of the Napoleonic wars, WWl and WWll, there is a critical influence of mass armies, technological advancements in weaponry, and the different roles played by the homefront and the battlefront.