What is War?

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." ~ GEN Robert E. Lee

There is no reason for the gentrification of war but to disguise it as a noble profession that it is not. War, like all forms of violence, is for the purpose of power, control, and domination. That those who resort to it first are not those who are going to suffer on the front lines, make it even more abhorrent as the desperate act of bullies whose policies have failed. War is terrible, and it should be, and those who have not walked the trenches, should not be able to call for that last desperate act.

I've always viewed War as something like a school yard argument that turns into a fight. The principles are roughly the same, there are two individuals (countries or states) that don't agree on something and they start talking first about it (peaceful communications). That will slowly erode into arguing (sanctions), which will lead to pushing (launching weapons from the sea or air). This ultimately will lead to a fight (war), it follows along the same lines, just people who have more to throw around in the way of weapons.

Also as we all know, War is a nasty terrible thing.

It is also a way to solve problems and to end strife. The are many things that War has done that has been to the betterment of humanity on a whole, just like there are things that it has done to hurt and hinder people.

I view war as a sponsored society or state that has determined it necessary to execute a change in behavior (actions/intentions/or influence) within another group. I believe war to encompass all powers of influence Diplomatic Informational Military Economic (DIME) and run full range of spectrum from small strategic actions to long actions of attrition. The reason to put rules on war is to minimize the time and resources required to return to a stabilized norm (needless loss of life/resources/infrastructure). With all that said it is about changing the behavior of another be it direct attacks to keep countries out of countries (ISIS does not want Western influence for their people) or to stop an action that a country takes (human atrocities/drug smuggling). Like the debates that we have with others but on a grander scale.

Ma'am, here's a definition of war from the dictionary:

"a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state"

I think of the wars we've been involved in. This definition certainly applies to our Revolutionary War, our Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush declared a "global war on terrorism (GWOT)," which also fits the definition.

And the latest "war" against ISIS/ISIL fits as well.

It seems to me that anytime we confront an adversary who wants to do our country or our way of life harm, and we decide to fight back, that's a war.

Heck, there's even a war on drugs, and that fits my definition of war as well. The drug suppliers, dealers, etc., want to do us harm, so fighting back against them could be defined as a war.

I don't have any deep military thinkers to quote, just common sense, coupled with a sense of survival for our country and our culture.

An organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad.

To me it is the absence of reasoning in resolving conflicting thoughts. We as intelligent rational beings know the course that war will lead us on yet persuade ourselves that war is the necessary action that will align these divergent thoughts. War does not change the way one thinks however it is merely a physical action that results in the subjugation of a group under another group. This is were I feel war betrays us as it does nothing to change the thought that lead to war in the first place. That's where I think the Romans succeeding in their strategy in creating their empire. They conquered but rebuilt and raised the standard of living. I like the thinking of Carl von Clausewitz and he goes beyond the causes and looks into human nature and the teleology of war.

Ma'am,

While I tend to agree with Clausewitz's assessment regarding war being a continuation of policy by other means, I think he both goes too far and not far enough in his assessment. He goes too far in that he stays too general in his statement on policy; he does not go far enough in that he limited his assessment to armed conflict.

My hypothesis is that war is specifically the continuation of any policy involving the establishment of control of a group outside the normal sphere of influence of a given nation-state by other means. That control does not necessarily require physical violence between the aggressor and the target, but such physical violence between target and aggressor is a usual end result of such conflict. Specifically on the less violent side, one can conceivably foment unrest within the target group or country without actually engaging personnel from the aggressor nation-state. Modern war could conceivably rage in cyberspace long before a single shot is fired; indeed, should one (or more) side(s) fail to sufficiently secure their infrastructure, such a conflict may do considerable economic and even physical damage without attribution to the aggressor and with far fewer national (or organizational) resources required than full spectrum warfare would require.

Regardless, the differentiation between war and skirmish lies primarily in the concerted attempt by one side to gain control over the actions of the other. This is why I have never seen much use in the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty", or the "War on Terrorism" - war, using the full weight of a nation-state's capacity to force compliance of the opposing force, against an abuse problem, an economic status, and a tactic respectively has little to do with an identified target group or nation-state. They are, by their own definition, not capable of being "won" in any traditional sense of the word. There is no group, organization, or nation-state over whom control is sought.

As to how I would develop a theory based on my hypothesis... I am afraid that would take much more research than I have devoted to the topic at this point. From my limited studies on war in general and my own personal observations, my first target would be to better develop a hypothesis on the impetus to action against another group or nation-state. I'm heavily influenced by Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Lao Tzu (I realize he isn't normally considered a military theorist, but Tao Te Ching actually flows well with certain schools of thought), as well as my own experience.

Oh, and as to the overwhelming urge to impose rules on war... that seems to have more to do with the difficulty of using the spoils when such rules were never implemented than any specific revulsion of the acts themselves during actual conflict. In the event no such requirement exists and the aggressor has no need to mop up afterwards, as it were, then I suspect there would be little urge to follow those existing rules.

Just my two cents Ma'am. Outstanding question - thank you for posing it!

IMHO. War is a state of mind and political posture that is taken by a sovereign entity (person, group, culture, society, country, etc.) when that entity, based on its definition of rationality, established morals, code of laws and political infrastructure, feels that it has exhausted all less than violent, civilized (ethical and unethical) efforts to influence its will and desire over another entity. War becomes the forceful, most likely violent attempt of a sovereign entity to establish its will and desire over and conquer the unwilling entity though actions that push to the extreme and/or violate the sovereign entity's rationality, established morals and code of laws.

a racket.

The trick to reading Clausewitz is to understand that he wrote in the manner of argument of the day - Hegalian dialect

He stated a thesis, then argues the anti-thesis (the opposite point of view), then combines the two into something new (synthesis)

Thus he can be misquoted because the thesis and anti-thesis are not what he was truly reasoning yet generally you find where folks pick and choose out of the two to argue their points.