The Is Not An Interstate War

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

War leads to oppression and leaves negative implications on all people and societies by impacting the poor, women, children, and nations as a whole. "War is a state of violent conflict between one or more groups" (Rasenberger 3). Rasenberger defines war as a state of conflict between one group within itself or several groups in combat with each other, what is not mentioned are the after-effects of war. War itself leads to many civilian and military deaths, an estimated 1.5-3.8 million people died during the Vietnam War and an approximate 500,000 people died in the Iraq war. The biggest tragedy of War is that it always results in fatality, but another key, negative, factor to understand is that after the War many adverse implications arise. Post-war ramifications in the nation fall upon the poor, women, and children, making them weaker and less motivated leading to the downfall of a society. Regardless if a nation wins or is defeated in war they have to deal with consequences of war and find solutions to the impacted people and society. It is essential to understand that there is never a true victor in war because regardless of the outcome, fatality and a fall of morale within society on both sides are inevitable. War has often been the solution to situations that required force or violence, but in recent times this has

The American soldiers fighting in foreign lands create a high cost of war. The multiple factors related to the high cost of maintaining America’s vast military bases in foreign lands is not sustainable, but the human cost of families coping with injuries suffered in war by home coming vets from foreign wars is not acceptable either. The foreign and political sides are the cost of maintaining a large military presence here and abroad is not feasible. Whereas, the concerns of war over domestic issues must be a balance between military spending and infrastructure was in America’s best interest. The main focus on key issues like causalities, political, foreign, and lobbyist and much more topics

Following military acts of governmental authority or national warfare, a significant worry arises for nations. As stated in the powerpoint, especially when the state is large and diverse, it is much more likely that it is becomes fragile. The question of whether the nation will need national-building, or state-building has to be determined in the case of military acts. State collapse can be due to the failure of the nation to convey favorable diplomatic benefits to the nation. The collapse of a state can be due to a number of reasons, for example the vast amount of governmental goods. Also, the failure of a nation can be caused by the lack of providing protection and safety, a permissible organization that examines

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

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 United State’s various attempts to stop Communism from spreading brought about many conflicts among countries. These conflicts sometimes led to many deaths and casualties, such as in the Vietnam

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

In the two hundred years since 1775, there has been thirty-five years of fighting in what we consider major conflicts or wars. This averages out to about one year of war to every almost 6 years of our existence as a nation and during that time, we have not been without formal military organizations. Over the course of history, the United States has engaged in many battles that were a crucial phase in developing who and what we have become. Throughout this assessment, we will analyze what were some of the true tipping points that shaped (1) America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and, (2) How this relationship influences American warfare.

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

The article “Explaining the Severity of Civil Wars” by Bethany Lacina looks at why some civil wars are more deadly as compared to others by investigating a new data set that shows the number of combat deaths in civil wars from 1946 to 2002. The article looks at the statistics behind the deaths in the conflicts such as the era, the type of conflict ant the region that the conflict takes place in. The article also uses the strength of the state, the type of regime and cultural characteristics in a test to see if they are predictors for the number of combat deaths in a conflict.

To better understand the atrocities of these wars, one must have knowledge of the definitions of certain terms and war crimes. The ideas of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” are often thrown

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

War has been a part of human culture since it's birth. It has led to a great many massacres and has shown us the evil that exists within the souls of humanity. Some have even gone as far as saying that war is human nature. To better understand the reasons behind war and how it affects others, I've examined several different societies and cultures so as to better understand the necessity of war and see the cause of their external war attitude. To do so, different variables from two topics (military institutions and external war attitude) were matched up and crossed so as to look into the answers to these questions. The variables were then calculated and through these graphs, I was able to find different societies in which