The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[Bill Moore]

Bob,

Merry Christmas!

I have been dwelling on the political-military nexux of conflict also, and I'm finding it difficult to identify any motivations for violence that I can't tie to what Thucydides identified as the motivation for war (or conflict): fear, honor, and interest

Ethnic hatred is usually fear, but can touch interests and honor

Economic viability is interest

Disrespect is honor

If a government can address their constituents fears, maintain their honor and look after their varied interests I would call that legitimacy and suspect there would be relative peace. This is not easy, or even possible when there are numerous warring groups with conflicting interests, pride and fear abounds. In this case, the government can't address the issue (I guess you could call it root causes) and it will likely boil over into violence.

I think our challenge is identifying ways to establish relative stability without depending on government legitimacy, but to that will require substantial changes in the international and our system on how we respond (to include forms of what will look like colonialism, redrawing borders, and in extreme cases warring against select populations when it is determined that they are hopefully hostile and it they're a danger to high value national interests).

I'm sure there is a better way to put it, but legitimacy is a complex condition that is constantly shifting and Thucydides seems to me to have captured a lot of it. If he is right, then are situations where we will have to fight, and hoping to obtain peace through digging wells, building schools, etc. will remain a pipe dream.

[Bob's World]

Bob,

Merry Christmas!

I have been dwelling on the political-military nexux of conflict also, and I'm finding it difficult to identify any motivations for violence that I can't tie to what Thucydides identified as the motivation for war (or conflict): fear, honor, and interest

Ethnic hatred is usually fear, but can touch interests and honor

Economic viability is interest

Disrespect is honor

If a government can address their constituents fears, maintain their honor and look after their varied interests I would call that legitimacy and suspect there would be relative peace. This is not easy, or even possible when there are numerous warring groups with conflicting interests, pride and fear abounds. In this case, the government can't address the issue (I guess you could call it root causes) and it will likely boil over into violence.

I think our challenge is identifying ways to establish relative stability without depending on government legitimacy, but to that will require substantial changes in the international and our system on how we respond (to include forms of what will look like colonialism, redrawing borders, and in extreme cases warring against select populations when it is determined that they are hopefully hostile and it they're a danger to high value national interests).

I'm sure there is a better way to put it, but legitimacy is a complex condition that is constantly shifting and Thucydides seems to me to have captured a lot of it. If he is right, then are situations where we will have to fight, and hoping to obtain peace through digging wells, building schools, etc. will remain a pipe dream.

One certainly discounts the importance of Ethnicity and and Honor to one's peril in Afhganistan. And in a recent poll, nearly twice the percentage of Kandahar City cited "Economy" as cited "security" as their number one concern.

The Taliban offer young men a paycheck to fight foreign invaders. That hits all three of Thucydides' points. Any competing coalition plan must do the same.