11.5.1: Why Countries Go to War:

 11.5.1: Why Countries Go to War: 

Conditions and Fuels Why do countries choose war as a means to handle disputes? As usual, sociologists answer this question not by focusing on factors within humans, such as aggressive impulses, but by looking for social causes—conditions in society that encourage or discourage combat between nations. Sociologist Nicholas Timasheff (1965) identified three essential conditions for war. The first is an antagonistic situation in which two or more states confront incompatible objectives. For example, each may want the same land or resources. The second is a cultural tradition of war. Because their nation has fought wars in the past, the leaders of a group see war as an option for dealing with serious disputes with other nations. The third is a “fuel” that heats the antagonistic situation to a boiling point, so that politicians cross the line from thinking about war to actually waging it. Timasheff identified seven such “fuels.” He found that war is likely if a country’s leaders see the antagonistic situation as an opportunity to achieve one or more of these objectives: Seven Fuels of War View Flashcards Seven Fuels of War View Flashcards 

1. Power: dominating a weaker nation 
2. Unity: uniting rival groups within their country 
3. Revenge: settling “old scores” from earlier conflicts 
4. Prestige: defending the nation’s “honor”
5.  Leaders: protecting or exalting the leaders’ positions 
6. Ethnicity: bringing under their rule “our people” who are living in another country
7.  Beliefs: converting others to religious or political beliefs 

You can use these three essential conditions and seven fuels to analyze any war. They will help you understand why politicians at that time chose this political action.

Few want to say that we honor war and killing, but we do. The centrality of war and killing in the teaching of history and the honoring of the patriots who founded a country are two indications. A third is the display of past weapons in parks and museums. A fourth is the monuments that commemorate wars and battles. Discarded weapons, as with this M48 U.S. Army tank in Hue, Vietnam, sometimes become children’s playthings.

The Flesh and Blood of War 

Sociological analysis can be cold and dispassionate. These “fuels” of war are like this: accurate and insightful, but cold. Throughout this book, I’ve tried to bring you the flesh and blood of topics, to help you see the ways that people experience life.

 So let’s do this again. 

Behind these “fuels” are politicians who make the bloody choice to go to war. 

They do not fight the war themselves, of course. They sit back and watch it from the comfort of their homes and offices. Some even profit from the war by making investments in companies that produce weapons. For most politicians, the deaths are bloodless affairs. It is young men and, increasingly, young women, who do the killing—and dying—for them. Some soldiers are killed on the battlefield; others survive but are mutilated for the rest of their lives. 

Many who survive with their body intact suffer emotionally.

 Some of my students have shared their suffering with me, but let me close this section with one of the most powerful statements I have come across. 

A soldier from California wrote this just before he put a bullet through his brain (Smith 1980): I can’t sleep anymore. 

When I was in Vietnam, we came across a North Vietnamese soldier with a man, a woman, and a three- or four-year-old girl. We had to shoot them all. I can’t get the little girl’s face out of my mind. I hope that God will forgive me . . . . I can’t.