WC 502 -- MOTIVES AND OBJECTIVES FOR WAR AND CONFLICT
Date: 8 SEP 97

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

502.1 Comprehend that societies make war for a multitude of motives and that the origins of violent conflict cannot be found in a single, clearly identifiable cause.

502.11 Explain the characteristics of the motives for war.

- Typically, War is viewed to be caused by something other than the will of those who started it is that it has no cause at all, that it is an accident. The misconceptions, misunderstanding, miscalculations, and technical malfunctioning of international affairs somehow combine to produce tragic, unwanted events in much the same way a traffic accident occurs. Wars are therefore depicted as social accidents, a systematic breakdown, or as events gone awry. Another widely held explanation is that wars occur because we want them to happen. They are products of conscious choices and are preferred to peace (Motives for War, 1).

- Motives for war generally fit into three different categories: historical trends or patterns, for example, the creation of empires; individual decision-makers who shape the warrior class; and the examination of the motives of the individual warriors (Motives for War, 1).

- The philosophical category is a fourth category that has often been neglected when analyzing motives for war. This category is based on the premise that man's human emotions, values, aspirations and passions have not changed over time. Human technology and science however, change rapidly. Man has always wanted the same things throughout history: he has just used different means with which to acquire them. With regards to explaining motives for war however, theorist tended to focus on the variations used by man, or rather technology, the means of war, to explain the causes of war instead of focusing on the unchanging nature of man's culture as shaped by his emotions and passions (Motives for War, 1-2).

502.12 Describe the events, factors, and/or forces that starts actors on the road to war; and why each opponent makes the decision to fight.

- According to Dr. Magyar, there have been many thinkers and theories regarding the causes of war since the time of Thucydides. However, none of the modern theorist, ranging from Kenneth Waltz to Quincy Wright, have produced anything that is new nor have they offered any new insight as to why wars are fought. Thucydides on the other hand, offered us a brilliant assessment of human nature against which we may compare these theories. The factors leading to war between the Athens and Sparta could comprise a discussion of virtually any modern conflict in our own age. Those factors are colonies, supporting revolts, alliances, truces, blockades, protection of one's own nationals in foreign lands, breaking of a truce, the demands for independence, exclusion from ports and from the rich markets, constitutions, ways of life, strategic losses and fleets of ships, and aggression. Thuycidides' causes of war could comprise a discussion of virtually any modern conflict in our own age (Motives for War, 4).

- Just Wars is a concept that gives war legitimacy provided that sufficiently valuable goods are at stake, they are seriously threatened, the danger is such that violence is necessary if the goods are to be protected, there is reasonable chance of success, and any evils committed in the defense of these goods not outweigh them. What is considered to be a "just cause" however, is socially defined (Motives for War, 5).

- Adda Bozeman focuses on civilizations, as opposed to nation-states, as the proper unit of analysis for international relations and for the study of war. Ideas are a product of cultures or civilizations and take into account values, norms images, and traditions. Civilizations, therefore, are the key to understanding war. Motives for war can best be understood through the comprehensive study of an adversary's philosophies, ideologies, myths, religions, and its history ( Motives for War, 10-12).

- Searching for a single cause of war or explaining a particular war based on one cause of war has been the focus of many theorist. These theories take just one or just a few factors such as race, religion, or arms competition, as the sole explanation. However, upon further investigation on the variety of purpose that war has served in history, we realize there are a variety of causes for which men have chosen to fight and cannot be reduced to a single cause (Motives for War, 16).

- Because all wars are unique and reflect a different combination of motives, we can never comprehend all the variables involved in dealing with ideas, values, and cultures. Although a great amount of theories have been postulated on why wars begin, one common theme is evident in the majority of the writings ranging from Thucydides to the early Christian writers to the modern social theorist: all consider organized society to be the major variable. War is a social affair and its motives reflect cultural values. Individuals, in the final analysis, do not make wars. Societies do. Motives for war are a complex combination of drives. Differences in motives may be gleaned in different cultures. Thus, societies make wars for a multitude of reasons that are culturally driven--the origins of war cannot be found in a single, clearly identifiable cause (Motives for War, 15).

- In general, the social actors to war will tend to fight only over core interests. In most societies, the decision to go to war is a "drastic" step and almost irrevocable when made. Practically all societies, even dictatorial regimes, are concerned about the support of the people before engaging in war. As Clausewitz says about trinitarian warfare: The passions that are to be kindled in war (including violence, hatred, and enmity) reside in a society's populace -- and they tend to enrage only over core interests, or threats to their survival. However, other motives may in fact drive the conflict, especially for great powers who face little threat to their core interests (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 28-29).

502.2 Comprehend how motives for war can be ranked in terms of core, intermediate, and peripheral interests of the social actors of war.

502.21 Describe the three types of state interests.

- CORE interests are usually related to national security matters. The perception of a challenge to the survival of a society invariably results in war. Each society however, may define "survival" differently, depending on given societies values and perceptions. Thus, the socio-cultural and political survival of a society can be proposed as its core interest. Other core interest areas include defense, threats, alliance obligations, balance of power factors, etc. Wars fought over core interests are often unlimited in the scope of their violence and involve not just the institutions of military force, that is, armies, navies and air forces, but the participation of the entire society. Conversely, the entire society becomes, under such circumstances, the target of war.

- INTERMEDIATE interests are, of course, other reasons to fight a war which do not affect survival. Societies may fight for political and economic domination, expansion, or hegemony. Because such reasons are not germane to the need to survive, they may be classified as intermediate interests. Thus, intermediate interests are generally related to the socio-economic welfare of the state. They include such factors as economic improvement, aggrandizement, maximization of social welfare, and maintaining existing status.

- Societies may also go to war for reasons that are ideological; that is, a society may fight for the sake of imposing globally a universal idea for which it believes it possesses the perfected political expression. These are PERIPHERAL interests. These reasons for war occur much less frequently than the first two so they're called peripheral interests. Peripheral interests cover a broad range of motives along the psycho-political dimension. They include such concepts as ideology, religion, nationalism, humanitarian intervention, peace-keeping, "machismo," and other attitudinal factors (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 29-30).

502.22 Explain the relationship between the stage in the economic and political evolution of a nation-state and its three levels of social interests.

- Threats to core interests should be faced unilaterally, with our full range of military capability, as they are immediate and concern our physical survival. Distant or indirect threats may be addressed with diplomatic or economic instruments or along with allies. Intermediate interests should be safeguarded by allied political and economic means -- before allied military action is engaged. At no time should the US undertake unilateral military action in pursuit of such interests as our economic welfare is inextricably tied to that of the global economy. In defense of peripheral interests, the US should never act unilaterally, not with only a token multilateral force. In our own hemisphere, after exhausting political and economic means, the US may lead an effective regional military alliance. Outside of our own hemisphere, the response should only be within the context of a meaningful international effort. However, there the US should first encourage regional efforts (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 29-33).

- The stages of evolution and their associated state characteristics are as follows:

• Formative stage -- Here we find a new political entity being formed that aspires to attain sovereignty. Typically, it is a colony or an identifiable part of another state. Examples include Eritrea, Western Sahara, and the Kurds (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 9).
• Consolidative stage -- Once a state achieves independence, it embarks on incorporating the entire land and its population into a recognized sovereign unit. Two paths are followed here:
  • Mature -- Consolidation involves slow evolution and disdainment of immediate external ambitions.
  • Forced -- Consolidation are where states seek to advance rapidly and attempt to attain domestic legitimacy by early expeditions into neighboring lands (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 9-10).
• Expansive stage -- Once states attain consolidation via either of the two paths they begin to export their power into neighboring lands. This involves contests over disputed borders, incorporation of further populations, rectifying historical disputes. Much of this depends on the neighboring victim's weakness (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 10).
• Global-Imperial stage -- Having consolidated and reaching a dominant regional position, states qualify as great powers and now try to project their power and expand their political influence beyond their region. A global power is a nation with global interests (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 11-12).
• Compulsive stage -- This is marked by a great power's growing imbalance between resources and ambition; results in weakening of the state and eventual fall down the pyramid of evolution (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 12).

- At each stage of evolution, a state fights for differing motives. To some extent, if we can determine a state's evolutionary stage, we can "predict" what factors and reasons that will motivate them to fight. For example, a newly developing state will fight for independence from colonial powers, recognition in the regional and global arena, and the right for self-determination. A compulsive state may fight for its continuing status as a world power by employing its power to gain the necessary resources or it may decline orderly and peacefully as it tries to consolidate and down-size, fighting only over essential core interests (Conflict in the Post Containment Era, 14-20).

502.3 Comprehend the relationships between strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war [I.3(e)].

502.31 Explain national objectives.

- Drew and Snow list four characteristics, from a US perspective, for national objectives to be sufficient to justify use of the military IOP:

• 1. They must be simple, straightforward and unambiguous.
• 2. They must be >lofty,' appealing to the moral fiber of the nation.
• 3. They must be vital to national interest.
• 4. The interests of most citizens must be served if war results (Lexington to Desert Storm, 12-14).
  

502.32 Explain congruency between national objectives and use of military force.

- Military Force, when functioning as an IOP, is used. to overcome the hostile will and ability of the adversary on the battlefield. More broadly, the objective relates to national objectives of exerting influence on other states. This is where "congruence" (as discussed in the lecture) is key. The military objectives must support the national objectives. If not, the nature of the conflict or the post conflict period will not serve national interests. (From Lexington to Desert Storm, 9).

502.4 Comprehend the relationships between military objectives and how they support national objectives by reviewing wars, campaigns, and operations with a concentration on conflict termination [I.3(d)].

502.41 Identify areas of congruence between national objectives and use of military force in historical examples

- The various tools (political, military, economic, information) are used by nation-states to achieve their desired ends and exert influence on other nation-states. These ends are defined politically in terms of desired policies of the state. Instruments of power, then, gain meaning only to the extent that they serve national objectives (Lexington to Desert Storm, 3).

- Independent states are sovereign. This means they have absolute authority within their borders. In relations among states, no authoritative force exists to resolve disputes when the policies of one state clash with another. Although international organizations exist to help mediate and resolve disputes (UN, World Court, World Trade Organization, etc.), these do not carry any authority to resolve them. If a country's core or intermediate (or even peripheral) interests are at stake, it may be compelled to resort to war if other IOPs fail to resolve the disputed issue (From Lexington to Desert Storm, 4)

502.42 Identify areas of discontinuity between national objectives and use of military force in historical examples.

1. Confusing ends and means. That is, losing sight of the overarching national objective and fighting the war only to achieve combat victory.
2. National objectives clash with military expediency. That is, the favored military strategy makes the postwar period more difficult. "Burning the village to save the village" does not make the villagers want to cooperate in the postwar environment.
3. Abstract national objectives. When the US Marines landed in Lebanon in 1983, there was no clear-cut national objective, hence no concrete military objective resulting in tragedy and withdrawal.
4. National objectives that are inappropriate for the military. As the national (or supranational - UN) objective in Somalia shifted towards eliminating the competing factions, the military was incapable of accomplishing this mission while keeping casualties near zero (a competing national objective) (From Lexington to Desert Storm, 15-17).

502.43 Analyze the degree of congruence between national objectives and the use of military force

- Ideally, as national objectives evolve during the conflict, military objectives will be modified to serve the new national objectives. History indicates that the opposite situation has occurred more often; where military objectives become the predominant factor and battlefield success becomes the focus of effort. In total war where the national goal is total capitulation of the enemy and the military goal is destruction of the enemy military (or unconditional surrender), it is easier to keep national and military goals in balance. Even here, though, it is possible to lose sight of the national objectives of >a better state of peace' and conduct military operations in a manner that does not facilitate the desired post war environment.

- In limited war, where national objectives fall somewhere short of eliminating the enemy system and military objectives do not extend to destruction of the total enemy military capability, military objectives must constantly be reassessed in light of the current national objective. The Reassessement is crucial to ensure relevance is maintained between military and national objectives (From Lexington to Desert Storm, 20-23). Yes, the level and type of military force applied to a situation (the military strategy chosen) is derived from the military objective and must therefore match or be congruent to the military objective. The military objective must also be congruent to the national objective. Failure to harmonize these factors jeopardized either national objectives or military success, or both (Making Strategy, 14-15).

- Objectives are what you want to do (or achieve), while strategy is how you intend to do it. The strategy chosen must be appropriate for the objective selected. The strategy is derived form the objective as seen in the "Z diagram." The "Z" diagram is an ACSC model derived from the President's National Military Strategy Document. Choosing special forces, a major conventional force, or nuclear operations would be alternative strategies to achieve a desired military objective (From Lexington to Desert Storm, 15).

SUMMARY

Today we've given much thought to the meaning of motives for war. By now we should understand that all wars are fought for a multitude of reasons, there rarely, if ever, is a single, clearly definable motive for war. In addition, these motives for war are highly complex, multifarious, culturally dependent, while remaining constant over time. We've also seen that we can rank these motives in terms of social interests, including core, intermediate, and peripheral

In this lesson, we have considered the military instrument of power as a subset of national objectives. We discussed how it functions as an Instrument of Power (IOP), how military objectives are derived, how the application of force must fit the situation, and why the force structure must be able to deal with the real world of potential threats, not just what "we like to do best."

CONCLUSION

This was the second lesson in the War & Conflict course. In our first lesson we argued that while individuals fight wars, it is societies that make war -- only the technologies of war change. The first lesson we answered the WHO question as it relates to war. We saw that the actors to conflict must be understood in the context of their social-political organization. Building on this foundation, today's lesson attempted to answer the WHY question. We examined the rationale of why these social actors go to war.

This lesson also allowed us as military members to see how we fit in to the picture of actors to and motives for war. Appreciating how our objectives must serve national interests helps us to conduct military operations with an eye towards how to end the conflict and what the desired end state should be. Our objectives also serve to determine the level of the war as we will discuss in WC 503.

WARNING: Samples of Behaviors (SOB) are designed to aid students in evaluating their learning progress. They are not test questions nor are they all inclusive.

COURSE OBJECTIVES:

Comprehend the various actors, motives, objectives, and levels associated with war, as well as ways to resolve war.

READINGS:

1. Magyar, "Motives for War"
2. Magyar, "Conflict in the Post-Containment Era" - also in coursebook
3. Snow and Drew, "From Lexington to Desert Storm"
4. Drew and Snow, "Making Strategy"
5. Snow and Drew, "The Eagles Talons: An American Experience"

READINGS RATIONALE:

The Seabury and Codevilla reading coves numerous theories posited in the literature on the causes/motives for war. The author suggests that the causes of war fall into generic and volitional categories, but that voluntaristics theories of war are the more appropriate level of analysis if we are to understand war. Dr Magyar's article looks at the future of conflict and offers two appealing models for understanding motives--one postulates that there are three levels of interests for the social actors to war (core, intermediate, and peripheral; and the other examines how each stage in the political and economic evolution of nation-states can be associated with these interests. Snow and Drew first introduce the concept of the relationship between political and military objectives, then examine the political objectives of various actors and military strategy and objectives of World War I from an American perspective. Making Strategy provides and excellent discussion on the for

QUESTION: Does the national objective affect the specific military strategy that is chosen?

COMMENTS: mulation of a national and military strategy based upon the objectives. The Eagle's Talons: The American Experience at War provides the source material for analyzing motives and objectives to War using the American Civil War as a case study.

OUTLINE:

Thesis: All wars are fought for a reason (s)--there are no accidental wars. Throughout recorded history, people have analyzed why wars were fought. However, finding the unambiguous identification of motives remains an elusive endeavor. Rarely, if ever, has there been a single cause for any one specific war. In fact, the motives for war cannot be reduced to any singular, clearly defined or identifiable reason or cause. Rather they exist as a matrix of reasons and causes, the sum total of which precipitates the state we call war and its manifestation as armed confrontation on the battlefield. Considering the human tragedies of wars, it is incumbent on us to try to understand such motives and to comprehend how they relate to the process of war.

Thesis: Besides understanding why a particular nation wages war, we must understand what that nation is attempting to accomplish. The political or national objective not only determines what a nation is attempting to accomplish but determines how a nation will use its military instrument of power to wage war. To successfully wage a war, the strategy employed by a military must therefore be congruent with the national/political objectives.

Main Point 1: The social actors to violent conflict make war for a multitude of motives the origins of war cannot be found in a single, clearly identifiable cause.

Main Point 2: Motives for war can be ranked in terms of the level of interests of the social actors: core, intermediate, and peripheral. While all societies recognize differing levels of interests, they differ on the specific identifications of those interests.

Main Point 3:: National objectives and the military instrument of power (IOP) are related.

Main Point 4: Military objectives are derived from national policy (objectives), and must be responsive to changes in national objectives.

Main Point 5: The military strategy must be congruent with the military objectives.

LESSON INTEGRATION & RATIONALE: This lesson explores the motives for war and it is extremely important that one fully comprehend the points made in the first lesson. In WC501 we argued that while individuals fight wars, it is societies that make war --only the technologies of war change. Furthermore, WC501 answered the WHO question as it relates to war. We saw that the actors to conflict must be understood in the context of their social-political organization. Building on this foundation, in WC502 we analyze the WHY question. In this lesson we examine the rationale of why these social actors go to war. Here we confront the idea that motives for war are highly complex, multifarious, culturally dependent, while remaining constant over time.

Besides synthesizing the previous lesson by relating the concepts of who fights wars with "why" wars are fought, this lesson further integrates the actors of war and their motive with the "what" question--what specifically is an actor attempting to accomplish and how the actor will employ the military art of warfare to support national interests. This understanding provides the foundation for discussing the art of war in the War Theory course. The concept of congruence between national objectives and military objectives sets the stage for the Strategic Environment discussion of the tools of grand national strategy and the Operational Structures discussions on the use of the military instrument of power. Moreover, an understanding of military objectives is vital to understanding how and why wars are terminated. The nature of the evolving military relates to concepts presented in the Future Campaign course.