Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace

Flashcards covering key concepts from Christopher Blattman's 'Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace', focusing on the five reasons for war and the paths to peace.

According to Christopher Blattman, what are the five logical ways that political bargaining can break down and lead to war?

Unchecked interests, intangible incentives, uncertainty, commitment problems, and misperceptions.

What is 'war bias'?

War bias occurs when the people who decide whether to launch a conflict have different risks and rewards than the society they represent, or when a leadership's private incentives differ from the public interest.

How did George Washington's personal interests potentially influence his decision to support the American Revolution?

Washington's wealth from land speculation was threatened by British colonial policy, which could undermine his claims and privileges, making independence appealing as a way to preserve them.

What are 'intangible incentives' in the context of war?

These are non-material motivations for fighting, such as righteous outrage, the pursuit of ideals like equality or freedom, vengeance, or the quest for glory and status, which can offset the material costs of war.

How can 'righteous outrage' contribute to conflict?

When groups feel a profound sense of injustice, the satisfaction gained from resisting or punishing wrongdoers can outweigh the risks and sacrifices of fighting, making peaceful compromise difficult.

What role did 'glory and status' play in motivating German fighter pilots during World War II?

An elaborate system of medals and recognition fostered intense competition among pilots to achieve the most kills, driving them to take extreme risks and leading to higher death rates for the sake of prestige.

What is 'ideological indivisibility' as a root of war?

It's when a principle, preference, or obsession makes compromise unthinkable for one side, even if a physical division is possible. The cost of compromising on a cherished ideal, like liberty or supremacy, is deemed too high.

How does 'uncertainty' contribute to the outbreak of war?

If rivals have different information or beliefs about each other's strength and resolve, and cannot trust signals (due to incentives to bluff), they may disagree on potential outcomes and choose to fight to reveal the truth.

What is 'private information' in the context of strategic conflict?

These are facts that one side knows about its own capabilities, intentions, or resolve that the other side cannot easily verify without a fight. This can lead to bluffing and misjudgment, making war more likely.

How did Saddam Hussein's strategy of 'deterrence by ambiguity' relate to the Iraq War?

Saddam intentionally kept the world uncertain about his weapons of mass destruction programs, using ambiguity as a calculated bluff to maintain power and leverage in relations with the US and other adversaries.

What is a 'commitment problem' in the context of war?

It's a situation where an agreement fails because one side cannot credibly guarantee that it will honor the terms in the future, especially if power dynamics are expected to shift to their advantage.

How does the 'preventive war' logic illustrate a commitment problem?

A declining power, anticipating a future rise in its rival's strength, may initiate war while it still has an advantage, believing that the rising power cannot credibly commit not to exploit its future dominance.

What role did commitment problems play in the Peloponnesian War?

The fear in Sparta of Athens' unstoppable rise and the inability of Athens to credibly commit not to exploit its future dominance, particularly with crucial alliances like Corcyra, made war seem inevitable to Sparta.

How do commitment problems contribute to civil wars?

They arise when rebel groups are asked to disarm and surrender their strength, but face concerns that the government will renege on peace agreements or settle old scores once the rebels are weak.

What are 'misperceptions' as a root cause of war?

These are erroneous beliefs or distorted views that groups hold about themselves or their enemies, stemming from automatic fast thinking, which can hinder their ability to find peaceful compromises.

What is 'overconfidence,' and how does it affect the likelihood of war?

Overconfidence is the tendency to overestimate one's own abilities and underestimate uncertainty. It can lead groups to make unusually demanding offers and take greater risks, increasing the likelihood of conflict.

How did 'misprojection' and 'misconstrual' exacerbate conflicts in Northern Ireland?

Both sides failed to see situations from the other's perspective, misinterpreting actions as malicious rather than situational. This reinforced rigid negative stereotypes and fueled cycles of retaliatory violence.

How does 'economic interdependence' promote peace?

When groups are economically intertwined, the costs of war increase because their rival's destruction or disempowerment directly harms their own economic interests, widening the bargaining range for peace.

How can 'social interlinkages' contribute to peace?

Interactions through shared communities, associations, or even joking kinships can foster empathy and mutual understanding, increasing the costs of aggression and depolarizing rivalries.

What are 'checks and balances' in the context of peacebuilding?

They are mechanisms that distribute power and hold decision-makers accountable, reducing leaders' war bias, moderating misperceptions, increasing transparency to reduce uncertainty, and enabling credible commitments to rivals.

What is 'polycentric governance'?

It's a system with many independent hubs of power and decision-making, where influence is distributed across different levels of government, institutions, and civilian organizations to balance authority.

Why is the 'state' considered a 'great pacifier'?

A professional, neutral third party like the state enforces laws, monitors actors, adjudicates disputes, and punishes violations, thereby raising the costs of violence and creating order within its jurisdiction.

How do 'self-enforcing institutions' operate in anarchic situations?

In the absence of a state, groups develop norms and customs, like cultures of honor or tribal councils, where the credible threat of retaliation or social sanctions deters aggression and helps maintain a fragile peace without external enforcement.

What are 'targeted sanctions,' and how do they aim to deter conflict?

They are punishments that single out specific leaders or corrupt cabals. By freezing their assets, banning travel, and limiting their financial activities, they aim to raise the personal costs of violence for decision-makers.

How do 'peacekeeping missions' contribute to peace in post–civil war settings?

They enforce truces, help manage incentives of elites, reduce uncertainty and misperceptions by monitoring compliance and mediating disputes, arbitrate local conflicts, and stabilize fragile periods after agreements.

What is the role of 'facilitation' in peacemaking, especially through mediators?

Mediators help end violence by reducing uncertainty and private information, guiding rivals past emotional and perceptual errors, building shared understanding, and fostering trust through credible communication and procedural support.

What does 'socialization' mean in the context of peacebuilding?

It refers to engineering social norms and habits that reduce violence, such as self-control, empathy, perspective-taking, and managing anger. This can be achieved through deliberate programs, education, and cultural institutions.

Why can 'incentives' or 'carrots' be a 'darker side of peace'?

Granting aid, jobs, or political positions to powerful, unsavory figures may temporarily buy peace by counteracting their war bias, but it can perpetuate inequality and corruption, conflicting with ideals of justice and accountability.

Why might 'ending poverty' not directly prevent the outbreak of war?

While poverty exacerbates ongoing conflicts by making recruitment easier, it doesn't necessarily break down the fundamental strategic incentives for peace. Both rich and poor rivals still have reasons to avoid the costs of fighting.

Why might the idea that 'war has big benefits for society' be a 'dangerous myth'?

This view, arguing war leads to stability, equality, or state-building, often suffers from survivor bias, ignoring the immense costs, suffering, and failures, and overlooking that rivalry (not war itself) can drive progress.