Why Do We Fight?

Personally, I think that a war is justified to stop a country from attacking your country, or another innocent country, or even to prevent it from committing some sort of acts of great evil (e.g. genocide within its own borders), particularly if there appears to be no practical chance of a diplomatic solution. I guess I am saying that war is justified if it either prevents or avenges attacks on the innocent.

The danger need not be immediate either. I think that it's justified to go to war to prevent a country from doing something that it clearly appears to be preparing to do. For example, if an evil ruler has been invading and seizing countries in your vicinity, and it appears that your country may be targetted for a future invasion, I think that it would be alright to go to war, either to free the countries he has already taken over, or to prevent him from invading countries in the future.

Furthermore, if your opponents have already committed many acts of great evil, the threshold for justifiably going to war with them would seem to me to be less, than in the case of an opponent who seems to usually behave ethically.

The way you conduct a war is important too. One should try one's best to minimize the inevitable loss of innocent life that has always occurred in war. It is generally believed, though, that if a war is justified to begin with, and a real effort is made to minimize harm to non-combatants, the fact that non-combatants will inevitably be harmed does not make the war immoral.

I wonder if this might not belong on the Philosophy board. Oh, well.

Re: Why Do We Fight?


Somalia
Indonesia
(which years I don't know yet )


well, money for the defence industry and resources .......

Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1994
Yugoslavia - 1999
Afghanistan - 2001

I suggest you try looking up "the history of war" by John Keegan. The preface itself gives a nice suggestion as to why man fight. You can't really say there is one reason. Each war and conflict have their own unique identifiers.

A very common reason for fighting is power. You could do a search for Anthony Giddens, and his definition of power and sovereign states. I know he has done some work on it.

This sounds like a very interesting topic. There are lot of places you can go.

The "reasons" for our actions are not always clear-- often they conflict. WWII for example is often called "the good war" because the evilness of the Nazi's, and their danger to Europe was so clear. But a sub-theme of our actions at the end of WWII was the start of our power stuggle with the Soviets.

It is clear to me that at least part of the reason we dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan was to send a message to the Russians (if this was honorable is of course a matter of perspective).

Of course the word "honorable" is based on personal opinion. You should define what you mean by honor in your paper.

One other thing I just thought of...

Many of these wars were sparked by a single event that roused public opinion. Of course, in our modern democratic society it is impossible to wage a successful war without public support.

Off the top of my head I can think of...

- The assassination of [what's his name] that sparked WWI
- Pearl Harbor (starting American Involvement in WWII).
- The Gulf of Tomkin (now controversial) that started Vietnam.
- 9/11 which sparked Iraq and Afganistan.

This is off the top of my head, but with the importance of public support in today's war, I think this would make a pretty good theme for a paper.

Why do we fight? Why is it that human history is so filled with violence? Could we be otherwise?

Too often we like to forget that we are animals, and not angels. Fundamentally we are not pastoral, but from our beginnings we liked red meat. We came down from the trees, out onto the savannas where hunting was more productive. We learned to work together because we are weak, slow, and have dull senses compared to other predators. We lay traps, and invent tools that can fly faster than our prey can run. Our tooth and claw are puny, so we make axes of stone, and knives of obsidian. Our young are vulnerable for much longer than our competitors, so we have to feed and defend them until they are ready to take up the struggle for survival on their own.

We have to secure our territory so that there will be game for our hunt, and so that our crops and our pigs will be safe from raiders. If our tribe becomes too numerous for the resources in our territory, we expand into that of our neighbors. In our unity is strength, so we build a cultural structure that defines us … human. The other, those who have different rites, different customs, different appearance, are somehow less. It is our needs, the need of our tribe to survive, to prosper and expand its reach that justifies whatever policy we require.

We humans are motivated by fear of the unknown, of not surviving. We see threats, and we respond by confronting and destroying, if possible, that which threatens our tribe.

Within our tribe there is a hierarchy, just as with any other pack of chimpanzees. Those who have the highest status tend to be those who are strong and decisive. We defer to those we think cleverer than we are. Through most of human history the many were ruled by the few, and the few by traditions and concepts that were seldom even questioned. The Alphas were those who either owned the means of applying brute force, those whose wisdom and magic made them superior, or both.

Individuals who find themselves with great power are no different fundamentally than those with the least power. Individuals all avoid suffering, and crave pleasure. We tend to be shortsighted creatures that easily forget the past, and have little patience to await rewards in the "distant" future. Individuals tend to be driven by greed, lust, and anger just as much as by hope, love and charity. Individual leaders, perhaps even more than most, need to feel loved; to feel powerful and invincible. Leaders often dislike hearing bad news, and they've been known to kill messengers. Those in power not only hate to give it up, they generally want to increase their power. More, we always want more.

A couple of hundred years ago Europeans began to question some of the basic premises that had governed human conduct in every part of the globe for perhaps ten thousand years. At the same time a unique opportunity arose to change how men are governed. The New World was largely free of the dead hand of history that made change so difficult in other parts of the world. Of course, the New World already had inhabitants whose tribal cultures was believed "primitive" by the Europeans, but whose notions about how human groups live and struggle to survive was not very much different than most of the humans who lived in our world at the time. The European colonists eventually broke away from their homelands, and in 1787 constructed a political document that changed the world. The Constitution of the United States recognized that governments of men have within them inherent faults and dangers of tyranny. Our government is designed to frustrate any man, or group of men, from seizing too much power and holding it for long periods of time. We balance the various institutions of government, so that decisions are difficult to make and compromise is common.

Though our system of government is well designed, it is not perfect. Representatives are still vulnerable to special interests and partisan even when the fate of the nation is at stake. Government is sometimes expedient at the expense of ideals, and idealistic when expedience is called for. The men and women who lead us, both in elective office and in private life, are little different today than those who lived two hundred years ago, nay even those who live five thousand years ago. True our technology has improved miraculously, but our inner needs and belief system is little changed. We may communicate instantaneously, but our ability to avoid misunderstandings is no better today than it was when it took a month for a letter to go from New York to London. We can put a smart munition through a particular window of a particular building half a world away, but the bottom line isn't much different than when we shot an arrow into the skies of Agincourt. Not long ago, militant Islam was turned back from the gates of Vienna, and the Crusaders pillaged the Holy Land. Alexander's legions marched into Afghanistan, before retiring to Egypt and a moment earlier, Persia stood on the beaches of Marathon.

We humans have a long acquaintance with war, and all of the horrors connected with it. Still we go to war on a pretty regular basis. I can't imagine a Homo sapiens that was more like the sheep than the lion. If we had not been a violent species, we would never have survived the move from the jungle canopy to out into the world. We would have been prey, not the so-called masters of creation. Universal Peace is a wonderful concept, but I fear that if it should ever actually happen that in itself would spell the extinction of Homo sapiens.

Archduke Franz-Ferdinand.

Dont forget The Cold War

Was that a real "war"?

The Cold War was indeed a "real" war. The stakes of the Cold War were no less than those in WWII, and were far greater than in wwi. A soviet victory in the Cold War was a distinct possibility. The Berlin Blockade and the Wall brought us very close to the brink. Had the DPRK been successful in Korea, the result would have been as devastating to the free nations of the world. Atomic tipped missiles in Cuba weren't put there just for show. Had we not opposed the Communists in Vietnam, they would have held much stronger positions in other client states along the periphery. The Communists, led by the Soviets and the PRC, continually probed for opportunities to extend their reach.

The Cold War was the first in human history where the contending powers were armed with huge stocks of atomic and hydrogen warheads. We each had the capability of launching, on a moment's notice, almost unbelievable nuclear force. Many believed, and still believe for that matter, that a spasm exchange of intercontinental nuclear missiles would have resulted in the extinction of all life on the planet. That wasn't actually probable, but the fear of it helped to prevent direct violence between the Soviet Union and the free world.

Imagine the state of the world in 2003 if the Soviet Union had "won" the contest in the 1980's. They might have won any number of times. They might have brought Turkey, Greece and even Italy into their orbit after WWII. Communist/Socialist movements in the UK and France were dominant there for awhile. JFK might have accepted atomic missiles in Cuba rather than risk all-out war, and other South American countries might have followed the Cuban lead.

Because the Cold War was fought in the shadows, and through the client states, made it no less earnest and deadly.

Hmmm that was pretty clear, thanks Asherman.

One point though: "Communist/Socialist". I am a Socialist but certainly not a Communist, though that is what you seem to imply (to me).

We fight 'cause we're nothing that stupid animals

-Kosovo
-basically every Central American country for the entire 100 years on which you are focusing

And, there are large connections between the Vietnam War and the Sanctuary movement of the early 1990s in the US, and why this movement eventually ended when the public's focus shifted to the Balkans around 1998.

Rick,

During the Cold War, the Communists frequently hid themselves inside socialist movements, or claimed to be socialists. The development of social democracies, including the United States, should not be confused with fully Communist regimes, or those dictatorships that call themselves socialists. OK?

Homo Sap should never forget that it is animal, a herd animal with strong territorial instincts and a taste for fresh meat. On the other hand, we are a clever species. Our ability to expand our power by developing ever more sophisticated technology has important ramifications. The battlefields in antiquity were seldom much larger than a few football fields cobbled together, and men fought mano y mano with swords, spears, and hand launched missiles. By the beginning of the 20th century we had made combat more efficient, and effective. Trenches ran from Switzerland to the sea, and the machine-gun cut down men like a reaper at harvest-time. Air power and the development of nuclear munitions further expanded the battlefield, and increased the potential carnage. In the last twenty years military art and science has taken another leap, and organizations like the U.S. military are almost unbelievably lethal, if they choose to be.

As War has increased in violence and the range of it's effects, so has civilized yearning for peace. One of the fundamental elements of Utopia, and Utopian dreams, is perpetual peace and the end of War. Civilization rests upon, among other things, social structures that deter violence and encourage cooperation. To abolish War, or even mitigate it's effects to the absolute minimum, is a wonderful goal. Unfortunately, War isn't so easy to do away with. There is always the Enemy who would kill, plunder, and enslave if not forestalled and/or defeated. Those who crave power, dominance, wealth, and fame are always striving to impose themselves on the world. Their willingness to use violence must be matched and balanced by the presence of effective and credible military force. Failure of the Will, or the means, to protect a community is suicide.

Have you tried maybe:
through misinformation and propaganda through your government and the media, you feel compelled to fight for a cause that you feel is just, simply because you have been told it is?

Sounds to me like the W Bush administration.

Have you tried maybe: The world is a dangerous place, and that sometimes one must oppose evil actively?