Over the past several days there have been several discussions about Neo-cons, Neo-libs, PNAC, Pax Americana, etc. I don't really want to repeat those threads as there was a thorough discussion of the "Strategic Class" and the Military Industrial Complex.

I'm not saying we can't talk about these things again, and I'm certainly not saying that all that could be or needs to be said was said. But, I am asking an even deeper question here.

Why do we (humans) engage in war? Why have we always engaged in war? Why do we choose violence to solve conflicts? And does it solve the conflict? Is it because it is forced on us? We certainly all believe we have the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones when attacked.

But how many times have we decided to engage in war because we were attacked? Or "threatened with attack"? When I say "we" I don't only mean we Americans, but "we" as a species.

It's a big question. It goes to our core. It involves everything we ever believed in. This one question; "Why do we engage in war?" will bring into question our deepest beliefs and who we are as people, and as humans IF we actually dig into it historically.

I will have more to say if anyone is interested in this topic. I usually don't try to start topics because I am a slow typist and don't cut and paste very well. Also I am not as articulate as so many of you, and not even as smart.

But I am listening right now to Kerry in the Senate talking about the Murtha statement, and is now engaging in a conversation with Republican Senator Jon Kyl about the War. Just one War among many wars. Something we have always done. Something we seem to love to do deep down. Or is there another reason we do it?

TRoU,
This is a great question! Probably one of the top 10 questions of all time. I don't know, but I can tell this is going to be one of my new ruminations for the weekend ahead. Why do we enjoy going to war?

I want to examine this issue. I will be relying heavily on a resaercher whom I don't want to name at the moment because I want to present his reasoning first before he himself is examined. I want to discuss Ideas about this subject rather than the source first. Partly because I don't accept everything he has concluded. So.
What follows is a mixture and summarization of those thoughts and mine.;

For a long time some of our best thinkers have attempted to solve the riddle of why people go to war. They have observed that nearly all of earth's creatures fight among themselves at one time or another, usually over food, territory, or mating. Aggression seems to be a universal behavior related to survival. Other factors also contribute to to the creation of wars. The researcher must take into account such factors as human psychology, sociology, political leadership, economic conditions, and the natural surroundings. Many thinkers however, have erroneously equated all human motives with motives found in the animal kingdom. This is a mistake because intelligence breeds complexity. As creatures rise in intelligence, their motivations tend to become more elaborate.

It is easy to understand the mental stimuli in two alley cats squabbling over a scrap of food, but it would be a mistake to attribute as simple a state of mind to a terrorist planting a bomb in an airport.

I will examine two central motivations generally and invite comments.

1. War can be it's own valuable commodity.

2. War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and political control over a large population.

I will have more to say but I invite all thoughts on this. I must add that the above motivations are aside from the universally proclaimed reason; Self Defense!

1. War can be it's own valuable commodity.

The simple existence of violent conflict between groups of people can, in itself, be valuable to someone regardless of the issues over which people are fighting. An obvious example is an armaments manufacturer selling military hardware to warring nations, or a lending institution making loans to governments during wartime. Both can achieve an economic benefit from the mere existence of war as long as the violence does not directly touch them.

However the value of war as a commodity extends far beyond monetary gain.

2. War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and political control over a large population.

In the 16th century, Italy consisted of numerous independent principalities which were often at war with one another. When a Prince conquered a neighboring city, he would sometimes breed internal conflicts among the vanquished citizens. This was an effective way to maintain political control over the people because the endless squabbling prevented the vanquished people from engaging in unified action against the conquerer. It did not greatly matter over what issues the people bickered so long as they valiantly struggled against one another and not against the conquering prince.

A state of war can also be used to encourage populations to think in ways that they would not otherwise do, and to accept the formation of institutions that they would normally reject. The longer a nation involves itself in wars, the more entrenched those institutions and ways of thinking will become.

Third Party manipulation is also a well known activity among nations, if it serves their interests. History is replete with such instances, and is even included as a strategy in the ancient book "The Art of War".

Not true! Some posters are very knowledgeable in certain areas, but your reasoning and articulation abilities seem more than fine to me.

Why do we go to war?
Well TRU, what a great question and one that's been on my mind for a long while,now. My mind has been going in the direction of thinking about the possibility of electing enlightened U.S.leaders who are committed, truly committed intelletually and in their actions to seeking innovative ways to promote peaceful relations with all nations worldwide.

Why do people go to war. I think to increase wealth ( land, natural resources, etc.) to avenge a hostile action, to advance an idealized "way of life" and apparently now, to preempt hostile actions.

I bet there will be many interesting thoughts on this thread!

Thanks for your kind assessment of my abilities.

Greed, revenge, proselytizing are indeed basic motivations among humans. Interestingly none are self defense. Self Defense is the universal reason given because we know it is the only reason that has a justification we all accept. We know there is no other that is just. Yet we believe that often told lie.

Why?

I have to go out for awhile. I Will Be Back!

I did leave out war is waged to repel an invader, of course that's the most obvious reason. Don't know why I left it out!

I'll have to ponder your "why" question for a while.

I have a little journal at home called "The Journal of Psychohistory" or something like that. In it, there was an article that maintains we go to wars to appease our unconscious guilt or something like that. And he was saying wars were often started during times of prosperity in which the nation was struggling with guilt that it didn't deserve its prosperity.

Could be a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo hogwash (look at wars not waged from times of prosperity) but it points toward a sense I have that there are underlying psychological reasons why large groups of people choose to go to war with another large group of people. I guess I want to examine it from the point of a nations as a whole as though they were one organism with psychological fears and needs and motives.

Is it because we've got underlying libidinal impulses in the form of aggression like Freud's nephew said we did and that if they're not sublimated into shopping and consumerism they come out sideways as aggressive actions against other soverign "individual" nations? Is it related to greed, or lack of empathy, or lack of trust (as rla points out in previous threads that so much of our pathology is based upon)?

But if *we* are the problem, rather than the politicians and the press, then why is it *we* like to go to war, on occasion? Why is it that *we* believe torture is OK? And as Amy points out, what can *we* do about it?

Thanks for your thoughtful responses Amy, and Gabrielle. While you're thinking about this further, I want to throw in something this researcher said;

"..at just about the age of eight. Back then war movies were very popular in my circle of friends. Our favorite game was playing "army". I usually commanded one squad of kids and my friend David led the opposition. We filled our imaginary battles with the same glamor and altruism we saw on television. We had no greater hero than the late actor Vic Morrow who would gallantly lead his army squad to victory every week on the televison series, Combat!

One Saturday afternoon I was watching a Hollywood war movie on television. It was like any other war movie except that it contained a short piece of numbing realism. For the first time in my life, I found myself looking at documentary film footage of an actual Nazi concentration camp. Long after the images vanished off the television screen, I was haunted by the pictures of skeleton-like bodies being thrown into large pits. Like so many other people, I had trouble fathoming the souls of the Nazis who could shove human beings into brick ovens like loaves of bread and moments later pulled out charred remains. Within a minute, those grainy black and white images presented a true picture of war. Behind the curt salutes and stirring oratory, war is little but a degraded psychosis. While war movies and games can sometimes be fun, the real thing is unconscionable."

He goes on to describe that by his observations humans don't really want to fight with each other. He postulates that when given a choice the average person tends to avoid conflict. I agree, I have observed this throughout my life that boys who get into fights with each other do so to save face, etc., but even when they start swinging, they are quite ready for any excuse to stop unless they are driven by rage.

Often they are egged on by their "friends" who want some entertainment. It seems that recruits in the army have to be deconstructed psychologically, and reconstructed to be able to kill without thinking. An effective soldier certainly needs training to rely on when combat occurs. But it does point up that humans don't naturally gravitate to fighting.

For example;

"The Renaissance had a very interesting effect on warfare in Europe. War had become a "gentleman's" activity- ornate and full of bluster. European rulers expended considerable sums of money to create aesthetic and colorful armies. Bright uniforms, flapping banners, and fancy armor were the order of the day. Significantly, pageantry replaced combat on the battlefield. More often than not, the dazzling Renaissance armies engaged in endless maneuverings against one another with little actual contact. After a great deal of pomp and show, a military stalemate would often occur followed by an elegant cavalry maneuver known as the caracole. Each side could then declare itself the winner with few or no casualties, and march colorfully home to the adulation of it's people. Young male soldiers survived to quicken their lovers' pulses with noble tales of gallantry and honor in the field.

In today's jaded ultrapragmatic world, the above activities might seem rather silly, like something from "the Wizard of Oz". They were however, , an exceptionally important phenomenon because the Renaissance style of warfare revealed the true nature of the human spirit. The majority of people will gravitate away from war when given the chance. They will turn arenas of conflict into theaters of pageantry. They will choose life, color, and artistry over death, pallor, and decay. The Renaissance was a short period of history revealing that when repression is eased, when intolerance and war inducing philosophies diminish in importance, and when people are able to think and act more freely, human beings as a whole will naturally and automatically move away from war."

Ok. I've put a few thoughts out here. I'm sure there are many more ideas about war we can look at. However, in order to start at the begining I want to say something which may serve to focus the thread. Or blow it up!

Man's religions from the very earliest times we have records for, seem to have been either deliberately interpreted or deliberately "designed" to bring human beings into conflict with each other! Does anyone agree/disagree with that?

Hmmm. Not much interest. Oh well. It's one of those questions most of us don't really want to think about, no matter what we say.

The problem is: there is no "we humans" that engage in war.

You start from a premise of some kind of solidarity that is fictional, and that only serves to mystify war, rather than de-mystify it.

It would only obfuscate reality to ask "Why did we invade Iraq". Asking "why do we humans engage in war" is no different.

There may be a universal human potential for violence and aggressiveness-- but there's a long way from that to war.

That's my view.

That's why I have no interest.

Suit yourself.

Is it love of country or love of our beloved that compells a soldier on the battlefield? Vet friends of mine from the Vietnam War said it was to protect their buddies. But few said it was to protect America.

Political Leaders decide when we will go to war. Sometimes there is no question, as when we are attacked. But, when it is otherwise, and especially when we are so much more powerful than anyone else, what drives us to go along with declarations of war with no obvious justification?

Not much interest? Are you nuts? I'll have some random thoughts to offer, tomorrow.