I have been working on an idea of a matrix for types of wars that is based on the original cause of the conflict. The idea being that the root cause drives the potential solution sets that then determine your policy/tactics in executing the war to reach your desired (or less than desired) end state. The concept is similar to what the FBI taught on how to negotiate with hostage takers based on the reason the person took hostages in the first place.

One of the distinctions I have been looking at is whether the conflict has its origins in a logical basis (i.e. seize territory for economic gain, seizing political power) or whether it has an emotional basis (i.e. religious or ethnic identity, a drive for freedom). Emotional wars tend started or well-up through the masses where logical wars tend to be initiated by the current political structure or an organized rival to it.

The policy and tactics would correspond to the type of conflict. Logical wars would be fought by making the price of continuing the war more costly than ending it or removing the political leadership that initiated the war. Emotional wars would be much more sticky and would have to address or redress the issue that is driving the masses. Taking out the current leadership would have little long term affect.

My questions are -

1. does this distinction ring true or is it only in my feeble imagination,

2. is the distinction useful, and

3. if it is, what other subcategories would be helpful?