The Ontology Of War: Understanding The Dynamics of Conflict, Peace, Justice

“So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other.

“So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established” -Lysander Spooner

War In Essence

War can be fundamentally defined as a conflict driven by the need to defend one’s Interests, Property, and Liberty.

This complex interplay of defense begins when an individual or group perceives these “core essences” as being under threat from an external force or opposing party. The initial response often involves issuing warnings and counter-threats. These serve as strategic communications intended to inform the adversary of one’s readiness and willingness to defend their stakes.

The initiation of war hinges upon the belief that one has something of substantial value worth defending. These threats, once recognized and deemed credible by the opposing party, may escalate into a series of strategic exchanges. These include issuing further warnings, reneging on previously declared stances, or enhancing the credibility of one’s defensive posture through additional demonstrations of readiness.

When an entity faces the prospect of conflict, the decision to engage or withdraw is influenced by several factors:

• Capability and Willingness: The entity must assess whether it possesses the necessary military or tactical capabilities to engage effectively in conflict.

• Cost-Benefit Analysis: A critical evaluation of whether the potential gains from war outweigh the risks and costs associated with a prolonged conflict.

• Risk Aversion and Uncertainty: War inherently involves uncertainty. Parties often opt to negotiate when the outcomes of conflict are too uncertain or the potential costs are too high relative to the perceived benefits.

• Resource Availability: The logistical backbone of any war effort demands resources which include not just military hardware and personnel, but also economic stability and access to critical supplies like food and fuel. Prolonged conflicts drain resources, making the war increasingly untenable over time.

• Allied Support: Alliances play a pivotal role in the conduct of war. Allies can provide essential support, including military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic backing. However, the dynamics of international relations are fluid, and shifts in alliance priorities can drastically affect the scope and strategy of the war effort.

• Public Morale: The will of the people is perhaps the most volatile and crucial factor in the duration of a war. Public support can be influenced by nationalistic sentiments, perceived justness of the war cause, and the impacts of the war on everyday life. Declining morale can lead to protests, political pressure, and ultimately, calls for peace negotiations.

Negotiation then emerges as a pragmatic alternative to warfare, particularly when the parties involved recognize the high stakes and the unpredictable outcomes of military engagement. This tendency towards negotiation is not merely a strategic retreat but a rational choice driven by an intrinsic human tendency to avoid risk when the costs of potential loss outweigh the benefits of potential gains.

In essence, war is an activity that ensues when dialogue fails and the preservation of the core human values being, Property, Interest and Liberty is at risk.

Evolutionary Psychology and Natural Law : A Historical Perspective

The psychology of war is derived from both evolutionary psychology and social evolution. In Paleolithic times, humans primarily survived through violence due to ignorance of natural law, linguistic differences, and short life spans. These factors led to more bestial volitional responses than diplomatic compromises. The struggle for survival often necessitated aggression, as resources were scarce and competition fierce. This primal behavior is rooted in our evolutionary history, where the primary objective was to ensure the continuation of one’s genetic lineage through any means necessary.

As human lifespans increased and humans grew in natural and social intelligence, they developed languages and semiotics for dialogue, which facilitated more complex social structures and interactions. With these advancements, the need for cooperative strategies became apparent, as peaceful coexistence offered greater benefits than constant conflict. This shift in social dynamics led to the establishment of laws and norms, forming the basis of natural law.

Natural law emerged as an intrinsic understanding of right and wrong, influenced by the shared experiences and collective wisdom of early human societies. It was essentially a codification of behaviors that promoted harmony and minimized harm. This new social contract permitted mechanisms of war and peace to exist within society while maintaining a level of docility. It allowed for acceptable behaviors, laws, and statutes, sometimes in the shape of commandments, enforced by justices, leaders, and ranking members of society. This permitted peace among men and created a neutral environment for disputes regarding Property, Interests, and Liberty.

These early laws primarily developed from the rudimentary precepts of natural law, understood as the science of mine and thine by most classical philosophers. It was a common understanding of what a man can and cannot do to another’s person or property, recognizing any invasion as a direct transgression of one’s liberty. By outlining what belongs to an individual, the population could reach a consensus on how it should be protected and develop punishments for violations. As society grew, these simple statutes required more complex laws to address the intricacies of expanding human interactions and relationships.

This explains why as civilizations developed nominally, war and conflict was primarily present among different villages, polities, and nations rather than paleolithic infighting. The clear delineation of communal and individual rights helped mitigate internal conflicts, allowing societies to focus their defensive and aggressive efforts on external threats.

Reputation

“If you try a strategic move in a game and then back off you may lose your reputation for credibility”. — Avinash K. Dixit, et al

Reputation in the realm of international relations and conflict is a multifaceted and deeply strategic asset. It is built over time through consistent actions, decisions, and demonstrated resolve. In games of power you may face the same rival at different times or face different rivals all at the same time. When facing future conflicts strategic opponents will assess the credibility of a leader or a nation in the international arena on their history of reliability and decise to follow through on commitments and threats. Reputation acts as both a deterrent and an incentive, influencing the behavior of allies and adversaries.

A strong reputation for resolve can deter adversaries from engaging in conflict, knowing that the entity in question will stand firm and respond decisively. Conversely, a reputation for unreliability or weakness can embolden adversaries and undermine alliances. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy’s firm stance and clear communication of the consequences of a nuclear attack from Cuba established the United States’ resolve, thereby deterring the Soviet Union from escalating the situation.

Reputation also plays a critical role in the broader strategic landscape. Leaders must consider how their actions will be perceived not only in the immediate context but also in future scenarios. This involves maintaining a balance between demonstrating strength and avoiding unnecessary provocations that could lead to escalated conflicts. Historical examples, such as the appeasement policies before World War II, highlight the dangers of miscalculating the impact of one’s reputation. The failure to respond decisively to early aggressions by Nazi Germany emboldened further expansionist policies, ultimately leading to a larger and more devastating conflict.

In contemporary times, the digital age has amplified the importance of reputation. Instant global communication means that actions and decisions are scrutinized in real-time, and missteps can rapidly damage a an individual’s standing. This constant visibility requires leaders to be even more strategic in their communications and actions, ensuring that they project strength and reliability.

Reputation is also about managing perceptions among one’s own population. Leaders must ensure that their citizens view their actions as justified and in the nation’s best interest. Public opinion can greatly influence a leader’s ability to maintain or regain credibility. During the Vietnam War, for instance, the prolonged conflict and rising casualties eroded public support and damaged the U.S. government’s reputation both domestically and internationally.

Maintaining a strong reputation requires consistent demonstration of resolve, clear communication of intentions, and the ability to back up threats with credible action. It involves strategic planning, understanding the dynamic landscape, and anticipating the reactions of both allies and adversaries.

Peace

It is a popular maxim that “peace can only be achieved and maintained by the projection of strength” which is very true. Peace is not merely the absence of war but a dynamic and sustained state of harmony achieved through a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military strategies. It is a diplomatic condition that allows multiple parties to live in peaceful, negotiable terms without the incitement of violence and strategic threats against that diplomatic contract. This stability is largely maintained by favorable conditions for all parties involved, ensuring that the cost of conflict outweighs potential benefits.

The projection of strength is a critical component of maintaining peace. Nations invest significantly in their military, logistical, and economic capabilities not only to deter potential aggressors but also to assure their own populace and allies of their commitment to maintaining stability. Military strength acts as a deterrent by making the potential costs of aggression prohibitively high for adversaries. This concept is encapsulated in the principle of deterrence, which posits that peace is preserved through the credible threat of overwhelming retaliation against any aggressor.

In addition to military strength, economic stability and prosperity play pivotal roles in maintaining peace. Economically stable nations are less likely to resort to conflict as a means of resolving disputes. It became widely believed fact among international relations scholars especially those of the “structual realism” school of thought heavily reaffirmed that Economic interdependence among nations creates a web of mutual interests that discourages war. Trade, Investment, and Economic collaboration has historically fostered an environment where the benefits of peace far outweigh the potential gains from conflict.

Diplomacy is another cornerstone of peace. Diplomatic engagements, treaties, and international organizations such as the United Nations provide platforms for dialogue and conflict resolution. Through diplomacy, nations can address grievances, negotiate compromises, and build alliances that reinforce stability. Diplomatic efforts are often backed by the implicit threat of military force, but they aim to resolve conflicts through dialogue and mutual understanding rather than violence.

Public perception and morale also significantly impact the maintenance of peace. Governments must work to ensure that their citizens understand and support peace initiatives. Public support can be influenced by nationalistic sentiments, perceived justness of the cause, and the tangible benefits of peace, such as economic prosperity and social stability.

Justice Reestablished

Justice Reestablished is the end state when peace and diplomacy restore the balance disrupted by conflict. Restoring justice is a multifaceted process that often involves legal, political, and social dimensions. Legally, it requires holding accountable those responsible for violations and ensuring that victims receive redress. International tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court, play a crucial role in prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, thereby reaffirming the rule of law and the principles of justice.

Politically, reestablishing justice often necessitates reforms to address the root causes of conflict. This can include changes in governance, power-sharing arrangements, and efforts to build inclusive institutions that reflect the diverse interests of the population. Political reconciliation processes aim to heal divisions and build consensus among formerly warring parties.

Socially, reestablishing justice involves fostering a culture of peace and reconciliation. This includes initiatives to promote dialogue and understanding among different communities, address historical grievances, and build social cohesion. Truth and reconciliation commissions, such as those established in South Africa after apartheid, provide platforms for victims and perpetrators to share their experiences and seek forgiveness, fostering a collective healing process.

Economic reconstruction is also critical in reestablishing justice. Post-conflict recovery often requires significant investment in rebuilding infrastructure, restoring livelihoods, and promoting sustainable development.

Ultimately, Justice Reestablished is the process of reconstruction after the activity of war. Initiatives are typically organized to ensure the rule of law prevails, human rights are respected, and all individuals involved have the opportunity to live in peace and security after the activity of war.

All concepts presented are the intellectual property of Jarinzo Tanabata ©