War theory

Morality is often used as a justification for war. However, most wars are not started because of a moral issue. Rather the moral issues are tagged onto the war as a justification to motivate the masses to follow a powerful factions' war plan. In Why Nations Go to War, by John Stoessinger, the author points out that both sides will claim that morality justifies their fight. He also states that the rationale for beginning a war depends on an overly optimistic assessment of the outcome of hostilities (casualties and costs), and on mis-perceptions of the "enemies" intentions. The motivations of the people supplying these assessments and mis-perceptions are the focus of this article.

Most disagreements could be better solved from the point of view of the average citizen by negotiation. However the good of the average citizen does not drive government policies. In most nations there exist powerful groups with special agendas. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20725.pdf
James Madison discussed this at length in Federalist Paper #10, in what he called "the violence of faction". http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Some factions want more territory or access to resources, some are hateful of other ethnic or religious bands, and some simply want to sell their goods or services to the highest bidder. War creates a bigger market for certain specialized goods and services. For some private companies and certain branches of government, peace is a financial disaster.

When the decision is being made whether or not to go to war, special interest groups are much more influential than the average citizen. Here are six to consider.

*1. The companies who supply war materials have always been driven by the profit motive. Now that the United States has privatized many aspects of war-making, these material suppliers have been joined by a burgeoning war services industry. This lobby will be gaining in power. Reference: Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill,Chapter 17, Joseph Schmitz: Christian Soldier. When the only tools you are selling are hammers, every problem begins to look like a nail. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/v1-11.htm Also, a look at historical stock prices of military contractors would demonstrate this point. Example: Lockheed Martin Jan 28 2000 $16.97, Jan 29 2007 $95.39, plus a dividend yield of 1.3% annually. Return nearly 600% in 7 years.
*2. Military and intelligence branches of government that do business with the aforementioned companies are staffed with people who have made a career of war and may expect to be hired by one of the companies they are doing business with after their government service is over. http://www.pogo.org/p/contracts/c/co-040101-contractor.html These branches also directly benefit from war by having their budgets increased and their sense of importance raised. When you are walking to work down a well polished hall of a multibillion dollar branch of the federal government, not advocating a war might seem like blasphemy. Aggression is a cultural norm in some environments. Aronson, et al, Social Psychology Fourth Edition p 419. Also, once a war starts, prior intelligence failures or missed opportunities for peace may be glossed over by the perceived need to finish the task that has been started. Critical oversight is weakened. http://en. .org/wiki/Sunk_costs
*3. Access to territory and/or the natural resources in it can motivate non-military companies or special interest groups to promote a war as a means of gaining preferential access. Borders don't move freely in peacetime. A motivated faction which wants borders to be redrawn may choose to endure the trials of a war to gain the eventual reward of land.
*4. If a religious disagreement is involved, the religious group most savvy in lobbying the government may join forces with the other interest groups to sell the conflict. They may never realize a true long term benefit, but they can vociferously support a war anyway. Religious groups may also be conscripted by clever propagandists to support a war which may clearly be against their moral and religious tenets. (need photo here of German WWII belt buckle featuring Gott Mitt Uns logo)
*5. In modern society, the popular media may also be enlisted to sell war. If media outlets find they will be rewarded for sending pro war messages or disseminating false or misleading information, the profit motive may cause them to avoid or minimize anti-war messages or opinions. See Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, Chapter 1, A Propaganda Model. A threat to withhold the purchase of ad time or to boycott advertised products could also be used to alter the media slant on a conflict. Even letter writing or e-mail campaigns, if well organized, could serve to pressure media to favor a particular line of reasoning. The average citizen writes no letter, sends no e-mail to the media, so a small, focused minority can seem larger than life. Alternately, if well-heeled factions recognize the power of the media to control public opinion, networks may be bought outright in order to control policy via editorial comment posing as "news". See Walter Lippman, "The Pictures in Our Heads". http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/Lippman/CH01.html

*6. A newly powerful type of media influence in the world is the "think tank". This type of operation can be focused on target groups or even individuals deemed to be powerful or influential. Think tanks can be set up by anyone with sufficient money to hire like-minded advocates, and an invitation to speak or participate in a think tank activity can be a flattering proposition. An example of this can be found in "War and Anti-War", by Alvin and Heidi Toffler, Chapter 20, The Genie Unleashed. In this example the Tofflers are invited to participate in a think tank scenario where North Korea has destabilized and presents a nuclear threat. The psychological technique known as framing is used to direct participants thoughts down the avenues desired by the sponsors. The idea that they are taking part in an important exercise reinforces the belief that the frame they are in is realistic. The addition of time limits and a sense of desperation reduces the participants ability to escape the frame. The Tofflers make no mention of who funded this exercise, their motivations, or what criteria were used to choose the participants, which indicates they were captured by the frame provided. (An insider input would be valuable here, regarding who paid for the set in the example and who decided it would be strewn with styrofoam cups, time limits, etc.) Think tanks may also pay speakers substantial fees to come and say exactly what they want to hear, reinforcing the world view of the sponsor on both the paid speaker and the audience. http://en. .org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (need some examples here of invitations for a person of interest like Condoleeza Rice to speak at events under control of a think tank, e.g.the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute)

Conclusion:

Once the decision has been made to attack another nation, it becomes very difficult to change course later, even if other facts come to light.
In the worst scenario, some early military successes embolden the politicians to broaden the scope of the war, and serve to quiet dissent. This can lead to a world war.
In the next worst scenario, stubborn leaders see early defeats as challenges to be overcome instead of policy mistakes. Ego plays a huge role here. When things eventually turn bad in the public eye, what politician could hope to succeed in the government by stating "I was duped by special interests into a stupid war, and a lot of people died unnecessarily, but I'll do better next time"? At this point instead of inviting the citizens to question the workings of the government, politicians emphasize patriotism and religion to keep the populace in line. No one wants to seem unpatriotic when their relatives are dying in combat. In WWII, the Germans put "Gott mit Uns" on their soldiers belt buckles.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu