"Democracies at War"

[Surferbeetle]

None of that really applies, although my work touches on a couple of these tangentially.

Taxation (funds for the war machine if nothing else), political representation, affordable innovation, and political opposition would seem to be four forces that a (democratic or not) nation state (assemblage) is subject to during war and peacetime.

I am trying to look at what type of war the U.S. is likely to be involved in future based not on military threat but on domestic political preference -- what type of war will the politician's prefer to fight (versus when will they prefer concessions or some other form of settlement).

You appear to be addressing two broadly different (internal) groups here: domestic political preference and the preference of politicians.

There are approximately 200 million individuals who are eligible to vote and 535+1 individuals who represent them…in the case of the US. What broad trends do you see that these groups have in common and disagree about? Understanding (via market segmentation studies for example), mobilizing, and sustaining coherent national will, seems to be a tricky and volatile business to be in, notwithstanding having to deal with an unpredictable external foe whose actions continually change the internal ‘equilibrium’. Add in regular rotation of the political representatives and it’s a wonder anything gets done at all.

The book finds that technology does not correlate to victory in battle, at least not as far as a democracy is concerned. Likewise, it finds that the economic advantage usually associated with a free market system is not the key to victory either.

How accurate/representative is your source compared to what one sees in the field? Does this correlate with what you have experienced?

Trying to avoid looking at it from this perspective.

Isn't war, at some level, a contest between hope and reality?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Taxation (funds for the war machine if nothing else), political representation, affordable innovation, and political opposition would seem to be four forces that a (democratic or not) nation state (assemblage) is subject to during war and peacetime.

I have read pieces on taxation and war. The general question of how political representation matters goes to the heart of the democratic/non-democratic distinction. What I have discovered thus far is that "democracy" does not really matter, but there are some aspects that are associated with democracies that do, like a better economic situation and legitimacy based on the support of the people. Because legitimacy is based on the will of the people part of the question becomes "why the population is willing, or sometimes demands, to go to war?"

You appear to be addressing two broadly different (internal) groups here: domestic political preference and the preference of politicians.

True to a point. Politicians can work to stir up the people. Also the people can afford politicians no choice. Finland's attempt to deal with Russia before WWII and the Spanish-American war are two instances where the people left no room for accommodation.

There are approximately 200 million individuals who are eligible to vote and 535+1 individuals who represent them…in the case of the US. What broad trends do you see that these groups have in common and disagree about? Understanding (via market segmentation studies for example), mobilizing, and sustaining coherent national will, seems to be a tricky and volatile business to be in, notwithstanding having to deal with an unpredictable external foe whose actions continually change the internal ‘equilibrium’. Add in regular rotation of the political representatives and it’s a wonder anything gets done at all.

One would think, but given the right motivation clearly it is not that difficult as Afghanistan and Iraq prove. In the case of the US there is a sufficient number of people who just don't care about war, as long as it is small and short and justified in the right way, that they will just not care that mush to get involved in stopping it.

How accurate/representative is your source compared to what one sees in the field? Does this correlate with what you have experienced?

Depends on the source. I cannot fully answer that question here, and what I have seen is only anecdotal. Each source I have read has come at it trying to prove a point. They manipulate their data by either changing sources, altering the data set they pull from the source, or changing the definitions of "democracy" or "war" or "win". The biggest fight seems to be between the realists and the normative thinkers. I mostly side with the normative camp, but not always.

Isn't war, at some level, a contest between hope and reality?

I am firmly of the opinion that war is exactly what Clausewitz says it is, the continuation of politics by other means. In a country where the government is mostly representative, the demands of the most active part of the population is likely to rule the day.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Also curious who is an advocate of realist thinking on Democracies versus those that take the Normative take on democracies at war. Who is an advocate of Stam and Reiter and those who advocate realist theories like Desch.