“God created war so that nations would learn Geography.

” Giving practical examples discuss the

different causes of war

Introduction

States are driven by the desire to survive, to meet state aspirations and therefore selfish interests
and survival are the main goals of state endeavor. In their quest to attain these goals, states
sometimes employ different methods of domestic and foreign policy implementation. Sanctions,
negotiation, treaties, aid and war are some strategies employed to meet a national objective. This
submission discusses the different causes of war in light of a statement generally attributed to Mark
twain that “God created war so that nations would learn Geography”.

What is a War?

In order to establish a starting point for this discussion, it is important to understand what “war”
is. Goodman (2018) writes that a war is typically fought by a country or group of countries against
an opposing country or countries with the aim of achieving an objective through the use of force;
wars can also be fought within a country in the form of a civil or revolutionary war. The Oxford
English Dictionary defines war as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different
groups within a country; a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups.
There are several different types of wars from cold war to total war, asymmetric warfare to
expeditionary war. War also has distinctions of defensive war or offensive war. The various
nuances of war make the subject very broad, of interest and inevitable.

A discussion on the causes of War

Rummel (1979) posits that for war to occur between two states they must have some contact and
salience, some awareness of each other. They must also have some opposing interests, something
to fight about, and capabilities to fight. He adds that opposing interests are necessary for war
depend on the actor and situation. There must be a significant change in the balance of powers
supporting the status quo. Rummel (ibid) continues stating that interests, capabilities, and will
singly or in combination must have changed sufficiently that the status quo is now felt to be unjust,
threatened, or ripe for readjustment. This change has created a tension, a cold or hostile climate
between the parties; it had made it obvious to informed observers that if something is not done to
prevent it, violence and possibly war will break out.

1
Biddle (2014) highlights that in terms of fundamentals, both war and peace are consequences of
certain ideas and aims, which, when sufficiently accepted as true or good by the people of a given
society, give rise to corresponding norms and policies that, in turn, either lead to war or enable
peace. The fundamental causes of war are statism, collectivism, altruism, mysticism, and evasion.
Understanding these causes of war is essential to fighting successfully for a future of less war and
more peace. Toward that end, the causes of war are discussed.

In discussing the causes of war, Goodman (2018) aptly came up with eight causes which are used
as a basis for this discussion namely: economic gain, territorial gain, religion, nationalism,
revenge, civil war, revolutionary war and defensive war. The following paragraphs discuss these
different causes with the aid of examples in order to give a better understanding of war in light of
the statement that “God created war so that nations would learn Geography”.

Goodman (ibid.) says wars are caused by one country's wish to take control of another country's
wealth. Whatever the other reasons for a war may be, there is almost always an economic motive
underlying most conflicts, even if the stated aim of the war is presented to the public as something
more moral. The resources that are hoped to be gained from war take the form of things like oil,
minerals, or materials used in manufacturing. Some scientists believe that as the world’s
population increases and basic resources become scarce, wars will be fought more often over
fundamental essentials, such as water and food. Therefore, economic gain is a motivation for war.
Badkar (2012) writes that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a move that was made as an
attempt to gain control of Kuwait’s large oil reserves. He further argues that Iraq wanted to curb
Kuwaiti oil production, bring up oil prices and repay the massive debt it amassed while funding
its war with Iran. Another example is the conflict in the Great Lakes region in which the mineral
rich Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is in unending war which involves Rwanda and
Uganda. Thus, economic gain is a cause for war.

The need for territorial gain is a cause for war. A country might decide that it needs more land,
either for living space, agricultural use, or other purposes. Territory can also be used as “buffer
zones” between two hostile enemies. Related to buffer zones are proxy wars. These are conflicts
that are fought indirectly between opposing powers in a third country. Each power supports the
side which best suits their logistical, military, and economic interests. Proxy wars were

2
particularly common during the Cold War. The war in the Middle-East region pitting Palestine
and Israel is for territory which includes the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Religious wars often have very deep roots. They can lie dormant for decades, only to re-emerge in
a flash at a later date. Religious wars can often be tied to other reasons for conflict, such as
nationalism or revenge for a perceived historical slight in the past. While different religions
fighting against each other can be a cause of war, different sects within a religion (for example,
Protestant and Catholic, or Sunni and Shiite) battling against one another can also instigate war.
The Syrian war is caused by the conflict between the Shiite and the Sunni Muslims. The Bashir
Al Assad led Syrian government is predominantly a Shiite Muslim sect which is however a
minority population compared to the Sunni Muslim sect. Their religious conflict emanates from
the fact that the Sunni complain that the ruling Assad government is imposing religious extremism
on them. Hence the Syrian civil war. However, while it is civil war, there is now involvement of
other regional countries such as Turkey, Iran and Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and
the United States of America.

Hutchinson (2018) argues that nationalism is a cause of war. He states that nationalism “proclaims
that the world is composed of unique and ancient nations which have exclusive homelands, and
that the sacred duty of individuals is to defend the territory, independence and identity of their
nation.” In this context essentially means attempting to prove that your country is superior to
another by violent subjugation. This often takes the form of an invasion. Goodman (2018) quotes
Richard Ned Lebow who contends that while other causes of war may be present, nationalism, or
spirit, is nearly always a factor. In his essay "Most wars are not fought for reasons of security or
material interests, but instead reflect a nation's spirit," he writes: "[Literature on war and its causes]
assumes security is the principal motive of states and insecurity the major cause of war. Following
Plato and Aristotle, I posit spirit, appetite and reason as fundamental drives with distinct goals.
There can be little doubt that the spirit is the principal cause of war across the centuries." The
Zimbabwean liberation struggle which is also referred to as the Rhodesian Bush war of 1966-1979
was motivated by nationalism. The majority black population engaged in confrontational war
against the white minority settler regime in order to claim back expropriated land and to attain
national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

3
Revenge as a cause of war is when a state seeks to punish, redress a grievance, or simply strike
back for a perceived slight can often be a factor in the waging of war. Revenge also relates to
nationalism, as the people of a country which has been wronged are motivated to fight back by
pride and spirit. Unfortunately, this can lead to an endless chain of retaliatory wars being set in
motion which is very difficult to stop. The “War on Terror” by former United States President
George W. Bush was prompted by the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.
This global war began with an invasion of Iraq and is ongoing. The attacks on al Shabaab by the
African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM), which is a regional peacekeeping mission, has led
to al Shabaab targeting states which have provided forces particularly in Kenya, Burundi and
Uganda with attacks such as the Garrissa University attack in Kenya.

Civil wars generally take place when there is sharp internal disagreement within a country. The
disagreement can be about who rules, how the country should be run or the people's rights. These
internal rifts often turn into chasms that result in violent conflict between two or more opposing
groups. Civil wars can also be sparked by separatist groups who want to form their own,
independent country or states wanting to secede from a larger union. The Mozambique war (1977-
1992) in which the Alfonso Dhlakama led Mozambican National Resistance (Renamo) sought to
topple the FRELIMO government. The civil war that led to the cessation of South Sudan from the
Republic of Sudan in 2011 was as a result of a protracted conflict in which the southern part of the
state raised complaints of marginalization and therefore pushed for the creation of an independent
state. Thus, civil disagreements can be causes of war.

Goodman (2018) mentions that another cause for war is revolution. These occur when a large
section of the population of a country revolts against the individual or group that rules the country
because they are dissatisfied with their leadership. Revolutions can begin for a variety of reasons,
including economic hardship amongst certain sections of the population or perceived injustices
committed by the ruling group. Other factors can contribute too, such as unpopular wars with other
countries. Revolutionary wars can easily descend into civil wars. African liberation wars since
the 1950s were revolutionary wars as sought to reverse and abolish colonialism and settlerism to
usher in a dispensation of independent African states with majority rule. The wave of revolution
blew from Ghana sweeping through the whole of Africa until the colonial and apartheid regimes
were dismantled.

4
The last cause of war as outlined by Goodman (2018) is where military aggression is used as a
country often argue that they are fighting in a purely defensive capacity against an aggressor, or
potential aggressor, and that their war is therefore a “just” war. These defensive wars can be
especially controversial when they are launched preemptively, the argument essentially being that:
“We are attacking them before they inevitably attack us.” One specific example is the failed Bay
of Pigs invasion, when U.S. forces attempted to invade Cuba in order to prevent the establishment
of nuclear warheads there.

Biddle (2014) submits that the primary political cause of war is statism. This is any social system
based on the notion that the state has a right to force individuals to act against their judgment for
the sake of some “greater good,” whether the community (communism), the race (Nazism), the
nation (fascism), or “God” (theocracy). For example, World War II was caused by National
Socialist Germans embracing a social system based on the notion that people of an alleged “master
race” (so-called “Aryans”) had a right to subjugate or kill people of other races for the “good” of
the master race, and that Nazi Germany had a right to conquer other nations to sustain itself and
expand. If the people of a society sufficiently accept the notion that they have a right to murder
or oppress individuals for some greater good and to attack other nations to sustain or expand this
practice, the government of that society will wage war accordingly.

The ideological cause of war is collectivism which is the notion that the individual’s life belongs
to some group or collective, which therefore may force him to “think” or act in accordance with
the dictates of the group (Bazargan, 2017). For example, the Arab-Israeli War (1967) was fought
by Israel on one side and the collective Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Cold War in
which the East and the West took sides and escalated the possibility of war with the soviet bloc
supporting the Egypt, Jordan and Syria side and the United States supporting Israel in the war
effort.

According to Biddle (2014) the fundamental philosophic cause of war is mysticism. Mysticism is
acceptance of the notion that knowledge can be acquired by non-sensory, non-rational means, such
as faith, revelation, intuition, or any other form of “just knowing.” He gives an example that
Islamic regimes and jihadist groups are waging war against Western civilization because they have
faith in the existence of “Allah” and in the truth and morality of Allah’s scriptural commandments
requiring Muslims to convert or kill infidels—commandments such as “Fight and kill the

5
disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them
using every stratagem of war” (Koran 9:5); and “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit
to Allah” (8:39); and so on. Furthermore, Biddle (ibid.) argues that to accept ideas on faith is to
reject reason. If a person can “know” by means of non-sensory, non-rational means, he has no need
of sense or reason. He just “knows.” Moreover, on the premise that faith is a means of knowledge,
he cannot be wrong: If faith is a means of knowledge, then faith is a means of knowledge; if his
faith tells him that he should convert or kill infidels, then he knows that that is what he should do.

Theoretical understandings on causes of War

The study of war has always attracted a lot of attention. Over time, many theories have been
proposed and refined to understand the causes of international war. Some of these theories rely on
cultural and psychological nature of individual leaders or man in general. Other theories focus on
the decision-making process of the regime or domestic politics to describe the causes of war (Reiter
2003). The Just War theory has principles that guide the reasons and conduct of war. One of the
key principles is that a war should have a just cause. By this, it is reasoned that a just war needs
to be in response to a wrong suffered or self-defense against an attack. Right to go to war” (jus ad
bellum) concerns the morality of going to war. As such, the just war theory postulates that war is
not always morally reprehensible. For example, the Bush and Blair administrations of the US and
Britain respectively, justified their engagement in war with Iraq in 2003 as an act of preemptive
self-defense and therefore justified (Rodin, 2004).

The other prominent theories or perspectives on the causes of war are Realism and Liberalism.
These theories consider the state as single rational actor. In other words, both are system level
theories that consider the state as the main actor in the International system. Realism states that
the motivating factor for a state to engage in war is state security and self-interest. There is a moral
imperative to pursue self-interest or self-preservation; hence the need to sometimes engage in war.
Realism has been historically the dominant paradigm to explain state behavior and causes of war.
Mearsheimer (2001) submits that state behavior is primarily driven by survival in the International
system. Therefore, the state tries to survive by maximizing its power and trying to change the
balance of power in its favour. Power of a state can be defined in many ways but usually consists
of military force a state possesses as well as latent power in terms of population and wealth or its
economic power.

6
Mearsheimer (ibid.) has explained that the very structure and anarchic nature of the international
system forces the state to behave in a manner to ensure its survival. Mearsheimer’s Offensive
realism theory assumes that states are rational actors that exist in an anarchic world, which simply
refers to the lack of a higher authority on top of nation-states system. This means that there is no
foolproof way to know what the intentions of other states are in the system. This leads to a case of
the “security dilemma” where a defensive action taken by a state can be perceived by another as
an act threatening its survival (Jervis 1978). Hence the rational response for states is to increase its
power and capability to ensure its survival. These actions will lead to what is known as “balancing”
behaviour by states.

In this theory, war is one of the strategies adopted by great powers to maximize their power and
ensure their survival. Great powers may make miscalculations where they fear other states gaining
power for their own survival which may lead to a countermove by a rival state moving them on a
path towards war. In other cases, only the threat of force or “blackmail” may be used to maximise
power without actual war taking place. Other states may encourage war between rival states to
reduce power of both states to eventually increase their own relative power in a case of
“bloodletting”. (Mearsheimer, 2001)

The polarity i.e. the number of great powers in the system also plays a major role in the possibility
of war. This is where Mearsheimer (2001) explains that a balanced bipolarity with only two great
powers would be the most stable with very low possibility of these states going to war with each
other. The Cold war where the US and USSR maintained a bipolar system is an example of this.
On the other hand an unbalanced multi-polar system is likely to see multiple wars both between
major and minor powers as well as between major powers. The example for this is the state of
great powers in Europe before WWI and WWII.

The other competing view on International relations and war is Liberalism whose main idea is that
the security dilemma that most states suffer from in an anarchic system can be alleviated under
some guiding principles. Russet (2001) describes three Kantian principles that form the main legs
of the liberal peace theory. These principles are the type of regime of the state and whether it is
democratic or not; the interdependence of free trade between states and participation in
international institutions that can foster co-operation and acceptable norms. The relative power of
a state is not considered the overriding reason for the state’s behaviour and it believes that states

7
can alter their behaviour to rise above “power politics”. The three Kantian principles when applied,
can create a virtuous circle where increasing democracy, interdependence in trade and increasing
co-operation in international institutions results in making war highly unlikely (Russet 2001).

The theoretical approach to war made as a global political commitment endorsed by all members
of the United Nations in 2005 in order to address concerns to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity were championed by the late UN Secretary General Koffi
Annan. In this commitment states can go to war on the principle of the Responsibility to Protect
(R2P or RtoP). The R2P has been the subject of debate particularly regarding the implementation
of the principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya and
Syria. In Libya, France and the NATO forces used resolution UN1973 to enter into Libya deposing
Muammar Gadhafi. R2P is therefore a cause of war.

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there are many causes of war. Some causes
emanate from individual state expansionist motives and on the contrary, they may be as a result of
a need to preserve national sovereignty and territorial integrity. In light of the statement attributed
to Mark Twain that “God created war so that nations would learn Geography”, it is evident that
war though not the ideal state of human affairs, it is a state of reality. Human being do not only
engage in war in order to satisfy their innate desire to explore and conquer the world as they
exercise their knowledge of Geography, rather there are matters of self interest and also matters of
survival that entails life and death.

8
References

Bazargan, S. (2017) Collectivism in the Morality of War. England: Manchester Centre for Political
Theory

Biddle, C. (2014) The Causes of War and Those of Peace

Ejazr (2012) Causes of War and International Relations Theory paradigms – II

Goodman, P. (2018) The 8 Main Reasons for War, GoodBrains

Hutchinson (2018)

Mamta Badkar (2012) 9 wars that were really about commodities from business intelligence
http://www.businessinsider.com

Mearsheimer, (2001)

Rodin, D. (2004) War and Self Defense. Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 18.1. Carnagie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs. www.carnagiecouncil.org

Rummel, R. J. (1979) Causes and Conditions of International Conflict And War

Frances Stewart, Root causes of violent conflict in developing countries