Theories of War & Peace

Lecture 7 1 March 2011 J A Morrison Theories of War & Peace

Admin • Sign-in Sheet • Papers • Have you read submission instructions? • Tardiness, extensions, &c. • Where do you Stand? • Posting Slides • Do you review slides before lecture? • Does it reduce incentives to prepare? • Does it reduce incentives to pay attention?

Lec 7: Theories of War & Peace • Unit I Recap • Unit II Overview • War & Politics

I. Unit I Recap What was the point? Key Terms & Concepts Key Theories Approaching IP

Unit 1 Introduced… • Importance & difficulty of studying IP • Study of IP as a social science • Formulate theories • Test theories using empirics • Major theories of and approaches to IP • Applicable to all issue areas: security, IPE, organization

Social Science Terms • Empirics: Facts; description of the value of variables • May be correct or incorrect! • Theory: explication of causal relationship between variables

Theory Terms • School of Thought: Collection of theories that enjoy considerable overlap • e.g. Liberalism, Realism, &c. • Dimension: Variable used to arrange theories graphically • e.g. Optimism/Pessimism, Focus on Relative/Absolute Gains, &c.

Approach Terms • Ontology: Study of being & existence • What is out there to be studied? • Epistemology: Study of limits & acquisition of knowledge • What can we know about IP? How do we know it? • Approach: Ontology + Epistemology • How should we study & understand IP?

Realism: Old & New • Classical Realists’ Key Issues • Relationship between morality & power • Role of anarchy • Competing interests • Power as most significant variable • Waltz: power is means to end • Mearsheimer: power is proximate end • Pessimistic & distrusting

Modern Neoliberalism • Realist Starting Points • Anarchy makes cooperation difficult • System-level analysis • States are egoistic • Regimes can facilitate some cooperation between egoistic actors in anarchy • Organize information • Foster reputation development • Coordinate responses to cheating

Every time cooperation breaks down, realists tend to say, “I told you so. I told you cooperation would not last!”

But neoliberals don’t expect international regimes to ensure perfect cooperation.They simply suggest that international regimes can make cooperation a more prevalent strategy.

Even if we still have wars, neoliberals suggest that IRs can make those wars less frequent.And given our inconceivable destructive capacity, making war less frequent can only be a good thing.

It’s easy to fall into simply dichotomizing IP theories into one of two schools—liberalism & realism.But that betrays the incredibly variation within those “schools” and between the theories we have engaged.

Remember to think in terms of individual theorists and theories.The “labels” themselves have no obvious meaning.When using them, always specify precisely what you mean by each.

When trying to formulate and test theories, we have to consider what there is to study in IP and how we ought to study it.The answers to those questions comprises our approach.

The Waltzian Paradigm • Anarchy is key starting point • States are key actors; excludes domestic groups, individual policymakers, INGOs, MNCs • States are autonomous—no sovereign above states • System-level variables are most significant • e.g. distribution of power, O-D balance • Systemic pressures  convergent evolution (isomorphism)

Non-Systemic Approaches • Domestic Politics • Regime type: democracy, autocracy (Russett) • Interest groups: economic interests, political movements (Rogowski) • Domestic institutions: location of decision-making authority (BGW) • Policymakers’ Ideas • Perception & misperception (Jervis) • Strategies: ideas as roadmaps (G&K) • Values: ideas shape preferences (G&K)

Constructivist Approaches • Actors’ preferences endogenous to interaction • Structure has little meaning apart from process—interpretation and instantiation give meaning to structure • e.g. is that other superpower my “friend” or my “enemy”? • May be systemic (Wendt) or non-systemic (G&K)

PS 109 International Politics ✔ • Unit 1: Studying International Politics • Topic 1: Introductory • Topic 2: Approaching IP • Unit 2: War & Peace • Topic 3: Theories about War & Peace • Topic 4: Case Studies • Unit 3: International Political Economy • Topic 5: IPE Issue Areas • Topic 6: An IPE Case • Unit 4: International Organization • Unit 5: Contemporary Issues in the Int’l System

Unit 1, of course, was almost entirely theoretical. And it became rather abstract at times. (I’m looking at you Waltz & Wendt.)

The four remaining units will all include a good deal more empirical analysis. But we’ll have some theory in each as well.

Generally, we’ll cover some “smaller” theories of specific phenomena and evaluate these with some cases. But as we move forward, keep the “big” theories and questions from Unit 1 in mind.

In the readings today, we explore some general theories of the relationship between war and politics.On Thursday, we’ll examine one of the most significant empirical findings in the history of IP, the supposed “democratic peace.”

III. War & Politics War is the Absence of Politics War is the Continuation of Politics War is a Difficult Policy Instrument War: Why bother?

I am sure my rather clear position on the relation of war to politics needs no recapitulation! Thomas Hobbes

“[D]uring the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man…In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. ” -- Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. 1651. Ch 13.

Like I said: war is the antithesis of politics! Thomas Hobbes

That’s Thomas Hobbes.Carl Von Clausewitz had a rather different view of the relationship between war & politics…

Carl von Clausewitz • 1780-1831 • Prussian Soldier • Fought in French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars • Wrote on War (1832) based on Reflections

“[W]ar is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means…[W]ar in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs…Is war not just…another form of speech or writing? Its grammar, indeed, may be its own, but not its logic.” -- Carl von Clausewitz. On War. 1832. Bk VIII, Ch 6.

Whereas Hobbes suggested that war was the antithesis of politics—that politics was created to eliminate war—Clausewitz concluded that “[W]ar cannot be divorced from political life.”

War is an Instrument of Policy “Thus policy converts the overwhelmingly destructive element of war into a mere instrument. The terrible two-handed sword that should be used with total strength to strike once and no more, becomes the lightest rapier—sometimes even a harmless foil fit only for thrusts and feints and parries.” -- Carl von Clausewitz. On War. 1832. Bk VIII, Ch 6.

But, as Thomas Schelling recognized, transforming the blunt claymore in the precise foil is no easy task…

Thomas Schelling • 1921-Present • Economist (Harvard Ph.D., 1951) • Worked in Europe as Part of Marshall Plan • Winner of Nobel Prize • Author: The Strategy of Conflict; Arms and Influence

The whole point of using war as a policy instrument, of course, is to coerce the enemy—to bend the enemy to your will.

In Clausewitz’ time, the point was to use skill to occupy enemy lands.With nukes, though, things change. Now we use the threat of annihilation as a form of extortion.

Of course, we’ve always been able to annihilate peoples. (Right, Melos?)But ICBMs allow us to do this instantly and without defeating the enemy’s military force.Our citizenries are the hostages in this morbid game of chicken.

Schelling’s Point: Since war can be an instrument of policy, the way in which war is prosecuted affects the ways in which states conduct international politics.

But if war is just an instrument of policy, can’t we just let the stronger powers have their way and skip the war part?

James Fearon • UC-Berkeley Ph.D., 1992 • At Stanford University • Game Theory Expert • Studies Civil Wars • Likes Thomas Hobbes

Theories of War & Peace