Essay: What is ‘war’ good for?

This essay aims to discuss what war is good for by outlining potential uses of war, and the arguments against these uses, before coming to an informed conclusion.
There has always existed many debates around the idea of war, especially whether or not it can have a useful purpose. “Justice is not, in general, advanced by the use of offensive force” (Crawford, 2016, p.287). The idea of justice seems to imply a universal standard of fair treatment and peaceful cooperation, underpinned by genuine respect. This definition implies a huge disparity to the idea of war, where huge civilian casualties do not appear peaceful nor just. This point is made by Crawford (2016) who argues that democracy, at its core, condemns offensive political violence, and so war as an institution undermines democracy. This quote thus poses the question, that if war undermines democratic institutions, and is not used to serve justice, then what is it good for? This question must be discussed in terms of the uses of war; what it can, and cannot, be used for.
Throughout history the main purpose of war has been to seize land; this idea culminated in World War II, where Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum (living space) through the invasion of Poland in 1939, led to total war across the world. According to Mackinder (1942), “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartlands commands the World-Islands: Who rules the World-Islands commands the World” (p.106.); this idea explains why territory is so central to politics and war, as land gives resources, which in turn lead to a strong and functioning economy, and ultimately power. Vasquez and Valeriano (2010) state that 43 of 79 of the interstate wars that occurred from 1816 through to 1997 were territorial wars. Clearly, a predominant focus of war is to gain land for the state – this seems to follow a realist view, as the state acts entirely out of self-interest. However, this is not always a successful use of war, as evident by the huge 25000 square miles of land, and the 7,000,000 people that Germany lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (1919).
A main answer to the question of the uses of war is that war generally works as a means of accomplishing a goal; as explained by Pape (2014) many political leaders use military force, believing that it is a fast and inexpensive solution to demanding international issues. One example of this is Obama’s Syrian ‘drone war’, which presented as a humanitarian war to overthrow the authoritarian Syrian government and implement democracy, which was declared as a result of the Syrian government’s use of chemical assault on its own citizens; thus, demonstrating how war can be used to resolve an international issue. However when viewed in relation to Crawford’s idea that war undermines democracy (2016), then in reality, it seems as though all actions taken were in America’s own self-interest; in 2013 Obama stated that the conflict in Syria has “profound implications for America’s national security”. This idea may be further supported by the fact that Obama’s administration carried out drone strikes without the approval of the UN Security Council. The lack of this approval, alongside the arguably unclear goals of the US means that “In the future, other less humanitarian minded states can cite President Obama’s 2013 threat…using the murky concepts of humanitarian intervention and R2P for their own self interested purposes” (Koh 2016, p.1003). As follows, ‘war’ in this example can be used for humanitarian intervention, for example by targeting the Assad regime. However this ‘humanitarian intervention’ can also also be twisted to achieve a more self-interested purpose, such as that to create and maintain further national security within the USA.
However war is not simply this clear cut, and I believe that it cannot be said definitively that war is good either as a means of serving justice, ensuring national security, nor as a means of resolving international issues. One modern example of a less-traditional war are drone strikes, and although they are only one aspect of the institution that is the ‘war on terror’, even their use can be disputed. From the viewpoint of the United States, the drone strikes are a means of eliminating terrorist threats, meaning that this ‘war’ is, in fact, good for both ensuring national security and resolving international issues. Regarding the US drone strikes in the Middle East however, a study conducted in Pakistan by Pew Research Centre, showed that only 7% of those taking part viewed Obama positively. McCriskin (2013) discusses this, arguing that there is a debate around the effectiveness of operations such as Obama’s drone strikes, as they had a hugely negative effect on public opinion of America in Pakistan. This, in turn, seemed to aid the recruitment of terrorist groups within the country; McCrisken cites Addicott, a former legal advisor to Special Operations Forces, who questions whether “we [are] creating more enemies than we’re killing or capturing by our activities? Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes…You’re not winning over the population…Drones don’t impress them” (2013). It can therefore be argued that even this war, which does not place soldiers on the ground, is in no way useful, as killing innocent civilians and encouraging terrorist organisations does not show any relation to justice, and in fact seems to threaten national security. When viewed in this light, how can war be good for anything other than causing further disputes?
It must be recognised however that sometimes war is inevitable; Britain and France’s promise of war against Germany if Poland was invaded in 1939 led to war on a massive scale, and ultimately, was needed in order to overthrow the authoritarian Nazi regime. In the past 70 years since the end of the Second World War however, means of war have progressed hugely. The development of nuclear weaponry at the end of WWII and over the period of the Cold War means that war has become an existential threat to all of humanity, and as a consequence, means that it can no longer be used in ways which it has been in the past; for example, how can war be used to claim territory, when a huge component of warfare is the destruction of territory? In 2008, the Defence Science Board, advisory body to the Pentagon, noted that “no threat can put the nations existence at risk as quickly and as chillingly as nuclear weapons” (cited in Nichols 2014, p.4). Nichols (2014) discusses the effect that nuclear weapons have had on the uses of war, noting that Western leaders continuously questioned that morality of administering mass casualties on an enemy, and whether it was worth the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The MAD which led to nuclear standoff of the Cold War displays the application of the ‘deterrence theory’ of war, which uses the threat of mass force to prevent an enemy from attacking. This theory can be compared to Tzu’s The Art of War (4th Century BCE), which encourages warfare with minimum destruction. McNeilly (2015) discusses this by emphasising that a state should attain it’s goals in a way which increases said state’s chance of survival, and not through the means of destruction. Following Tzu’s theory, if the most effective way to accomplish goals is with minimum violence, then how can full-scale war be good for anything?
Ultimately, the question of war and what it is good for is of great significance within politics. As discussed, it is indisputable that war has, particularly in the past, had its uses, particularly that of aiding in the conquering of territory. This use has evolved over time however, alongside the development of means of warfare, as it is evidently much more difficult to minimise destruction when fighting with guns and bombs, rather that swords and arrows. In modern society therefore, it appears as though a more prominent use of war is for humanitarian means, although even this use is disputed, as issues of the morality of humanitarian war can be raised, as military intervention “disrupts international order, destroys human life, and inevitably brings about human suffering” (Heinze 2009, p.15). To conclude, therefore, I believe there is a huge limit to what war is actually good for, as the consequences, particularly the deaths of civilians, tend to outweigh the uses and disrupt the moral code of contemporary western society. Despite this, the concept of war is too deeply ingrained in society for the immoral consequences to carry much weight within the debate regarding what war is ‘good’ for, and thus, because of this, war remains to be inevitable.