Margaret Mead Just War Theory

In his understanding of war, Bloch taunted the idea that war is an instrument for justice. If anything, it was an instrument for creating destructiveness through military development. And, considering the damage of the two world wars alone, military improvements in the first part of the twentieth century brought more horror rather than achieved victory. Although military innovations began decades prior to World War I, its emergence was the first actual opportunity to test improved technology. High explosive shells, Chlorine gas, machine guns increased lethality. Those facing new types of horror were the actual soldiers whose experience of war left many of them lethargically uncooperative once war ended. Bloch anticipated that the present incessant growth of armaments must either call forth a war, ruinous both for conqueror and for conquered and ending

From 1863-1868, the Navajo, or Diné, found themselves the target of a major campaign of war by the Union Army and surrounding enemies in the American Southwest, resulting in a program of removal and internment. This series of events is known to the Navajo as the “Long Walk” , where as a people the Navajo were devastated by acts of violence from multiple factions of enemies. The perspectives of the Navajo regarding the “Long Walk” can grant context to the changes occurring in the American Southwest during the American Civil War, where the focus of the Union’s military might fell upon Native Americans instead of Confederate forces. Rather than as a program of Indian removal resulting from the Civil War militarization of the Southwest, the Navajo

... Navajos waged by the United States was not fought as a means of simply forcing the ...

The refusal to create a professional army is a major example of the American colonist using limited warfare to fight the Indians. Using citizen-soldiers

In “Warfare: An Invention,” Mead talks about the invention of war, and how it is completely unnecessary. She uses examples of different civilizations such as the Eskimos, the Pygmies, and the Pueblo Indians to show us the differences between cultures who do/do not condone warfare. Mead also uses other models to justify her claim, such as the concepts of marriage and fire. “And yet even such universals as marriage and the use of fire are inventions like the rest, very basic ones, inventions which were perhaps necessary if human history was to take the turn it has taken, but nevertheless inventions”(275-276). Just like marriage and fire, warfare was invented by aggressive/ competitive humans. For some cultures it has been embedded in our history

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”

According to Hedley Bull, war is “organized violence waged by sovereign states” which was the outcome of a “process of limitation or confinement of violence” via the ethical doctrine of just war theory. Clausewitz classified warfare as not just an act, but also a social institution for obtaining ulterior objectives (e.g. political) and strategic lines of command within and between states. He defined the social relationship between forces and the elements of war (rationality, chance and violence). Martin Shaw claims that contemporary warfare has completely evolved so that the “core of the new mode of warfare is a different general relationship between war fighting and the political, economic, and cultural-ideological domains.” (Nowaczynski, J. (2012, December). E-International Can

“The Cause of War” is a book written by Australian author Geoffrey Blainey. The book is a collection of studies from wars since 1700’s and it analysis the relation of rivaling nations. The book is divided in four parts it starts discussing the weakness behind the current theories of peace, it then moves to talk the “ingredients” which are key for a nation to determine whether they will go to war or not. Third part of the group is about some misleading theories of war, and the last part just deals with the variety of war.

It has often been suggested that hunter gatherers were savage however the study of warfare in the science journal The Science, suggest that the origins of warfare were not rooted in hunter gatherer groups but rather in cultures that held land livestock

The Battle of the Little Bighorn, also known as “Cluster’s Last Stand,” which was fought on June 25, 1976 in Montana, U.S. The outcome was indulged for the Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne tribes, who presumably will defeat the U.S Army under Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and its 7th Calvary. This trounce defeat by the tribes, will consider Indians bloodthirsty by the demise of their enemy. The Indians overwhelmed the 200 men by a cluster of 3,000 men. This insisted the battle was lost by the west, and will always be known as “Cluster’s Last Sand.” A battle that only lasted shortly, and took part of the “Great Sioux War of 1876,” will consider Indians unpredictable in the battle field.

Throughout history, Native Americans in early America have been viewed as primitive and violent people. Artwork often depicts them engaging in barbaric behavior such as eating other humans and engaging in violent wars. However, this view of early Native Americans has been created by the works of people belonging to the “civilized world” of early America. Lucy Terry’s poem “Bars Fight” retells the story of when a group of Indians attacked two families that she knew. Terry’s work can be compared to those of Christopher Columbus and Thomas Jefferson in their portrayal and perception of Indians.

The western way of war consists of five foundations that have shaped a significant amount of military cultures; the foundations are superior technology, discipline, a finance system, innovation, and military tradition. Perhaps people believe that discipline is not one of the most important foundations of the western way of war, since people tend to emphasize technology. However, discipline is the key to maximizing the other four foundations before and during conflict. Historian Geoffrey Parker agrees that technology can give a military advantage, but it is not sufficient without superior discipline. That is because discipline consists of the ability of armies to act within battle plans even when not supervised, obey orders, exercise loyalty, and restrain their fears when faced with danger. Discipline as a western way of war has influenced military cultures from the Roman Empire to today’s militaries. Discipline shaped military cultures by how they prepared for war, effectively giving them the ability to act during combat and expanding commander’s operational reach, thus aiding in conflicts throughout history and increasing the likelihood of defeating the adversary.

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

‘War’ as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations. Voltaire—the human personification of the Enlightenment period—says the following: “Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world…All animals are perpetually at war with each other…Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction. Defining war has been a political issue for centuries, and it poses a philosophical problem. Most philosophers will agree on war being a clash of arms, or a state of mutual tension between nations or states, distinguishing it from open rebellions, riots, and personal violence.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.