WAR: War is a ubiquitous feature of human history, found in all ages, all cultures and all
societies.
War can be divided into the following categories:
1. Inter-state war: Armed conflict between two or more states and is highly organized
and disciplined affair involving military personnel e.g., both the World Wars
2. Intra-state war: An armed conflict between two groups within a state and is less
organized than inter-state wars and involves non-state actors.
3. Conventional warfare: A form of warfare that is conducted by conventional i.e.,
regular, uniformed and national military units and uses conventional (not nuclear)
military weapons and battlefield tactics.
a. Hegemonic war: War that is fought to establish hegemony (dominance of the entire
world order) by restructuring the global balance of power. It is also called global,
general, systemic or world wars. The last hegemonic war was World War II.
b. Total war: War waged by one state to conquer and occupy another. In total war, the
entire society is mobilized for the struggle, and the entire society of the enemy is
considered a legitimate target. It is also called hyperbolic war. For instance, in
World War II Germany attacked British civilians with V-2 rockets, while British and
U.S. strategic bombing killed 600,000 German civilians and hundreds of thousands
of Japanese.
c. Limited war: War fought with a limited objective, with limited means and with
deliberate restrain such as the redrawing of boundaries or the expulsion of enemy
occupiers, as in the 1991 Gulf War (expelling Iraq from Kuwait) and the 1999 US-
led NATO bombing of Kosovo (expelling Serb forces). It is also known as regional
wars. Limited wars can be of two types:
1). Raids-- Raids are limited wars that consist of a single action—a bombing run or a
quick incursion by land. Their destruction is limited and they are over quickly. In
2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a facility in Syria that Israel believed to be a
nuclear research facility in order to stop Syria from making progress on nuclear
weapons
2). Low-intensity conflict: Raiding that is repeated or fuels a cycle of retaliation.
d. Blitzkrieg: It is a German word literally meaning lightning war. Initially aerial
bombardment is carried out to reduce enemy resistance followed by penetration in
depth by armoured columns. The German invasion of Poland in 1939 used
blitzkrieg.
4. Unconventional warfare: These are unconventional wars either because of the use of
unconventional weapons, i.e., nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or because
they fall into the classification of ‘new’ wars or modern warfare. Modern warfare is
less organized in nature than conventional warfare as it involves more irregular
fighters who are loosely organized and may refuse to fight by the rules, developments
that tend to blur the distinction between military and civilian life.
5. Civil war: An intra-state armed conflict between politically organized groups, usually
fought either for control over the entire state or a part of the state or to establish a new
state. It consists of two types:
1). Secessionist civil war – Civil war with secession as its goal, e.g., the U.S. Civil
War of the 1860s.
2). Non-secessionist civil war – Civil war where secession is not the goal e.g., the
war in El Salvador in the 1980s is an example of a civil war for control of the entire state.
6. Guerrilla war: A Spanish word literally meaning ‘little war’. It is a technique of intra-
state war fought by irregular troops using tactics that are suited to the terrain and
emphasize mobility and surprise rather than superior firepower.
Guerrilla forces operate often hidden or protected by, civilian populations. Rebels in most
civil wars use such methods. Such tactics do not aim to defeat the enemy in strict military
terms (something that may be impossible), but rather to demoralize the enemy and break its
political will. U.S. military forces in South Vietnam fought against Vietcong guerrillas in
the 1960s and 1970s, with rising frustration.
7. Post-modern or post-Clausewitzian or post-Westphalian wars: Clausewitz in his book
On War argues that both war and peace are characterized by the rational pursuit of self-
interest. States thus go to war when they calculate that it is in their interest to do so. The
Clausewitzian conception of war is often seen as a product of the Westphalian state-
system. During this period, war appeared to conform to a Clausewitzian paradigm. But the
post-Cold War era has radically affected war and warfare. A new style of warfare has
developed, possibly even redefining war itself. Starting with the tactics employed in the
1950s and 1960s by national liberation movements of Algeria, Vietnam and Palestine, and
then extending to conflicts in countries such as Somalia, Liberia, Sudan and the Congo,
such ‘new’ wars occurred in Bosnia and in Chechnya, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan,
often seen as part of the larger ‘war on terror’. These new wars are called Post-modern or
post-Clausewitzian or post-Westphalian wars or ‘new’ wars. The ‘new’ wars exhibit the
following features:
They tend to be civil wars rather than inter-state wars.
Issues of identity are usually prominent.
Wars are asymmetrical, often fought between unequal parties.
The civilian/military distinction has broken down.
They are more barbaric than ‘old’ wars.
8. Identity war: A war for cultural regeneration, expressed though the demand for public and
political recognition of a group’s collective identity is a primary motivation for conflict.
According to Amartya Sen, identity politics is most likely to lead to violence when it is
based on a ‘solitaristic’ form of identity, which defines human identity in terms of
membership of a single social group.
The wars that broke out in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s (and particularly the Bosnian
War), Hindu-Muslim conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, the intifadas in the territories
occupied by Israel and the ‘war on terror’ in general and especially the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, can each thus be viewed as examples of identity wars. Because identity
wars are ultimately based on how people see themselves, they are often fought with unusual
passion and ferocity. They also tend to be long-standing and may appear to be intractable,
rendering the traditional notion of victory redundant.
9. Asymmetrical wars: Asymmetrical wars are characterized by the adoption of military
strategies and tactics designed to create a more level playing field between opponents with
unequal military and economic capabilities, meaning that asymmetrical wars do not have
assured and inevitable outcomes. US or US-led, wars in Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the Russian war against Chechnya are examples of asymmetrical wars.
10. Insurgency: An armed uprising, involving irregular soldiers, which aims to overthrow the
established regime. National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDBF) and United
Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) are insurgent groups present in the north-eastern region
of India.
11. Mercenaries: Mercenaries are hired soldiers in the service of a foreign power. In the Iraq
War more private military contractors, working for companies such as Blackwater and
Halliburton, were operating than regular soldiers. The Wagner Group is a mercenary group
that fought alongside Russian forces in the ongoing war with Ukraine.
12. Militancy: Heightened or extreme commitment; a level of zeal and passion typically
associated with struggle or war. Religious, ethnic or nationalist movements are therefore
often characterized by their militancy.
13. Ethnic cleansing: The forcible expulsion or extermination of ‘alien’ peoples; often used
as a euphemism for genocide e.g., Rwandan genocide and the Bosnian genocide.
14. Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA): The development in the USA in particular of
new military strategies, based on ‘high-tech’ technology and ‘smart’ weapons, aimed at
achieving swift and decisive outcomes e.g., Tomahawk cruise missile that has a range of
hundreds of kilometres.
15. Virtual war or computer war or cyberwarfare: An electronic form of warfare utilising
super-computers and hackers to plant computer viruses to destabilise and delink
electronically linked satellite and telecommunication grids, electricity grids, stock exchanges,
defence satellite networks, etc. The Stuxnet virus attack caused substantial damage to the
nuclear programme of Iran in 2010.
16. No-Casualty warfare: Postmodern war takes account of the unwillingness of democratic
electorates to put up with large-scale casualties over a prolonged period of time, as
demonstrated by Vietnam. This explains the importance accorded to aerial bombardment in
postmodern war. No-Casualty warfare refers to aerial bombardment with very few casualties
or collateral damage with the help of stealth technology, precision-guidance technology and
smart communication networks. The US-led NATO bombardment that expelled Serb forces
from Kosovo in 1999 was thus an example of ‘no casualty’ warfare.
17. Sub-national war or half-war: Such wars generally originate from some neighbouring
countries and at times from within the country also. Continuous support from outside on the
basis of interest and not morality. It is characterized by easy exit and entry.
18. Nuclear warfare: It is a military conflict or prepared political strategy that deploys
nuclear weapons. It is also called atomic warfare. The first and only nuclear weapons that
have been used in warfare were the atomic bombs, developed by the Manhattan Project,
which were exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively.
19. Terrorism: Terrorism has been defined as a sub-state application of violence or the threat
to use violence with an intention to create panic in the society. The 9/11 attacks on the World
Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon were terrorist attacks.
Causes of War Theories: The various theories are as follows:
The Individual Level: On the individual level of analysis, the various theories about war are:
1. Thucydides argued that war is caused by ‘the lust for power arising from greed
and ambition’. War is therefore endless because human desires are infinite, while
the resources are finite; the resulting struggle and competition will express itself in
violence.
The idea of a ‘struggle for survival’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’ based on the
evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and social Darwinians such as Herbert Spencer
form the basis of scientific support for human self-interestedness.
2. Evolutionary psychologists, such as Konrad Lorenz have argued that aggression
is biologically programmed, particularly in men. War provides a necessary outlet
for aggressive urges that are hard-wired in human nature.
However, the biological theories of war offer an unbalanced view of human nature that places
too much emphasis on ‘nature’ and too little emphasis on ‘nurture’, the complex range of
social, cultural, economic and political factors that shape human behaviour.
3. War reflects rational decisions of national leaders. Decisions to go to war are
made based on maximizing expected gains or minimizing expected losses.
Rational decision-making suffers from perceptions, misperceptions, selective
perceptions, affective biases, cognitive biases and groupthink.
4. Conflicts escalate into war because of deviations from rationality in the
decision-making processes of national leaders.
The Domestic Level: The domestic level of analysis draws attention to the characteristics of
states or societies that may make them more or less prone to use violence in resolving
conflicts. The various approaches are:
1. Realist Approach: Clausewitz argues that both war and peace are characterized by
the rational pursuit of self-interest. Groupism together with egoism, in an
environment of anarchy, leads to power politics. Power politics will lead to self-help
and self-help leads to security dilemma. And security dilemma leads to war. Thus,
for realists, war is an enduring feature of international relations and world affairs.
Groupism + Egoism------------------- Power Politics.
Power Politics------------------- Self Help
Self Help ----------------- Security Dilemma.
Security Dilemma ----------------- War.
The principal factor distinguishing between war and peace is the balance of power. States
thus go to war when they calculate that it is in their interest to do so i.e., decisions are made
through a kind of cost–benefit analysis, based on rational self-interest.
2. Liberal Approach: Peace is a natural, but not an inevitable, condition for
international relations. International anarchy should be replaced by an
international rule of law, through the construction of supranational bodies. War is
linked to economic nationalism and autarky. Peace can be achieved through free
trade and other forms of economic interdependence, as these may make war
economically costly.
Economic Nationalism + Autarky ----------------War.
The disposition of a state towards war or peace is determined by its constitutional character.
Authoritarian states tend to be militaristic and expansionist, while democratic states are
more peaceful, at least in their relations with other democratic states as implied by the
‘democratic peace’ thesis.
3. Marxist Approach: Marxists have argued that the origins of war can be traced back
to the capitalist economic system. Hence war, is the pursuit of economic advantage
by other means. WWI was an imperialist war fought for colonial gains in Africa and
elsewhere. So, socialism is the best guarantee of peace.
4. Anarchist Approach: Chomsky has argued that the world’s most powerful states use
war, directly or indirectly, to defend or expand their global economic and political
interests. War is therefore closely associated with hegemony, while peace can be built
only through a radical redistribution of global power.
5. Feminist Approach: Wars are fought essentially between males, hence the conflict-
ridden and violent realist image of international politics, reflects ‘masculinist’
assumptions about self-interest, competition and the quest for domination. For
feminists war is the result of either the warlike nature of the male sex or the institution
of patriarchy.
6. Just-war tradition: Just-war tradition or just-war doctrine refers to a war that is
ethical in purpose and conduct and is therefore morally justified. This theory adopts a
position between the pacifist and bellicist positions.
Its origins can be traced back to Cicero, who stated that “just wars should be fought
justly”, but it was first developed systematically by philosophers such as Augustine of
Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Vitoria and Hugo Grotius.
Hugo Grotius incorporated much of just-war thinking in his writings on international law.
His Law of War and Peace took just-war theory from its moral or theological base to
develop what would become legally binding principles. Modern contributors to the
tradition include Michael Walzer, Elshtain and David Rodin.
The Hague Conventions and Regulations and Geneva Conventions and Protocols
represent a formalization or codification of the modern-day law of war. Just war tradition
has two parts:
jus ad bellum (justice of war) – Latin term for moral criteria establishing the right to go
to war.
jus in bello (justice in war) -- Latin term for moral criteria establishing right conduct in
war.
Principles of jus ad bellum (just recourse to war): Last resort; Just cause; Legitimate
authority; Right intention; Reasonable prospect of success; Proportionality or macro-
proportionality.
Principles of jus in bello (just conduct in war): Discrimination, Proportionality and
Humanity.
Just war theory is faced with the problem of dirty hands i.e., the problem that it may be
right, to do the wrong thing for the sake of the political community.
Michael Walzer in his Just and Unjust Wars contends that states may defend
themselves against aggression, through just wars, but aggression in pursuit of self-
interest is an unjust war.
Some just-war theorists invoke the dual or double-effect principle in dealing with the
moral problem of noncombatant / civilian casualties and collateral damage in warfare.
The dual or double-effect principle has two effects: ‘the good effect’, of destroying
legitimate military target and the ‘bad effect’, of unintended human casualties and
collateral damage.
7. Pacifism is a commitment to peace and a rejection of war or violence in any
circumstances. Bellicism is an idea that war and war preparations have positive value
to state and society.
While just war tradition attempts to reconcile war with morality by placing war within a
framework of justice, pacifism views war and morality as irreconcilable. Pacifism is the
moral basis for conscientious objection to military service. Pacifism has two main
contributions – a). ‘Legal pacifism’, has provided support for the establishment of
supranational bodies, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, and
b). ‘Contingent pacifism’, that places greatest stress on long-term benefits of non-
violence for human well-being. Pacifists have embraced the notion of positive peace,
linking peace to the advancement of political and social justice.
8. Militarism: Peace studies scholars argue that war is not just a natural expression of
power, but one closely tied to militarism in (some) cultures. Militarism is the
glorification of war, military force, and violence through TV, films, books, political
speeches, toys, games, sports, and other such avenues. Militarism also refers to the
structuring of society around war—for example, the dominant role of a military-
industrial complex in a national economy, or the dominance of national security
issues in domestic politics.
The Interstate Level: Theories at the interstate level explain wars in terms of power relations
among major actors in the international system. The various theories are:
Power transition theory: It holds that conflicts generate large wars at times when
power is relatively equally distributed and a rising power is threatening to
overtake a declining hegemon in overall position.
Deterrence, Defence, and Warfighting: Strategists in the nuclear age focus on
theories of deterrence, defence, and warfighting. These theories or doctrines
dominated U.S.-Soviet security concerns during the Cold War.
Deterrence and Compellence involve the threat of use of force. Extended
deterrence are threats designed to protect allies. Minimum or finite deterrence,
requires only a relatively small number of nuclear weapons that can be used
against an adversary. Nuclear weapons blur the distinction between counterforce
and countervalue targets. Counterforce targets are military targets. Countervalue
targets are those that contribute to an enemy’s warmaking capability like factories,
railway networks, airports, electricity plants, etc. The bombing of countervalue
targets usually produces more civilian, noncombatant casualties than counterforce
targeting. Stable deterrence depends on both capability and credibility. Mutual
assured destruction (MAD) exists if both parties in a bilateral deterrence relation
have a second-strike, assured- destruction capability against the other.
If deterrence fails, defense involves the use of military force to repel an attack and
includes both first-strike capability and a second-strike capability.
Warfighting is thus an active use of force for defence or to achieve other
political-military goals.
Some other reasons of war are:
