Q- War is often said to be rooted in multiple sources located at various levels of analysis. For each level of analysis, discuss specific factors and theories that have contributed to the understanding of causes of war.

1. War is often
FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT
www.tutorialoutlet.com
Q- War is often said to be rooted in multiple sources located at
various levels of analysis. For each level of analysis, discuss specific
factors and theories that have contributed to the understanding of
causes of war. Be sure to provide specific examples of wars to
illustrate your points. Which level of analysis do you find most
convincing and why?
Just need someone to check over and give feedback. Also, need to
know if I should add anything if so provide examples as to what I
should add.
Almost all periods of human history have been defined as the result
of wars, from which the first settlers of the Earth set out to access
more rich and warm regions than we witness in the twenty-first
century with wars in Syria, Mali, Afghanistan, the Central African
Republic and other countries. In antiquity, wars were an expression of
national power and meant the subjugation of one people to another.
Rome, for example, conquered various territories thanks to the
methods of war that were implemented by its generals and strategists
and, at the same time, they assumed the expansion of its dominion.
Today, the cost of war far outweighs the benefits, but if the expenses
of war outweigh the benefits, why does war still exist? To understand
this, we have to break it down to three different levels of analysis;
individual, state, and global level of analysis. Although each level
could be used to explicate war, state level of analysis is most
profoundly exuberant in trying to dissect why war is part of human
nature, and why war cannot be avoided.
The individual level of analysis is prudent in trying to examine war
because people depend on their leaders to make rational decisions.
Even though sound decisions is a sentiment based on the leader, the
decisions of those leaders can cause wars or conflicts to formulate.

2. The most prolific and common example is Adolf Hitler single-
handedly starting WW2; Another would be George W. Bush, one
could argue his agenda and unilateralism is why we are involved in
the continuing conflict in which we see no immediate end to in the
middle east. We also saw in Syria, how individuals went from protest
to civil war by taking up arms and joining the rebel forces, which is
accredited to the self-help principle. “The countries future will be
decided in no small part by the aggregation of many such individual
decisions” (Joshua S. Goldstein: 147). Realism could also be applied
at this level, Morgenthau, one of the leading realist thinkers, says how
society is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human
nature. This sentiment could be explained by the fundamental beliefs
of a realist; the drive for power is something that cannot be
eliminated, and people are selfish and naturally inherent to kill
because of their genetics. Leadership is crucial because the average
person does not want war, but it is the power hungry leaders who
want war; Saddam Hussain, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Un, among
others. In this level, it is important to note how the individual's
leadership style, beliefs, goals, and personal relationships affect the
make-up of a country. Though it would be unanimously agreed upon
that there have been and still are bad leaders, those in charge don’t go
out and purposely try to harm their country. In the Prince, by
Machiavelli, he emphasized that the ruler can't be concerned with his
reputation and the morality of their decisions is different in private
and public view, even encouraging immoral actions to be taken at the
right times if necessary. Furthermore, Machiavelli expressed how a
potentate should be feared and not loved; concluding that a loved
ruler is weaker than a feared ruler because a feared ruler exercises
power through fear and punishment. Albeit that is this is an extreme
example of how a sovereign should lead his domain if the ends
outweigh the means then leaders will continue to exploit this
sentiment. Machiavelli’s view is the perfect symbol of why leaders
desecrate the use of their power to stay on top, as well as why they
will do whatever they think is the appropriate means of action,
including going to war, to maintain their countries standing in the
world. In conclusion, it is thought of by many scholars in IR,
including Kenneth Waltz, that in this level of analysis it would be

3. imbecilic to ignore the human nature of wars. Even though individual
level analysis is crucial in order figure out why wars happen, to say it
is the most important would be inaccurate. This level of analysis
ignores important aspects like economy, type of government, the
state, public opinion, and culture. The individual level of analysis is
useful in seeing how wars have escalated but doesn’t explain why
wars have formulated. In today's world, there are many more angles
needs to be accounted for than just individuals.
The global level of analysis is essential in trying to figure out where
war is rooted, but at this level, it does not show why wars occur. The
primary focus of global level of analysis, in my knowledge, revolves
around how to overcome security dilemma and mitigate war. Kenneth
Waltz says states fear each other because they could be attacked
anytime, and at this level, they try to minimize that fear as much as
possible. War at this level happens when there is a discrepancy
between states powers, and too many countries don’t have the same
amount of power. Hegemonic stability theory is a legitimate means to
deal with security dilemma if there is a hierarchy where one state
dominates others. Using World War two as an example, it would have
never happened if UK and France weren't buck-passing the
responsibility to check Germany’s power from the beginning. By
them not checking them, they eventually surpassed them in power and
eventually, by the power transition theory, started becoming more
daring in their foreign affairs because of the preponderant amount of
power they held. Hans Morgenthau says how the even distribution of
power and territory is the best way to avoid conflict. Furthermore, at
this level of analysis, Complex interdependence is one other way to
prevent war and mitigate the security dilemma between countries.
Complex interdependence can alleviate war and security dilemma
because it's not feasible to think if one country is beneficiating from
the other that they will do anything to undermine the other. “Some IR
scholars argue that war and military force are becoming obsolete as
leverage in international conflicts because these means of influence
are not very effective in today’s highly complex, interdependent
world” (Joshua S. Goldstein: 159). Intergovernmental,
nongovernmental organizations, and states conjointly play a role in
the global level of analysis being that they are the actors at this level.

4. Intergovernmental organizations such as NATO or the UN help the
weaker states with less power align with stronger states so they could
have better collective security. Whereas Nongovernmental
organizations, such as Amnesty International or even ISIS, pressure
governments to adopt their ideas for the good or the bad. In addition,
global level of analysis is concerned with the power owned by states
as the main actor, states either collaborate to fight others or fight
certain countries. For instance, World War I, World War II, and the
cold war saw countries with similar interests align to either fight or
oppose the group of states holding contrary views. Under this
analysis, examining how these organizations have had an impact on
war would lead to great information. Neorealism is a version of realist
theory that emphasizes the influence on the state behavior of the
system’s structure, which means that the fact that states are in an
anarchic situation, states will always be in competition. Additionally,
the most important part of the international system at the global level
is the power of a state within the system. So for example, when it was
a bipolar system such as the cold war, the central cause of the
behavior of every other country was based on the US and the Soviet
Union. Today, the unipolar system (United States) is what other
countries in the system base their behavior around. So this level of
analysis could explain why the US went into Iraq being the one that
held a preponderant amount of power, completely decimating the
country that threatened them. To justify this, you could say how the
US wants to have power as long as possible, so the threat of Iraq
attaining nuclear weapons needed to be confronted. Even though this
level of analysis does give great insight to interpret war, the primary
focus at this level is to create organizations or international regimes in
which war won't happen; the goal is to make war so costly that no
country wants to pay the price.
Finally, the level of analysis that should be the primary focus to find
the root of why wars exist is state level of analysis. At this level of
analysis, the state is not being seen as being unitary but have;
bureaucracy, legislators, interest groups, and people. There three main
factors that play a leading role in wars, economics, political &
ideological, and religious causes. Economic differences are seen in
most if not every war that has taken place. The financial element is

5. one of the most important when starting a trigger for the conquest of
goods, territories, legacies and infrastructure, among others. In many
cases, economic war is related to political power. The American civil
war, for example, revolved around slavery but was driven by demand
for cotton and other agricultural commodities. We also saw Kuwait
invaded by Iraq so Iraq could take control of the latter's oil reserves.
Also, the economic nature of the state is always seen as one of the
primary forces behind the civil war; it's hard to believe if the economy
of a country is doing well people will be willing to jeopardize that. In
this context, it is also important to differentiate types of economic
ideologies that could start wars such as, Marxist perspective and
liberal perspective. Marxists believe that capitalism causes war
because you state to take over a country once you start exporting a
mass number of goods. In variant, liberals feel as if capitalism
promotes peace because of complex interdependence, which I share
this sentiment in contrast to the other. Politics and ideology go hand
in hand, in many cases, politics express an ideology, which often
generates differences between proponents of one another's stance. The
Syrian war, for example, one of the triggers of the war has been the
political differences between government forces and opposition
groups, which in then, led to an armed confrontation. At this stage,
the type of government plays a big if not the most significant role.
The type of politics and ideologies have created wars by itself; the
cold war was many proxy wars between the democratic United States
and the communist Soviet Union. An example of proxy wars was
when the US-backed South Korea and the Soviets backed South
Korea. Along with the siege of Melos when Athens attacked Melos
just because their beliefs were based on the realist ideology, being
that if they were stronger than the opposition they should attack them.
In most cases, religion is the most debated subject of why tensions
arise. Religious tension is due to belief or the predominance of one
religion over the other. A real world example could be found in wars
all over the middle east; Israel vs. Palestine, Syrian civil war, Iraq vs.
Afghan. As Huntington stressed, the primary conflicts in the future
will not be nation-states but will be cultural conflicts, and cultural
identity will be useful in trying to analyze the potential for conflicts
that may arise. This theory is also the one that I believe will plague

6. the future, even in the present we see terrorist groups such as ISIS
proclaiming it's my religion vs. your type of mentality. Also with
religion, it is the means that drives people's actions more than
anything else. Religion to most people is the way of life and needs to
be implicated in every aspect of life.
In conclusion, State level of analysis is dominant in trying to find the
root of why wars exist and why they won't cease to exist from the
points I have already illustrated. If there was no religion or just one
dominant religion/culture, would it be foolish to think that the middle
east would be free of all the war that is a constant plague that has
destroyed so many lives? Even though this is a hopeful look at the
world, it is that which makes that sentiment foolish the reason war
will always be found most predominately state level of analysis. In
the Clash of Civilization by Huntington, he says how future tensions
won't be with nation states but will be cultural battles. He said this
long before the events of 9/11, or the terror that strikes fear in the
back of people's minds. In today's world, you can't even go on
vacation without having that little thought of “what could happen."
State level will also be more important than individual and global
level because every war has had at least two of the three most
important sub-points in the state level of analysis; economic motives,
political & Ideological differences, and religious predominance over
one another.