Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Motivation in War

  1. #21
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    How about honour and miscalculation?.....One post referred to The Falklands (1982), when these factors featured on both sides.
    Honour ties back to Relatedness. If I figure out how to reduce the size of an image I can demonstrate how the Relatedness need ties in to certain values including Face, Tradition, and Conformity. Face is closely associated with honour.

    Miscalculation is not so much a motivation as it is an error in accurately percieving the situation, so I do not go into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Thinking - a little - it is curious how much the British sense of honour has featured in our declaring war in 1914 for "plucky little Belgium", at least that was a long-standing strategic interest; quite unlike Poland in 1939, whose security had quickly became a national interest. I hesitate to look at imperial era wars.
    Strategic interests would always play into Security.

    What I would find more interesting is the "Christmas Truce", where "peace" broke out. Why was it that suddenly the motivation for war no longer mattered to the two sides?

    My guess is that they temporarily lost the ability to see each other as seperate groups. Their commonalities (Christian backgrounds and love of soccer) outweighed their perceived differences. They lost the Relatedness motivation and there was not a clear Autonomy motivation at this point in the war (or revenge). I don't have time to go into it, but that would be a facinating flip-side to this question.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 07-23-2013 at 04:02 PM. Reason: fix quote
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  2. #22
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default War Types - First Run

    Here is my first run at war types.

    Categories are first broken down by who I am looking at, then the distinction used to identify the seperate groups, then the Needs, Values, and Themes.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-23-2013 at 05:19 PM.

  3. #23
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    The Falklands was over territory (a basic physiological need).
    About territory? I'd have said pride...
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  4. #24
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    About territory? I'd have said pride...
    Perhaps, but it was not about liberty. Pride is powerful, as associated with Relatedness, but I am not sure it is enough in itself. I think it is a combination of pride (relatedness) and an offense against that pride (revenge or security) that kicks in the motivation to actually kill.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  5. #25
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Perhaps the Falklands was a confluence of pride, racism, mixed in with other stuff.

    The Argentinians were so frequently referred to as "Spics" that perhaps it made the boys shoulder the burden more easily.

  6. #26
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Perhaps the Falklands was a confluence of pride, racism, mixed in with other stuff.

    The Argentinians were so frequently referred to as "Spics" that perhaps it made the boys shoulder the burden more easily.
    If it was only pride and racism we would be killing each other left and right. There has to be a kicker: an event or action that is such an affront that it required action. Invasion of territory is such an event. A massacre might also reach that level. But simply racism is not enough even if tied to pride. Otherwise, there would be a lot more wars.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  7. #27
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Kind of long, but I wanted to throw this out for consideration by the group. If wars are actions by one group against another then there must be a way to distinguish the two groups. Historically this has been based on Collective Identity (Tribe, Ethnic Group, Religion, and Nationalism). Recently Individual Identity has been added. Here there is no pre-set group; you are part of this group because you see the individual as supreme. It is the basis of popular sovereignty and representative governments. In any case, here is my section describing the characteristics of these wars.

    Any comments would be appreciated.


    Characteristics of Wars based on Individual Identity

    Wars that use Individual Identity are relatively new and tend to be associated with revolutions against dictators. In modern times the American and French Revolutions as well as a number of guerrilla actions can be tied to this type of war . These conflicts can be less predictable or controllable. The individualistic nature of the need for autonomy makes every person who feels compelled by that drive to act as a potential participant. Revolutions built on autonomy do not always require centralized leadership and events can take on a life of their own with leadership only emerging well after the fighting has started. This means that negotiating a peace or surrender may be much more difficult. Similarly, since there is no natural cohesive structure to the group no single person is going to be able to guarantee that hostilities will cease until the group coalesces around some principles. It is in the nature of autonomy not to be subject to another’s will. This alone can create a very difficult post conflict environment. Third, it is possible that the entire population is acting on this motivation. For example, the initial revolt in Syria may have been about autonomy but, as other groups became involved, segments of the rebels were ethnic or religious groups more likely motivated by Collective Identity.

    Interstate conflicts can also be based on Individual Identity. Although generally not seen as such, the first interstate conflict that had the characteristics of Individual Identity was the Napoleonic Wars. France had just passed through the first stages of its revolution and the ideals of freedom and liberty were part of the recruiting propaganda for the war effort. The military had been restructured based on individual merit not birthright. The wars were viewed as being a fight for the liberation of Europe from kings and tyrants. That same idea holds true in modern wars. When America chose to act against Sadam Hussein it portrayed the action as a war to liberation. We were not there to fight the Iraqi citizens; we were there to topple an oppressive regime. The “us” was all freedom loving people (including Iraqis); the “them” were all the oppressors.

    Three points are worth noting regarding interstate wars based on Individual Identity. First, certain historically acceptable tactics may no longer be viable. If country A is basing its distinction on Individual Identity then attacks that disproportionally affect the civilian population are not going to be acceptable to the civilians of country A. Salting the earth or laying siege on a city attacks the individuals who are not the target of the war. Second, even though the civilian population may see the war that way, the participants may not. Autonomy is an anxiety-free motivation where there is nothing anxiety-free about combat. It is conceivable that the psychological dynamics will shift a Soldier’s mindset towards Collective Identity and viewing the enemy, including civilians, as a homogonous group. At the extreme this will allow Soldier’s to commit acts that they would otherwise not engage in, like the Mai Lai Massacre. Third, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have two countries use Individual Identity against each other. If both see the citizen’s of the other country as “just like me” then it is difficult distinguish who I am fighting against. There is no “us-versus-them”; there is only “us”. Any Country whose political system is built on popular sovereignty with a representative form of government is going to fall into this category. This could, in part, account for what is known as the Democratic or Liberal Peace. This does not mean that these countries cannot go to war with each other. It means that the nature of the events must be such that the other side can be characterized as somehow repressive or clearly “not like us”.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default "cosmopolitan individualism"

    Link; not an endorsement.

    See page 5 et seq:

    B. The Shift toward Cosmopolitan Individualism

    A combination of ideological, strategic, and political forces have driven the shift from communalism to individualism in the regulation of wartime behavior. It would be impossible to show which of these forces was most influential, either independently or in connection with a particular issue. Sometimes, military regulations that began as strategic self-interest were later incorporated into the law; at other times, legal norms shaped moral sensibilities, which were then translated into strategic and tactical conduct. These driving forces have been most influential over liberal democracies, and much of the analysis below thus focuses inevitably on the norms that govern — or purport to govern — liberal democracies. ....
    Regards

    Mike

  9. #29
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Cosmopolitan Individualism

    Many thanks. Its from Harvard, but I can live with it...
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  10. #30
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Here is my first run at war types.

    Categories are first broken down by who I am looking at, then the distinction used to identify the seperate groups, then the Needs, Values, and Themes.
    Stan,
    After looking at the table, I think you can push the analysis a little further and categorize all of your Natural Wars as an instantiation of the "fight" side of the "fight or flight" reflex to a threat.
    --WoPS are based on a threat to satisfying one's physiological or socvial needs;
    --WoPG respond to threats to Security needs;
    --WOIL are the fight reaction to threats to autonomy.
    I am not sure I completely understand what a WoTPR is but I suspect that the threatened need is autonomy or security at one remove. What I mean is not a direct threat to one's autonomy or security but a perception of a potential threat felt through the threats against someone else's autonomy--something like a domino effect approach. It has the same kind of justification as you will find in David Hume's explanation for why we act morally.


    I am not really sure what value the group identifier column has to your analysis. Perhaps you could cash that out more for us.

    Having just come back from a visit to the Spotsylvania Court House battlefield, I'd like to understand what motivated those boys in blue and gray to continue the struggle for 20 hours at the Bloody Angle of the Mule Shoe salient. Does the scope of your work include answering the question of why people keep fighting in what seems to be a hopeless cause (in a conflict whose final goal is unattainable, that is, either unwinnable or unloseable)? I am not quite sure that loyalty to the group (or group think) has that power but I am certainly open to be persuaded otherwise
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  11. #31
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    If it was only pride and racism we would be killing each other left and right. There has to be a kicker: an event or action that is such an affront that it required action. Invasion of territory is such an event. A massacre might also reach that level. But simply racism is not enough even if tied to pride. Otherwise, there would be a lot more wars.


    If I am right in my other post (30) about fight or flight responses to perceived threats, then I think the answer lies in understanding what it is that causes people sometimes to choose fight and sometimes to choose flight.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  12. #32
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Perhaps the Falklands was a confluence of pride, racism, mixed in with other stuff.

    The Argentinians were so frequently referred to as "Spics" that perhaps it made the boys shoulder the burden more easily.
    I think you are right about needing to find a way to "shoulder the burden more easily." I suspect that most of us have a pretty deep-seated aversion to killing other people. However, if we can do something to make our targets appear to be something other than people just like us, pulling the trigger becomes a little more palatable. Other comments on this thread about racism as a motivation for war are instances of this "dehumanizing" of one's opponent. Whether the dehumanizing of one's opponent occurs prior to the start of the war or after the war starts and it becomes apparent the troops will not be home before Christmas may well relate to the distinction that Stan made in his table between Natural Wars and Artificial Wars.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  13. #33
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    First, thanks for taking the time to write.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Stan,
    After looking at the table, I think you can push the analysis a little further and categorize all of your Natural Wars as an instantiation of the "fight" side of the "fight or flight" reflex to a threat.
    --WoPS are based on a threat to satisfying one's physiological or socvial needs;
    --WoPG respond to threats to Security needs;
    --WOIL are the fight reaction to threats to autonomy.
    "Fight or flight" is based on a response but "natural war", as I use it, includes purely offensive acts, like raids on other tribes to steal women. There is no real threat, just feels like the right thing to do. So the question is "why does it feel right?" and why does the entire group support such activities. (Heck, they even tell stories and sing songs about them).

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    I am not sure I completely understand what a WoTPR is but I suspect that the threatened need is autonomy or security at one remove. What I mean is not a direct threat to one's autonomy or security but a perception of a potential threat felt through the threats against someone else's autonomy--something like a domino effect approach. It has the same kind of justification as you will find in David Hume's explanation for why we act morally.
    WoTPR is based on Revenge, which has an interesting twist to it. An act of revenge stimulates pleasure centers in the brain (no kidding "Beyond Revenge: Neural and genetic bases of altruistic punishment" NeuroImage 54 (2011) 671-680). The interesting thing is that you don’t have to be the person actually revenging the wrong; an outside observer gets the same feeling of satisfaction. So if you see a wrong committed to a another person (or group) you feel compelled to act to correct it (and others will spur you on so that they get the “rush” when the act is avenged). This motivational construct is what I feel is behind humanitarian interventions.

    There has to be a feeling of empathy with the group being attacked but I think that goes to group identification. Horrible acts are committed all the time but if we don't have any affiliation with the group we don't feel compelled to act (although we might feel sorry for them). By using revenge I may have limited the concept too much, but I think that it best represents the spontaneous nature of the motivation to act when there is no direct threat against you or your group.
    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    I am not really sure what value the group identifier column has to your analysis. Perhaps you could cash that out more for us.
    My definition has a two part analysis. First, you have to be able to distinguish your group from the other group and then you have to have a reason to fight. Group identifier is how you separate groups. Goes back to the idea of racism. Yes, you can use race as the way you distinguish your group from another, but there has to be more – some motivational drive to make your group decide to act.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Having just come back from a visit to the Spotsylvania Court House battlefield, I'd like to understand what motivated those boys in blue and gray to continue the struggle for 20 hours at the Bloody Angle of the Mule Shoe salient. Does the scope of your work include answering the question of why people keep fighting in what seems to be a hopeless cause (in a conflict whose final goal is unattainable, that is, either unwinnable or unloseable)? I am not quite sure that loyalty to the group (or group think) has that power but I am certainly open to be persuaded otherwise
    I am afraid that is beyond what I am trying to do.

    The ultimate purpose of this exercise is to determine what motivations cause people to go to war so that you can directly attack that motivation. It is kinda a Psyops idea, but more general. For example, using group identifiers, you have two choices; either you can make your enemy feel your group is so much like them that they no longer feel like fighting (the Christmas Truce); or you make others seem like they are more different or deserving of their hostilities (divide and conquer). If you can satisfy other needs or otherwise reduce their influence you can reduce the odds that a group (nation) will chose to go to war.

    While exhaustion (the idea that eventually you no longer see the purpose of fighting) is a concept I have played with, I am not sure I can flesh it out. I do think that, once involved in war, it becomes self-sustaining for the actors, particularly the warriors. Again, I don’t any research material on this issue.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-25-2013 at 01:22 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  14. #34
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Wars of Third Party Revenge

    Here is my section on WoTPR. It is still very crude.

    Wars of Third Party Revenge are conflicts whose motivation is predicated on a perceived injustice against an individual or group with whom the warring group has some affiliation. When these wars are conducted by a political state and there is no mutual defense treaty they tend to be classified as humanitarian interventions. Not all humanitarian interventions are motivated by revenge. There has to be a perceived injustice. An early example of a WoTPR was the attacks by the British against the Duke of Savoy in response to the massacre of the Vaudois in the mid 1650’s. In this case the massacre was the injustice and the affiliation was religious; the Vaudois were Protestant.

    The impulse for Third Party Revenge acts on the individual and can cause people to take action independent of an actual political interest. This can be observed today in calls for jihad against infidel invaders. The perceived injustice is a territorial infraction and the common affiliation is religion. Individuals join the fight without leadership from within their group. In Syria it is not uncommon for foreign fighters to enter the country in order to protect members of their religion.

    Much like the perceived injustice the nature of the affiliation required to activate Third Party Revenge is culturally specific and can change over time. For example, in the West “[t]he concept of people deserving protection evolved: from confessional co-religionists, to all fellow Christians, to all human beings.” It is not unconceivable that this list will continue to expand to “all living beings” as environmental activists and animal rights groups feel compelled to act to protect any living organism.

    Not all conflict can be associated with a group need. Wars are often initiated by political leaders for strictly political or personal reasons. If war is a natural activity for humans where a group’s needs is threatened, then wars for reasons other than group needs can be termed artificial. These are wars where the leader initiates the conflict for a personal motivation. There is sufficient information available on when and why leaders take their countries to war so no further examination of this topic is made here.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-25-2013 at 01:07 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  15. #35
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Needs to values

    Here is my needs to values image. Outer ring denotes needs. Next ring denotes Anxiety-reducing versus Anxiety-free values (goes to the general concept of Security needs). The inner pie identifies the values associated with the needs.

    The purpose of this image is to help identify which needs are motivating the conflict. Look to the propoganda of the enemy for value themes. Connect the themes to the needs.

    This image is based on Shalom Schwartz' universal values. I include a chart explaining each of the values. At the moment it is too big.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  16. #36
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Rings within rings (or is that wheels within wheels?)

    The Hegelian in me wants to see thesis-antithesis pairs in the ring of values in your chart. Just as a case can be made that the middle ring sets anxiety reducing and anxiety free in opposition, in some cases values in the inner ring seem to be opposed to each other, but this does not carry through in any complete way. Can you explain the asymmetry of the values in the inner ring; as a minimum, why the numbers of values that are apprently subordinated to the two middle ring categories are not equal to each other? Or am I just attributing more to the visualization than it is meant to convey?
    Last edited by wm; 07-26-2013 at 02:48 AM. Reason: correct typos
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  17. #37
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Schwartz' Universal Values

    WM,

    The circular design of the inner "ring" or pie comes from Shalom Schwartz Universal Human Values Theory (Are there Universal in the Structure and Content of Human Values). The values are set up opposing based on his surveys. He laid out responses to his surveys in a two dimensional form and the result was that value pie.

    It is not as much philosophical theory as it is psychological fact (or at least as much fact as you can have with psychology). He has been working on this theory since 1989 and it is pretty robust.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-26-2013 at 11:31 AM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  18. #38
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default More thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    It is not as much philosophical theory as it is psychological fact (or at least as much fact as you can have with psychology). He has been working on this theory since 1989 and it is pretty robust.
    Hegel would say that they (philosophical theory and psychological fact) are the same thing in different aspects--the Absolute Ideal manifesting itself in the world as the Concrete Universal. (And you thought modern writing in psychology was psychobabble )

    Anyway, I also have some cmoments on your explication of WoTPR. It seems to be inconsistent with earlier posts. On the one hand you said
    Quote Originally Posted by #33
    "Fight or flight" is based on a response but "natural war", as I use it, includes purely offensive acts, like raids on other tribes to steal women. There is no real threat, just feels like the right thing to do. So the question is "why does it feel right?" and why does the entire group support such activities. (Heck, they even tell stories and sing songs about them).
    On the other hand in the same post you say
    Quote Originally Posted by #33
    WoTPR is based on Revenge, which has an interesting twist to it. An act of revenge stimulates pleasure centers in the brain (no kidding "Beyond Revenge: Neural and genetic bases of altruistic punishment" NeuroImage 54 (2011) 671-680). The interesting thing is that you don’t have to be the person actually revenging the wrong; an outside observer gets the same feeling of satisfaction. So if you see a wrong committed to a another person (or group) you feel compelled to act to correct it (and others will spur you on so that they get the “rush” when the act is avenged). This motivational construct is what I feel is behind humanitarian interventions.
    Implicit in this second quote seems to be a denial that WoPTR are a response to threats to the group initiating the WoTPR. Rather they are motivated by pleasure seeking, which, unless one is masochistic, is probably not associated with being threatened.*
    Then in the discussion of WoPTR in the next post you note that artifical wars are those wars that are not response to a threat to a group.
    Quote Originally Posted by #34
    If war is a natural activity for humans where a group’s needs is threatened, then wars for reasons other than group needs can be termed artificial.
    However, you classified WoTPR as a category of Natural War in your table.
    Just sayin' . . .

    * I am not sure of this point because so-called "action junkies" (think Evel Knievel, for example, or folks who visit haunted houses at carnivals) do seem to get a positive stimulus/pleasure from the feeling of being in danger. Perhaps the warriors you mentioned earlier in the thread: "warriors (young men who traditionally have a propensity towards combat)" fit into this same category.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  19. #39
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default War and revenge

    I understand.

    Not all war is based on revenge. For example, if I just want to steal your women, I just go and do it. That is an offensive, first strike. Revenge, by its nature, is retribution for another act (like me stealing your women). I may have confused the two in my comments.

    As for revenge and pleasure, I suppose that is a poor way of saying it (although interesting). If war is a natural act for humans and not a cultural adaptation that only came into being once we became "civilized” then there will be drives that cause us to act in the same way there are drives that motivate us to eat. You feel good after a satisfying meal … and you feel good after vanquishing an enemy or taking revenge. It is not sadism; it is an adaptation that humans (and chimpanzees and other apes) have “hardwired” (for lack of a better term) into our brains. With that as the basis of my ideas on war as a natural act, the question is what triggers these impulses or drives?

    Natural wars are deadly conflicts where a group need is threatened and the group reacts. Artificial wars are initiated by the group leadership and may or may not have anything to do with the needs or desire of the group. Most modern wars are artificial (although even artificial wars will need to play to one of the aspects of a natural war to get the group to willingly participate). Spontaneous revolutions and revolts and/or some insurgencies I would consider being closer to natural wars.

    Finally, yes "action junkies" would probably be close to the idea behind the warriors. The idea that sports in high school are used to channel these natural aggressions found in most young males (OK, I am being sexist, but the data supports the idea) is along the same lines. Makes me wonder if the first thing we did in Afghanistan was to organize inter-valley cricket competitions, there would have been a smaller insurgent population. Cricket seems to be the only thing the British managed to leave in Afghanistan (except for a lot of Enfields and bayonets).

    One other point, above I mention that war is a deadly act that is the result of a group need being "threatened". That was a poor choice of words. There may not need to be a direct threat, only an unfulfilled drive. Going back to stealing women. Reproduction is part of our nature - our species dies without it. There may be women in our group but we feel we want more so we go and take them from another group. Same for food or anything else that we have a drive to have. It is based on anxiety - a fear of not having enough (the second ring), but it does not necessarily involve an actual threat.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-26-2013 at 01:02 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  20. #40
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Classification system

    OK, here is my classification system. Description of the Motivation/Needs is in the text box.

    The second most important motivational component of the definition of war is a goal or objective.

    5.2.1 Physiological needs

    When hunter-gatherers fought “wars” they generally involved physiological needs. Physiological needs, those required to sustain species, are the most powerful. For the most part these wars occurred in a period of time before recorded history where humans survived as hunter-gathers. These were mostly conflicts for access to resources needed for basic survival like food and water or raids for mates but there is one aspect that carries over readily to modern war, territorial integrity. Humans, as well as our closest evolutionary relative chimpanzees, are territorial. We see incursions onto our territory as a threat and will deal with them accordingly. This motivation is as true today as it was 50,000 years ago.

    5.1.2.2 Safety-Security needs

    Safety-Security needs, or Security for short, are a broad category that covers most of the justifications that have been the purpose of war in the past. These have been wars to access resources, preemptive response to threats of potential attack, to gain territory, or otherwise ensure the group’s survival. They are not tied to a specific need but connected to a category of needs associated with fear or anxiety. From a motivational perspective they are associated with self-protection anxiety-avoidance values. This category may be too broad to be useful without further dissection. The specifics of each situation will need to be examined.

    5.1.2.3 Liberty

    These wars are not as easy to associate with a particular need. This is because Relatedness needs and may push a group to seek independence while havening nothing to do with Autonomy needs or Self-Direction. I will use a biblical story to illustrate this. Moses fought the Pharaoh to free his people. He was seeking liberty for the Israelites. But he was not seeking self-direction on an individual basis. When the Israelites decided to exercise their freedom of religious choice, Moses got rather pissed-off. The conflict was not for individual liberty but for freedom of the group subjugation by a different group. This motivation is behind conflicts like the Basque movement in Spain. However, Liberty can also act as an individual motivation. The American and French revolutions are examples of this. This is where the distinctions in the group type can help identify which motivations are likely to be important to ending a dispute.


    5.3.1 Revenge

    Revenge is a concept that everyone is familiar with. At some point in your life you have felt the powerful drive to retaliate against someone who has wronged you or a person close to you. Revenge is not a need, it is a cognitive adaptation. As a cognition revenge is culturally specific. For an event to trigger the revenge impulse must be a “wrong” in your culture. For example, drawing a cartoon that lampoons the prophet Muhammad may be perfectly acceptable in one culture yet creates an automatic motivation for vengeance in another. That powerful drive for vengeance is often part of the motivational calculus in wars, if not at the beginning, then certainly at some point after hostilities commence as each side tries to portray the other as committing atrocities.

    Two points are important with thinking of revenge as a motivation in war. First, revenge does not stand alone as an independent motivation. It must be tied to an event or act that initiates the drive. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked killing of American’s as well as a territorial infraction. This assailment of our most primitive needs led to war in a matter of days. Second, the injustice need not be on you individually but it does need to be against someone with whom you have some affiliation. Your relative may not have died in the attack on Pearl Harbor but a fellow American did. Further, the person who actually takes revenge is not the only person who receives satisfaction from the act. Other members of the avenging group also receive satisfaction. That connection can vary with the culture. In some cultures it is perfectly acceptable to treat outsiders differently while in other cultures there is no distinction between in-group members and out-group members. However, this drive for revenge based on injury to a third-party can be the cause of conflict.

    5.1.3.2 Third Party Revenge
    It is possible that a war involved more than on classification (i.e. Collective Identity Revenge and Collective Identity Security). Thoughts are welcome.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-27-2013 at 09:06 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

Similar Threads

  1. China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 806
    Last Post: 01-11-2015, 10:00 PM
  2. The overlooked, underrated, and forgotten ...
    By tequila in forum Historians
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-18-2013, 07:36 PM
  3. SSI Annual Strategy Conference: The Meaning of War
    By SteveMetz in forum Miscellaneous Goings On
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 01:24 PM
  4. COIN v. Conventional Capability Debate
    By Menning in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 05-20-2008, 12:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •