The Diversionary Theory of War
Diversionary Theory of War or Scapegoat Hypothesis:
In order to overcome popular or elite divisions at home, leaders will attempt to take public attention from internal concerns and finding an external foe (either real or fabricated) to divert attention.
Variables: Leaders, Regime types
· helps us understand that there is a connection between foreign and internal policies.
· Sociological studies of IN Group/ Out Group and social cohesion do translate well for the theory
· War overtime becomes more costly to internal politics i.e. Vietnam
· In civil strife, or civil war, hostile foreign policy might further erode a regimes political base.
· The theory is best when there is a moderate level of cohesion of population, and a moderate support of the government.
· External conflict might also cost internal disorder
· Internal conflict might also cause an enemy to attack a weak state
· Russet: governments are now expected to control the economy. Presidents need to have their power to persuade congress, therefore are in constant need of public support.
· The dangers: not only is war unpopular but defeat can lead to an increase in internal conflict.
· Escalation is based on international factors more so than individual leaders who choose initiation of aggression?
Falkland case: Argentenian government could have acted in diversionary theory
à The action gained Thatcher support afterwards that she didn't have before.
· In democratic regime it becomes more common in economic weakness
· In authoritarian regimes action is more common in economic rise
· Democratic leaders are in constant campaigning.
· Moral dimension has to be clearly seen by the people
Rally around the Flag Effect:
à A form of Diversionary tactic by the leader to sway public attention to foreign enemies instead of himself thereby giving him extra support. P. 136 Bruce Russet
The Falkland Case:
àin argentina there were not many choices to follow. On the British side they were worried about internal resistance from the elites
à governments in times of war cannot commit to most of their problems internally
The Rally itself:
àShort Term: Roughly one month or two
àExtra Support: Normally arises in about a 10% increase
These are the teachers notes now:
à Rally around the flag occurred In Israel after terrorist attacks, Ireland, and now.
1- You may create the will to resistance to battle rather than overcome the resistance from the internal.
2- Sanctions can create a rally around the flag effect and a resentment to those responsible.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
... towards the goals of the country from a sense of nationalism (McEnaney 21; Orwell n.pag.). The resentment the people hold for the enemy comes from the government’s war which distracts the people from the government’s actions towards themselves. The ploys the government uses the war for help them achieve their goals by controlling the citizens.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
...truggle and violence. From the Iran Revolution to the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the struggle and violence lasted from 1979-1988. If only applied to the Iranian revolution then the period of violence was short, only a year, but without knowing what would have happened had Iraq not invaded Iran, it is hard to say how long that period would have lasted. As I used both the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, the period of violence in this case turns out to be nine years. The implications of policy application of this theory is knowing that the pressure on newly formed regimes to secure internal security through outside conflict means that policies may change or pass with the intention of inciting a state to enter into conflict with the new state. The purpose of this would be to give the newly formed state an opportunity to strengthen and consolidate its authority.
Nationalism largely influences the way people think and act, and causes dishonesty within people, as nationalists who have chosen one side, would persuade himself that his side is the strongest regardless of the facts presented against him and his beliefs. These people feel a sense of superiority as they are provided with a sense of security from serving a greater cause and feel obliged to defend it. The slightest slur or criticism from another faction can cause them to snap or even act violently. It doesn’t even have to be directed at them; just the idea of someone being against them is enough to set off a violent reaction. This can be seen in the novel as the Two-Minute Hate, where propaganda is played for an audience and everyone present feels obligated to shout out insults and are prone to outburst or violence in the face of enemies of the Party in order to protect their
- They believed that they were surrounded by well-organized enemies (other political parties) they felt defensive about Liberalism, nationalism and popular sovereignty
All throughout time and history people have been at war with each other at one point or another. War can, truthfully, at times be inescapable and considered by some historians as a natural instinct, an instinct that every human being possess. Throughout history mighty empires and governments have collapsed due to the damages inflicted on by a war, yet in spite of this, some have managed to face the odds and make it through, staggering along as if nothing happened. War is a true test of an empire or government’s determination to move forward, adapting using the knowledge and intellect they have acquired to their own advantage. Nevertheless, not all wars lead to fighting by physical means but instead it can lead to fighting mentally by opposing sides. One such example would be the non-traditional Cold War fought between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War was a time that caused an immense fear in the lives of many, and inspired novels such as 1984 by George Orwell, Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and essays such as “You and the Atomic Bomb” by George Orwell, which are just some of the voices from this terrible time.
... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations.
Consequently, Russia offers U.S. businesses both high risk, and potentially high rewards. Russian firms and customers admire U.S. technology and know-how, and generally are interested in doing business with U.S. companies. At the same time, there is a tendency in some quarters to suppose that the U.S. is responsible for the changes which have occurred in Russia, especially those which have caused most hardship to individuals and to industry. This sentiment has attracted the support of some political leaders, and in given credence by a significant proportion of the populace. At the same time, a strong U.S. commercial presence is viewed in the Russian Far East as a counterbalance to other regional economic powers.
The changes that we have recently experienced at the global level, this new era of globalization, has made the entire peoples relive the feelings of nationalism, unfortunately in a wrong way. Because of leaders with the coveted power, these feelings of nationalism have been conducted through the anger, hatred, intolerance, and violence.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. "Linkage versus Leverage: Rethinking the International Dimension of Regime Change." Comparative Politics 38.4 (2006): 379-400. Print.
When analyzing a group and its development, there are several points to consider. The greater the similarity in member attitudes and values brought to the group, the greater the likelihood of cohesion in the group. Group cohesion will be increased by success in achieving the groups’ goals, low frequency of required external interactions and under conditions of abundant resources.
The politicizing of economic and social life means that every dispute and every disagreement were now become the matter of national interest. This rivalry had started a vast armament race in the whole world.