Why We Fight

 Why We Fight

J.M. Rogers

            It is commonly thought that wars are matters of strategy and tactics; that they are logistical affairs that hinge upon military execution and the brilliance of leading men whose boldness compels a force to victory; that the classical sentiments of honor, bravery, and selflessness, are the eternal motivations that drive soldiers to fight family and nation; that war is a trial of good and evil where justice is the primary goal of all involved. And yet, when studying the subject of war more closely, it becomes apparent that most, if not all, of the strategic details, are only discussed amongst a small, avarice-bound cohort; that ordinary soldiers dismiss the praises of honor, bravery, and willful self-sacrifice; that the only justice is peace; that all men are capable of evil. If these time-honored tropes are not the motivating factors for humanity’s bloodiest exchanges and if most of the people drawing blood are not convinced of the efficacy or value of war, then what elements can be outlined that explain our species' near-constant entanglement in mass combat?

 

In my studies of military history, I have found a kernel of truth that lies at the heart of mass warfare: ideological manipulation. Leadership is the most integral aspect of this truth, serving as the catalyst that spurs the machine of mutual human destruction into motion. They need not weigh down the general population with strategic minutia during the practical (combative) stages of warfare. Rather, their imperative is always to produce a generative, and necessarily broad, ethos that resonates in the minds and hearts of those who fight. If this psycho-emotional resonation persists through the early, clunky, stages of warfare, it will become amplified during the more streamlined and destructive phases of a conflict sometimes even surpassing the emotional commitment exhibited at the onset of the ordeal. The relationship between individual and ideology is a fascinating one, and one that rises and falls as events unfold. A soldier, or civilian, who has lost faith in the motivating ethos need only experience a marginal success, or a loss of something with which their identity is intimately connected (i.e., a landmark, loved one, or national principle) to rediscover the generative maxims that compelled them to fight at the first. Only when a full collapse of identity through regional destruction or population reduction is achieved will the motivating ethos cease to expand outward. (As observed in countless war veterans, the motivating ethos frequently continues to expand inward, into an insular space that is removed from physical reality, creating neuroses in the individuals due to the incongruency of their personal beliefs and the prescribed ideals of a new order.)

            Ideologies can be fragile constructs that disintegrate beneath appropriate mental pressure or friction. Consisting of ideas that are often capitulated to individuals from externalities such as political, social, or family leaders rather than grown from personal experiences that inform idiosyncratic logic sets, imposed ideology requires reinforcement via personal victories/successes that help stabilize its mental and emotional foundations within an individual. If this is not achieved, the idealistic attachment will erode in favor of a priori personal rationale. If the foundation of imposed ideology is strengthened, either through success or the lack of an overriding challenge by an external source, the imposed ideology (for example nationalism) will begin to dominate the individual’s rational functioning. This process, in which external leadership gains psychological leverage over the minds of their followers, functions on national, regional, and familial levels.

            It is important to understand this process as it is the generative mechanism that catalyzes all forms of warfare from tribal battles to global conflicts. Human beings have an inherent understanding of violence and survival. Whether this understanding is instinctive, or a learned behavior will determine the fervor with which an individual pursues it. The leader must simply understand their followers’ capacity for violence, and the amount of fear required to trigger survival instincts, to develop their propagandistic aims. From an empathetic knowledge of their constituents, effective leaders produce broad ideological statements that draw out followers’ instinctive reactions. For this reason, most ideological propaganda is thematically ubiquitous between different populations.

Due to the destructive nature of warfare, the propaganda campaign is excitatory, engaging fear and hatred reactions, as well as hero worship and delusions of grandeur, to overcome the initial fear of confrontation. However, the capitulated ideology must not be too specific or overly detailed for it will conflict with the individual’s comprehensive capacity (which is further diminished due to cortisol release). If the follower is confused, their idiosyncratic logic type will compel them to act in a self-preserving manner rather than in selfless functionality. As mentioned, propaganda plays upon ubiquitous ideological themes across cultural boundaries. Such themes include: combatting intrusive externalities, preserving generational capacity, avoiding imprisonment through the fight function, and preserving identity-enforcing landmarks (picture the Eiffel Tower aflame).

            When a functionally imposed ideology is implemented, corresponding successes or failures must confirm the theme's claims. If the Eiffel Tower is burned after propaganda has forecast its destruction by outside forces, then such a failure will powerfully reinforce and solidify the propaganda’s validity. Such validation not only stokes the base instincts that have already been primed, but it also provides the leadership with psychological leverage over their populations’ idiosyncratic rationale. If the combative forces are driven back and The Eiffel Tower is preserved at great cost then, again, the leader’s ideology will be reinforced. If, however, the ideology is proven to be unachievable, or irrelevant, due to strategic errors or faulty leadership, then either a renewed propaganda campaign will rise, or the ideology will be abandoned in favor of idiosyncratic rationality of self-preservation. Such abandonment is tantamount to failure and frequently produces changes in leadership in the early stages of a conflict, or military coups, desertion, mutiny, or outright surrender in the late stages of conflict. The German Army, due to its late-stage failures in World War 1 and 2, saw combinations of these outcomes before Versailles.

Such outcomes suggest that wars, while practical affairs are fueled by ideological conceptualizations of reality, typically imposed by external sources through propaganda. That the propagandistic themes produced by leadership are far more important than specific strategic goals or tactical details is a result of the power that imposed ideology has over individuals’ idiosyncratic rationale. Therefore, wars are fought for ideological themes that supersede the psycho-emotional capacity of individuals; ideological themes that are intentionally produced to manipulate the mindset of the general population to achieve various political aims.

Author’s Note:

The importance of this observation in the refutation of traditional narratives for warfare (religious, romantic, or industrial) cannot be overstated. Historically, and contemporarily, we too often describe the motivations for war in categorical terms that are more appropriate for fiction novels and prose poetry than for scientifically accurate appraisals of human behavior. The danger in this habit lies in the deception of the potential audiences who too easily subscribe warfare to classical modalities of thought rather than to individual or organizational leadership that manipulates populations into mass action through antagonizing tactics. To truly understand why humans have fought wars throughout history, and continue to fight now, we must be willing to peel back the vague narrative themes that have dominated this violent arena of human behavior to reveal the functional mechanisms that can be addressed directly.