newman@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Bill Newman) (06/15/91)
[Further followups in this vein should go elsewhere, perhaps talk.politics or a history group, if there is one. --CTM] In article <13069119:32:51JPR1@lehigh.bitnet> JPR1@ns.cc.lehigh.EDU ("James P. Reynolds") writes: >Couldn't help but throw in my 2 cents worth about the draft discussion. > >Basically, my reasoning goes like this: > >My attitude starts from my suspicion that most wars are basically ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >fought over economic concerns. The Civil War, for example, was an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >economic power struggle between the two elites of the time: the >southern producers of raw materials (plantation owners) and the >up-and-coming owners of northern industrial capital (like Mass. >mill owners). I disagree with this generalization. Jumping back through history to a major war with a well-known alternative economic interpretation makes it look more plausible than it is. Try looking at the twentieth century first. I grant that Iraq-Iran and Iraq-Kuwait, Afghanistan, the Japanese and Italian invasions between the World Wars, Vietnam, and most wars to retain colonies might admit an explanation based on economic greed without too much mental gymnastics, as long as you'll grant that other factors were also important. However, I think it's hard to explain the Falklands, the Arab-Israeli wars, the Indian-Pakistani wars, USSR-China border tension, China/Taiwan border tension, Korea, the two world wars, and the wide proxy interest in the Spanish Civil War by greed. Moreover, it is interesting that to a good first approximation, democracies don't attack each other. (Although there was the War of 1812, and greed was involved there.) Since I don't believe that democracy reduces greed, I think this suggests that there's more to war than greed. Either that, or the democracies have had a long lucky spell of good behavior with regard to each other. Bill Newman newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu