Pols 225 CH3

War: A Complex Phenomenon

War is puzzling as actors have options to avoid it.
The number of wars has decreased over time, with spikes during WWI and WWII.
War is not the default behavior as realists suggest; countries engage in fewer wars against each other, focusing instead on internal conflicts.
States prefer to avoid war due to its significant costs, referring to them as "blood and treasure."
The statement, “In war, the aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed,” highlights the complexities of war's motivations.

The primary purpose of war often revolves around territorial disputes, with over half of conflicts in the last 300 years linked to territory such as oil or farmland.
Wars may also have strategic purposes. An example is the ongoing conflict in Syria.

Historical conflicts, such as the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, demonstrate that ethnic and historical significance can drive wars.
Additionally, wars can stem from disagreements over national policy, regime types, and ethnic or religious divisions.
Economic interests often underpin these causes, with religion sometimes used to justify actions or rally support.
Conflicts may arise from future anticipated grievances, leading to multiple causes operating simultaneously.

Wars often stem from failed negotiations between involved parties.
Anarchy in the international system leads to misperception and domestic political pressures pushing nations towards war.
Key dynamics that lead to war include:
- Preventive Motive: Stopping a rising power.
- Security Dilemma: States may arm themselves out of fear of others, creating a cycle of mistrust.

Bargaining involves resolving disputes over resources like territory or policy.
Crisis Bargaining occurs when one party threatens force if demands are not met.
Coercive Diplomacy is when one state employs threats to influence another state's decisions.
The Model of War framework describes the correlation between the net value of fighting and the bounds of the bargaining range.

If war is costly and disputes are divisible, a negotiated settlement beneficial to both parties should exist, making war unnecessary.
Compellent Threats aim to coerce opposition to change their status, while Deterrent Threats seek to maintain the status quo by dissuading actions through threats of cost.
Crisis bargaining may fail to yield peaceful resolutions due to:
- Incomplete Information: Misjudgments lead to states either conceding too little or demanding too much.

States may misrepresent their strength or weaknesses to gain a negotiation advantage.
Strategies include:
- Brinkmanship: Engaging in high-stakes situations to display power (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis).
- Tying Hands: Public declarations to solidify resolve and raise costs of backing down.
- Paying for Power: Demonstrating military readiness to back threats.

Commitment issues arise when states doubt each other’s intentions or commitment to agreements, undermining trust.
Validating settlements within the bargaining range is difficult without trustworthy adversaries.

Bargaining often involves negotiating over future gains like nuclear proliferation, exemplified by situations with North Korea and Iran, which may spark preventive or preemptive wars.
Preventive Wars aim to stop an adversary from gaining power. In contrast, Preemptive Wars target imminent threats.

Conflicts over indivisible goods complicate resolution, as parties seek outcomes that cannot be easily shared or divided.
The notion of indivisibility can be socially constructed, and claims of indivisibility may serve strategic purposes.

Since 1945, there has been a decline in territorial wars, attributed to:
- Changing Interests: Technological advancements and globalization diminish the value of territory.
- Changing Interactions: There are high costs associated with war, with nuclear capabilities dissuading conflicts.