Slap,Originally Posted by slapout9
I would classify these conflicts based on the Relatedness needs (what I term wars of collective identity) and with Security (fear) or Revenge, depending on what additional justification is given for the attack. Looking at the American west, you could argue that our genocidal attacks on the Native Americans were based on Relatedness (us versus them) and either Revenge (they attacked us first, so we must kill them) or Security (we need their land and resources for our own expansion). Once the motivational mold is set, everything else follows. Bill is also correct that the right leader can chose a different path, but I think this is only possible to a point. I have read some material on the Spanish-American war that basically said that it would have been political suicide to try to stop that war. I am not sure if a President after 9/11, or Pearl Harbor, could have said "let's take a step back and think about this" and survived politically. As Clausewitz point out, part of the trinity is the passion of the people.
As Bill points out, there is always an us-and-them component. This is a basic part of my definition of war – one group using deadly violence against another distinguishable group. This becomes more interesting when you get to wars of individual identity (freedom) because suddenly there is less interest in attacking the population. If you use individual freedoms as your justification you cannot simply kill the other side, you must distinguish who you are killing and justify it as killing to gain freedom for the oppressed. Going out on a limb, I would argue that this is the basis for what some term the Liberal Peace – why certain liberal countries tend not to go to war with each other. It is not that they won’t, they just can’t use individual identity as part of the justification. The Falklands was over territory (a basic physiological need). I am still tweaking…
Bookmarks