POLS 374 Foundations of Global Politics

Lecture: People and War

2

People and War

WAR IS OVERDETERMINED.

3

People and War Context: Some theories of international

relations assert that wars are basically inevitable, that they cannot be avoided. Realism, for example, tells us that wars are the product of an international system that pushed all states to behave in certain ways towards other states, and, while this doesn’t result in constant war, it does means that a resort to international violence is always just under the surface.

4

People and War Context: In this realist view, therefore, no one is

to blame for war: it is, instead, a fact of (international) life. To think that war can be avoided or eliminated is just wishful thinking. It’s naïve. Even worse, it’s dangerous, because all responsible national leaders—and all citizens—have to be prepared to engage in war whenever the interests of the country are threatened. In this view, it is irresponsible to avoid war.

5

People and War The authors, of course, disagree with realist

view. They don’t necessarily discount the “realist” understanding of the world, but they argue that it certainly doesn’t explain all wars.

In this sense, they also reject the assumption that no one is to blame for war: in their view, wars are not accidental, nor are they necessarily inevitable. And some are “unnecessary.” Policy makers, therefore, need to be held accountable.

6

People and War

What is war? Authors’ definition

“When we speak of war, we mean the deliberate applications of organized violence by one or more states. ‘Deliberate’ and ‘organized’ mean that this activity is planned, rehearsed, and directed. ‘Violence’ means to inflict harm, and it may be acute or structural. ‘Acute violence’ refers to agents applying direct physical means (guns, bombs, knives, fists, machetes, fire, etc.) to hurt damage, and destroy people and property. This is the conventional view of war as fighting. The requirement that states or state agents direct and apply violence distinguishes war from other violent acts that might be similarly destructive, such as riots; be similarly organized, such as gang conflicts; or kill lots of people, such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attacks. None on this list qualifies as war under our definition, because none is a state project.”

7

People and War

What is war?

“Terrorist” bombings, riots, and violent demonstrations are not war.

8

People and WarWhat is war? “Wars are also fought via the manipulation of structures. Examples of ‘structural violence’ include regimes such as boycotts (refusals to buy

from) and embargoes (refusals to sell to), both key elements of ‘economic sanctions.” We extend this understanding to include ‘structural adjustment’ policies, such as IMF demands that debtor nations give a higher priority to foreign lenders than to domestic needs.”

9

People and WarWhat is war?

Sometimes war is not so clear …

10

People and War Some key points to consider:

First, in the authors’ definition, the role of the state is critical: wars must be projects of the state, otherwise, they are not wars.

On the surface, this may seem to be an arbitrary distinction, but the intent is fairly clear: the authors are suggesting that, while other acts of violence might be equally destructive and reprehensible, organized and deliberate violence committed by states is analytically distinct from organized and deliberate violence committed by other types of actors.

11

People and War Some key points to consider:

What I mean by analytically distinct is that the factors that shape the decisions of states are usually different from the factors that shape the decisions of non-state actors; moreover, the implications of state violence are different from organized and deliberate violence carried out by non-state actors. This is not to say that one is more justified than another. Instead, it simply means that, to understand either, we need to recognize their differences.

12

People and War Some key points to consider:

Second, the authors tell us that wars are not limited to “international” conflicts, but can be internally directed. That is, organized and deliberate violence committed by states can be directed towards the state’s own population, as in Hussein’s attacks against the Kurdish population in his country.

13

People and War Some key points to consider:

Third, the authors are telling us that wars do not always involve the direct use of weapons—war are sometimes started and carried out in “subtle” ways, through what the authors call “structural violence.”

This is the most controversial aspect of their definition. It means, for example, that the United States has been carrying out a war against Cuba for several decades; it means that the war against Iraq after Operation Desert Storm never stopped. The ongoing conflict in Iraq, therefore, is simply a continuation of war that began almost 15 years ago.

14

People and War Some key points to consider:

The structural definition of war also tells us that some things we’ve learned about US history have to be completely rethought: Most Americans have learned, for example, that Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States, an attack in which the US was entirely innocent.

15

People and War Consider the famous speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt immediately after the

attack: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of American was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack. … Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implication to the very life and safety of our nation. As commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us …” (emphasis added)

16

People and War

What most Americans don’t learn, or even if they learn it, what they fail to recognize, is that the United States, if we use the authors’ extended definition of war, had already launched a war against Japan. This war is not recognized because it did not involve the use of military force. But, the implications of the US war were nonetheless drastic. Consider that, before the Japanese attack, the United States had:

frozen all Japanese assets in the United States; imposed an oil embargo on Japan in the midst of Japan’s war against China; sent U.S. military forces (the “Flying Tigers”) to attack Japanese forces in China;

and submitted a peace proposal to Japanese diplomats shortly before Pearl Harbor

whose terms were clearly calculated to humiliate Japanese officials.

17

People and War

The previous example demonstrates that it is not necessarily that difficult to accept the authors’ extended definition of war. The last example they give about IMF conditionality, however, would be, in the eyes of many, an overextension of the definition of war.

Is IMF conditionality war? (Discuss)

18

People and War

War and “War”

As the authors tell us, it’s not always easy to define certain activities as war; it’s even harder today because “war” has become a synonym for other kinds of campaigns: the “war” on cancer, the “war” on poverty, even the “war” on spam.

19

People and War

War and “War”

A lot of these so-called “wars,” of course, are clearly not wars as defined by the authors, but some other “wars” are much more difficult to classify: What about the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism? Are these wars or simply “wars”?

20

People and War

War and “War” The authors are not entirely sure themselves

Al Qaeda’s declaration of war on the United States, on the one hand, is clearly not a war, since al Qaeda is neither a state nor an aspiring state; therefore, its actions are not warfare, they are crimes. But what about the US response? Certain aspects of the response qualify as war, but most of what the United States government does is policing: passenger inspections, expanded surveillance, new regulations, and so on. These activities are not war.

21

People and War

War and “War” Despite this ambiguity (which shouldn’t be

completely glossed over), it’s important to understand that both “war” and war are useful to political leaders: Wars and “wars” increase the power of states; they increase state authority (power-with), and also justify vast increases in coercive power (power-over).

22

People and War

War and “War” More generally, wars are integral to nation-

building and state-making. This is a key point. It helps us understand why wars have been a constant feature of the world, for they provide a way for political leaders and economic elite not only to create more power for themselves, but to justify or legitimize the power that they accumulate.

23

People and War

The Three “Images of War” In this section, the authors point out

that many of us have been deeply influenced by an argument put forward by Kenneth Waltz in 1958. In his book, Waltz argued that theories of war can be divided into three images or categories

24

People and War

The Three “Images of War” The first image finds the cause of war in human nature

The second image locates it in particular regimes or kings of regimes (in other words, the cause of war is based on domestic politics)

The third image sees war as the inevitable result of system structure

To Waltz and other realists, the third image is overwhelmingly important

25

People and War

The Three “Images of War” What do the authors think of Waltz’s argument?

Although the authors do not agree with Waltz’s final assessment, they do believe his framework of analysis is useful. That is, it’s useful to think of war as being the product of a range of factors: from the individual level, to the domestic level, to the international level.

26

People and War

The Three “Images of War” There’s a lot of debate on this particular issue,

and the authors only give us the barest hint of this. But, their point and the question it raises is something we all need to consider:

What if Waltz is right? What are the implications of this explanation of war?

27

People and War

The Three “Images of War” If we accept the realist version (Waltz’s

argument) we are accepting the belief that war is inevitable, that there is really nothing we can or should do to prevent it (because we don’t believe it can be prevented).

28

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

If we accept the realist version, we cease to hold our political leaders accountable for their actions. This is clearly evident in the way many people perceive of Bush’s decision to attack Iraq: He only did what any responsible American president had to do; the fact that things haven’t worked out may be due to poor planning, but the act of war itself was largely unavoidable. After all, Hussein was a danger to all of us.

29

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

If we accept the realist version, we also accept the idea that ethics and morality have any meaningful role to play in wars. More accurately, we accept a consequentialist position, which says that the “ends justify the means.”

30

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

Consider the following statement by Hobbes: “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.”

31

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

We may be intellectually uncomfortable with such a bald statement, but when push comes to shove, most of us don’t protest a foreign policy based on those principles.

We accept, for example, that a lot of civilians “have to” die in order for the United States to achieve its war goals; we also accept that a large number of Americans will have to die, but, after all, that’s “the price of war.”

32

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

Examples include the use of nuclear bombs to “end the war” with Japan; American support of “Death squads” in Latin America during the cold war; economic sanctions against Iraq following the end of Operation Desert Storm; the continuing civilian death toll in Iraq today.

33

People and War

The Three “Images of War” Consider the following exchange between Leslie Stahl on 60

Minutes and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. [60 Minutes (May 12, 1996)]

34

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

Albright’s statement may have caused a slight stir, but nothing else. In fact, since leaving the State Department, Albright has been recognized as a great humanitarian. In 1999, for example, she was awarded the International Rescue Committee’s highest honor, the Freedom Award.

Albright was not criticized largely because most Americans consider “ethics” and morality to be outside the domain of foreign policy.

35

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

Discussion question: Is there room for ethics in international relations? Or is ethics only for the naïve and stupid?

36

People and War

The Three “Images of War”

This is a difficult question to answer, but the authors provide us some food for thought in their discussion of an alternative theory in IR: Idealism

37

People and War

Idealism Idealism has a very bad reputation among scholars, policy

makers, and other observers of international affairs. They not only believe that idealism is naïve, but that it is dangerous and fundamentally misguided.

Why do critics believe this? In large part because idealists believe that all human beings are entitled to dignity and respect, but that “borders,” ideologies, and economic interests have unnecessarily divided peoples into competing and sometimes warring camps.

38

People and War

Idealism

In short, idealists advocate the cultivation of a cosmopolitan perspective, which itself is premised on a belief in humane governance.

But realists believe that in the “dog-eat-dog” world of the international system, there is no room for humane governance.

39

People and War

Idealism

To idealists, realist criticisms fail to understand the bigger point, which is that ideas matter. That is, idealists believe that the nature of world politics can fundamentally change if people adopt a broader, more humanistic perspective.

Discussion: What do you think about the idealist perspective? Do you agree with the realists—is idealism poppycock?

40

People and War

Idealism

A point to consider: While the current administration—influenced as it is by neo-conservative Hobbessians (at least according to the authors)—can hardly be classified as idealist, there are idealist principles that underlie much of the administration’s rhetoric

41

People and War

Idealism Most prominently, Bush himself has discussed the importance

of democracy and his belief that more democracy in the Middle East will create a more peaceful, stable, and democratic world.

While it’s easy to dismiss this rhetoric, think about what he is saying: If the US were successful in promoting democracy, would the world be a safer, more peaceful place? If you agree, then you are reflecting idealist principles.

42

People and War

Postmodern War

The authors, it is important to understand, do not have their heads buried in the sand. They understand that war is amazingly durable, if only because many people profit from it and some even enjoy it.

43

People and War

Postmodern War

This is especially true in an environment in which war has become, in the authors’ words, postmodern. What do they mean by this? What is a postmodern war?

44

People and War

Postmodern War

A postmodern war is, in part, a product of advances war-fighting technology that distances many of us from the ravages of war itself. War, in a sense, becomes little more than a video game, or a form of “entertainment.”

45

People and War

Postmodern War

Postmodern war is, in other words, a socially-constructed event, in which historical memories are created and recreated to suit the needs of those who pull the levers. War becomes a series of stories—or narratives—designed to appeal to “consumers,” to build “team spirit,” and to ensure continued support for the “home team.”

46

People and War

Postmodern War

The emergence of the postmodern war makes war “exciting” to more and more people; in this regard, it makes the elimination of war seem to be even more difficult: after all, if people “like” war, in addition to thinking that it’s necessary, what prospect is there that wars will ever end?

47

People and War

Postmodern War

At the same time, however, the emergence of postmodern wars has created a clearer gulf between what realists tell us about war and why wars are really fought

When narratives change, for example, people become more skeptical: Why did the United States attack Iraq? Well, the first narrative told us that it was because Iraq was dangerous, that it represented a threat to the American people.