The Causes Of War

The Causes Of War

Introduction

Peace and security are arguably the most fundamental pillars of any nation. It goes without saying that they safeguard the existence and enjoyment of all human rights, in which case their presence or absence have a bearing on any country’s wellbeing. Needless to say, the world has, since time immemorial, seen a fair amount of conflicts among varied parties including nations, races, religions, and even regions. Of course, there are variations and changes in the weapons used, numbers, the magnitude of the wars, as well as the cost of wars among other factors. For example, in 2008 alone, there were about 9 wars and close to 130 violent conflicts all over the world. Previously non-violent conflicts spiraled into violent confrontations in areas such as Yemen and Kenya. Conflicts were also experienced in other parts of the world such as Congo, with its mineral resources as the center of the conflicts. Closer home, there have been conflicts between the United States and other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Israel and Palestine. Israel has been angling for war against Iran, which it sees as a threat to its existence and stability. Needless to say, there are variations as to the triggers of wars in different regions and times. In fact, rarely is war caused by one element, rather it emanates from an interplay of different factors and causes. In most cases, the key cause of war is buried in an avalanche of political statements, with the real motives (and culprits) being hidden through oaths of secrecy (Ellsberg, 2013). These oaths are not only in the military, but also the varied institutions of governance involved in the planning and execution of the wars. Issues pertaining to national security are rarely revealed, with whistleblowers being regaled as traitors and unpatriotic individuals (Ellsberg, 2013). Nevertheless, the key cause of war is almost always individuals or groups of individuals that occupy the varied powerful institutions of government and who have differing ideologies. This underlines the fact that wars are usually a manifestation of the conflicting ideologies of the conflicting individuals or groups of individuals.

Causes of war have formed a common subject among numerous scholars across different disciplines. It has also been examined through films and documentaries. In the 2003 American documentary film titled “The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara” Robert McNamara examines the varied aspects pertaining to modern warfare. The film outlines the life of McNamara right from his birth in the course of World War I into his days in the military, the corporate world and in public service where he was the Secretary of Defense for President Kennedy, as well as President Johnson. In essence, he outlines issues surrounding the Vietnam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, both of which mark some of the most remarkable wars or conflicts in the history of the United States. One of the outstanding remarks that he makes in the film is that he was serving President Johnson’s requests in an effort to assist him in carrying out his duties as president in line with his beliefs pertaining to the people’s interests. While he argues that the president had a reason for putting the country through the Vietnam War, he acknowledges that the president did not reveal it. This underlines the fact that the Vietnam War (and many other wars) was merely the product of ideologies of individuals in the government, who may have been driven by varied motives in pursuing such techniques.

This notion is also outlined in the movie “The Most Dangerous Man in America”, a 2009 documentary that revolves around a former insider of Pentagon named Daniel Ellsberg. Daniel made the decision to challenge the imperial presidency that was not answerable to any institution including the Press, the Congress or even the American people (Hale, 2009). The decision was made in an effort to assist in ending the Vietnam War. Daniel smuggled confidential documents from the Pentagon, detailing how five American presidents had persistently been feeding Americans with lies pertaining to the Vietnam War that had torn America apart and resulted in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese people (Hale, 2009). While the government of the day made varied efforts to stop Daniel from releasing the information, he relentlessly pursued the path of truth revealing how the Vietnam War was fundamentally a product of Imperial Presidency’s secret deeds.

Scholars have also blamed the occurrence of war on conflicting ideologies pertaining to the leaders of the warring countries (Mead, 2001). They use the example of the cold war, which they note as a blend of a religious crusade that favored one ideology over the other and extremely ruthless power politics that struck out for expansion and advantage in Europe and the entire world at large. These ideologies were Communist (espoused by the Soviet Union) and Capitalism (espoused by the United States and Britain, among other European countries). These two ideologies are significantly different, with communism promoting the needs of the state over personal needs and human rights (Sample, 2002). Capitalism, espoused by the United States, revolved around personal freedom, and distinguished by representative government, individual liberty, free institutions, as well as numerous other freedoms that are absent in communism. The key foundation of conflict between the two ideologies is not merely their differences, but also their militant and expansionist nature (McNamara, 1996). Individuals holding the two beliefs or ideologies held the notion that the alternative ideology posed a threat to their way of life. In addition, their expansionist tendencies were fueled by the belief that the world was better off with their ideology rather than the alternative one (Kremenyuk, 1994). This blend of aggression and ideological fear implied that the USSR and America had their foreign policies being affected by the ideologies. In light of the ideological differences, scholars note that international conflicts such as the cold war, war on Iraq and even Vietnam War is usually a product of the national regimes character, rather than any form of international misunderstanding. They note that the Cold War was merely a manifestation of the aspirations of Stalin and decisions made by the varied US presidents to stop the expansion of communism (Vasquez, 2000). While they acknowledge the differing circumstances, the state that there were variations between the conflicts that cropped up during the reign of different presidents. This is not merely coincidental, rather it is a manifestation of the fact that wars are products of individuals occupying the varied positions in governmental institutions (Vasquez, 2000).

While ideology may be the key trigger of war, other causes also contribute albeit in a significantly less magnitude to the occurrence of war. These are mainly social-economic considerations of the people in power in the concerned governments (Sample, 2002). It is worth noting that, even in the Cold War, the countries were concerned about the expansion of the alternative belief or ideology, thanks to the fact that any country’s ideology has a bearing on the manner in which it relates with other countries (Dodds, 2002). Countries such as Cuba Russia, Iran, and North Korea among others are significantly reserved as far as doing business with America is concerned. This may have resulted from their differences in ideology.

Scholars support this notion through the examination of World War II. They note that World War II, like any other modern war, was fundamentally caused by international rivalries that were inseparable from capitalism, as well as the domination of world resources by the capitalist class (Sample, 2002). They trace the background of World War II to the 1930s alliance between Germans, Italians and the Japanese, an alliance that made expansion efforts at the expense of older colonial powers and weaker neighbors such as France, Holland and Britain. An alliance had earlier on been formed between Germany and Italy way before 1914. However, the two countries had been late in developing, in which case most or all the strategic positions, trade routes and best territories had been taken up by more powerful alliances or countries (Mead, 2001). These scholars note that both world wars were directly connected in the fact that the settlement that was imposed on the states that had been defeated in World War I was successful in increasing the antagonism that resulted in World War II (Kremenyuk, 1994). The triple alliance between Italy, Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire seemed to disintegrate with the exit of Italy, which claimed that the promise that it would keep a large share of the spoils of victory was not kept (Kremenyuk, 1994). France and its systems of alliances dominated Europe after the weakening of Germany and Russia. Its alliances with Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia were aimed at preventing the revival of Germany and Russia. The British government deemed it necessary to help Germany recover so as to offset France’s preponderance in the interest of its capitalism. However, the entry of Adolf Hitler after Wall Street crash of 1929 changed this. The crash had led to a massive breakdown in international payment systems, and the plummeting of trade thanks to the reduction of production in countries. Dominant capitalists in France, Britain and the USA were the sole holders of gold, not to mention the fact that the countries had monopoly in accessing most sources of raw materials all over the world. This created a division in the world into countries that had raw materials and gold, and others that did not possess these things (Sample, 2002). Italy, Japan and Germany did not have gold and raw materials. In this case, their governing bodies tried to solve the problems presented by organizing themselves on an aggressive totalitarian basis, while also making policies that challenged the dominant group (Dodds, 2002). Germany threatened the dominance of other powers through trade that did not involve gold, in which case the use of gold declined considerably. Japan and Germany had considerable success in Latin America, southern Asia and Southern Europe. The dominant powers reiterated by boycotting products from the three countries and giving credits to Southern Europe to eliminate dependence on Germany. Germany, on the other hand, resorted to armed force to which Britain and USA responded in the same manner (Sample, 2002). This led to the World War II. This underlines the interplay between economic factors and ideology in causing war between nations. It is no wonder then that the Cold War pitted the two ideological blocks, which were strong remnants of the World War II.

In conclusion, peace and security are some of the most fundamental pillars in the wellbeing of any nation. The world, nevertheless, has experienced numerous conflicts and wars pitting different nations against each other and having differing magnitudes. While there may be varied causes of these wars, the common denominator in all of them is the ideology of the leaders controlling the varied governmental apparatus. This is clearly exhibited in the 2009 documentary “The Most Dangerous Man in America” and the 2003 movie titled “The Fog of War”, both of which outline the fact that the reason for war is usually the behests or aspirations of the leaders or presidents at that time. This is also tied to the ideologies of the leaders of the warring nations. Scholars give the example of the Cold War period and note that the countries with conflicting ideologies were uncomfortable with the expansion of the alternative ideologies, in which case they engaged in aggressive strategies to curb their expansion. These strategies were founded on the belief that the world was better off with their own ideology, and the notion that the alternative belief was a threat to the existence of their own ideology. Nevertheless, they also note that ideology blends with other factors especially economic factors. This is because the dominance of any ideology or power is founded on economic prosperity and the ability to sustain itself and gain the support of other countries.

References

McNamara, R (1996). In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. Random House Digital, Inc.

Hale, M (2009). “Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, The Untold Story of a War, and the Story of the Man Who Told It”. New York Times. Retrieved 6th March 2013

Ellsberg, D (2013). Secrecy and National Security Whistleblowing. Daniel Ellsberg’s Website. Retrieved 6th March 2013 from HYPERLINK “http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/secrecy-national-security-whistleblowing” http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/secrecy-national-security-whistleblowing

Vasquez, J. A. (2000). What do We Know about War? Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Sample, S. G (2002). “The Outcomes of Military Buildups: Minor States vs. Major Powers” Journal of Peace Research 39.6

Mead, W. R. (2001). Special Povidence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

Kremenyuk, V. (1994). The Cold War as Cooperation.” From Rivalry to Cooperation: Russian and Americans Perspectives on the Post Cold War Era. New York: HarperCollins

Dodds, S (2002). The Role of Multilateralism and the UN in Post-Cold War US Foreign Policy.” Diss. Australian National University

Get your Custom paper done as per your instructions !

Order Now