By James Holmes, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: James Holmes is an associate professor of strategy at the Naval War College and co-author of ‘Red Star over the Pacific’. The views expressed are his alone.
As tensions rise in Japan’s dispute with China over ownership of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, some might wonder if a spontaneous outburst of violence could pull in the United States, which is treaty-bound to defend Japan. Such an outcome seems doubtful, but it is by no means unimaginable. After all, such skirmishes have certainly been legion. Remember the North Korean seizure of USS Pueblo in 1968, aerial combat between U.S. and Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra in 1981, or any number of close encounters between U.S. and Soviet forces during the Cold War. None led to war. From this it’s tempting – and comforting – to conclude that icy rationality always trumps the passions of the moment. On the other hand, this might be one of those statements that’s only true until it’s not.
Great thinkers strike a sobering note on the balance between rationality – cost/benefit logic driven by quantifiable interests – and strong emotions. Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz declares that the value a society attaches to its political goals dictates how many resources – lives, hardware, treasure – it will expend to obtain those goals, and for how long. Once the costs come to exceed the value of the goals, it’s time to sue for peace on the best terms possible. Sounds simple, right? Just run the numbers, and you know when to go to war and when to get out.
But not so fast, my friend! as ESPN football commentator Lee Corso likes to exclaim. Clausewitz also points out that passions like rage and spite suffuse international conflict and war. And one-upsmanship gives rise to escalatory dynamics as each antagonist tries to outdo the other. The result: competitive enterprises unfold by their own unpredictable logic, not by the linear cost/benefit analysis familiar to us from everyday life. Events are fluid.
More from CNN: Why Asia is arguing over its islands
Nor is this a new insight. Classical Greek historian Thucydides proclaims that fear, honor and interest impel states’ actions. Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume elaborates. “Interest and ambition, honor and shame, friendship and enmity, gratitude and revenge,” writes Hume, “are the prime movers in all public transactions; and these passions are of a very stubborn and intractable nature...” Not-strictly-rational motives influence or even drive human endeavors.
Last summer, following an event at the French Institute of International Relations, a.k.a. Ifri, a perceptive French gentleman asked me whether there’s a pecking order among fear, honor, and interest. With no glib reply at the ready, I answered that there is. Honor stands above, or rather pervades, fear and perceptions of interest. It’s the meta-motive behind human deeds. Think about it. Fear of losing face molds actions worldwide, but particularly among Asian peoples. Such elemental motives shape Clausewitzian cost/benefit calculations. They could prompt claimants to small yet symbolic objects – such as flyspecks on the map of Asia – to invest lavishly in those objects.
Or, what are the objective units of measurement for the value of some political objective? There are none. The intangibles of which Thucydides and Hume wrote so eloquently color subjective judgments. To Western eyes, Beijing or Tokyo might appear to radically exaggerate the importance of the Senkakus. The rivals might be prepared to devote seemingly outsized military resources to wresting away, or holding, the archipelago. This is especially true of China’s leadership, which evidently wants to establish the principle that China can amend postwar settlements, the law of the sea, and indeed the Asian order by fiat. Denying that principle could in turn ratchet up the stakes for Tokyo – and entangle the United States in a maritime war.
In short, the dispute is not as whimsical as it looks from North America. A commonplace, and worthwhile, analogy to consider is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. Writing in the Financial Times last week, Gideon Rachman draws the comparison. Here’s my take. Gunman Gavrilo Princip indeed lit the fuse for World War I, but it was a fuse with a slow burn. European capitals debated going to war for weeks before the guns of August blazed forth. In no way did momentary passions override cost/benefit calculations to precipitate a European maelstrom. As the late John Keegan wrote, simple goodwill could have averted war in 1914.
My guess is that a similar pattern will govern events in the East China Sea. The claimants won’t yield to emotion following a skirmish. They can manage their disputes, improving on the 1914 precedent. But never say never when decision times are compressed, uncertainty runs high, options narrow, and leaders publicly vow to obtain certain goals. If crises were predictable, they wouldn’t be crises.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
NOBODY wants to go to war except USA.
Even when there are serious provocations, countries nowadays value pragmatism and possible huge collateral damage (above all total loss of trade) much more than honour or fear.
You can see the skirmishes between North & South Korea, and the extreme provocation by Pakistan in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks did not result in war.
Only US policymakers are the exception. One sees chimeras everywhere- Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..... And threats from little countries like Cuba.
(I must add Israel to the list. Without the perceived threat of war, where will all their politicians be ? Israel is mightier than all the countries around it togehter. Still, the fear of war is a mighty weapon to keep your population in check.)
Thank you, seshasayee. You said it all.
well said
Your argument is wholly absurd. The notion that the US wants war is ludicrous compared to the general global view of the American – greed. Americans are more notorious for profligate “Capitalism” than war mongering. American culture is mostly defined by the world as exploiters of capitalism than war. American capitalism fully realizes that it is far more lucrative to exploit the world’s markets than destroy nations by initiating wars. There is no foundation that capitalism – which America is good at – is best achieved by a wrecking war.
Come on Ric, get real! Today on Capitol Hill, going to war is big business while the American public erroneously perceives glory therein. Moreover, the right-wing politicians also want a war in order to promote their political careers and so it goes on and on and........
you will not have such absurd view if you know little history。The US became rich because of The I world war， and became one of the world's dominance after The II world WAR！We all should understand The cruel war，but it also has a hopeless side which goes like this“That is the enemy! Is very dangerous, fight! Be attacked, do not forgive, fight! People place the war as a kind of industry nurturing, for their own profit”。You know American is like this。
While I agree with most of you guys about the american greed, and america picking its wars wisely for its own personal intrust,agenda and gains. most americans (meaning citizens who have no involvment with the u.s goverment) are totally oblivious to anything thats going on around them other then what their favorite celeberties are doing or what their favorite sports star statistics are looking like, or what's the latest clothing style, and the list goes on of all the ridiculious not important things "WE" americans pay attention to. which unfourtenetaly means that leaves the (corrupted) goverment free to do what ever they want right under our noses, and sadly they dont have the american people's best intrust on their prioirty list. I feel like the goverment does just enough to keep the american people happy lol which isn't much because all we americans care about it superficial and material things. all im really trying to say is when you use the word "AMERICANS" try to remember you really mean the american goverment because the real americans(90% of non-govermental citizens) really dont have a clue or say so on whats going on, and we've been tired of wars for decades. by the way that percentage is not legit just a quick estiment and also this is just my opinion but I feel strongly about it and feel like I have had years of research walking all around me lol all 300 million of them.
War is profitable – War IS capitalism.
Nonsense pure nonsense. There have been wars all my life, I am 66, that had nothing to do with the USA. China invaded little Tibet, wars started over soccer games in Latin America, many wars in Africa were done without the USA. the IRA went to war with the UK and that had nothing to do with the US. The French are fighting in Mali right now and the US is not involved. Argentina went to war with the UK and the US was not in that war. Russia invaded little Georgia and the US did not get involved. Iraq went to war with Iran and the US was not involved. Turkey invaded Cyprus and the US was not involved.
Many wars have a hidden cause. To gain support and a foothold against larger growing alliances. The Largest is the American led new world order. which is not a conspiracy, but happening before our eyes.
Why do Jews vigorously support Israel as a Jewish ethnostate with Jewish only immigration, but virulently undermine white majority Europe and America with mass 3rd world immigration?
Why are Jews so hostile to the people and culture of West? Why are they still in America and Europe, even after they got their own homeland in 1948?
One question for gullible whites:
Why do you support Jewish interests like puppies, even when it costs trillions in debt, jewish stranglehold on our banks, media, espionage, and murders tens of thousands of white soldiers' in useless wars?
KKK alert. KKK alert. I'm sure all Jews believe the same thing, don't they? It's a hive mind.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion, or what factual evidence you see in the world that supports that claim. It seems more like personal bias then observation.
Right on , seshasay.
The U.S. A. population does NOT want to go to war! U.S corp. interests want war(s)Please get this idea in to your head.War is the play ground of industry and the death american youth.
I largely agree with you (and the majority of the last vote). However you may have a left leaning stance on things. People from other countries including mine, see the people that stand out with loud voices about their guns, and that of Americas military power. always gives the rational people a black mark. and are lumped in with it. Those same politcal rights in your country think I'm a communist. lol
Agree, What stands out today is the legacy of fraud, corruption & hypocrisy by the U.S. political, military & corporate/mafia elites that have betrayed the fundamental of American principles and values. The U.S. had been waging covert wars & creating pretexts for unjust wars out of the ideological fanaticism, political motivation for the financial incentives.This momentum of predatory capitalist cronyism philosophy is outdated. The U.S. has to realize that time has changed.
CNN and Ted Turner are corrupt, methinks.
I do not think they would go to war. My reason is the economy. Their economies are tied to peaceful co-existence and any one that instigate combat would lead to investors fleeing and turning attention towards India and Pakistan. Even the Koreans would be affected by such conflict.
if they want a war please try the US..they love it.they are tested and proven..if you compare to china.. ouch
Since 1949 China has been to war with Korea, the USA, India, and Vietnam. Not to mention border skirmishes with Russia, threatening Taiwan with war, and brutal suppression in Tibet.
In the war department, China pales against USA in the last 60 years. On average USA had battles and wars every 2 years.
Are you talking about the Korean War where the Chinese surprised attacked UN forces? I would hardly call that a war on China's part, they didn't even bother declaring war before sending hundreds of thousands of troops across the border.
India was a skirmish, not a real war. The whole thing lasted all of a few days with China retreating back to the LOC after pushing the Indians out. It was also instigated by India with their whole "forward policy".
Korean war you say? You must have forgotten that MacArthur wanted to bomb military bases in northeastern China culminating in the use of nuclear weapons. Oh yes, I'm sure that had nothing to do with China entering the conflict. If another country had threatened the U.S. that way and actually had the capability today, we would have invaded... yesterday.
Sorry but China has nothing on the U.S. when it comes to military activity.
When China's economy finally has its long overdue recession a government whose entire legitimacy is based on keeping the economy going without checks and balances will be forced to chose between peacefully giving up power (highly unlikely), fighting a civil war, or starting an international war in order to distract its populace from domestic issues.
I think you're right and the third of your alternatives is most likely. It's what Argentina did about 25 years ago.
Is freedom of speech best expressed through questions?
"Question is the enemy of Progress!"
Way past time to stop buying "made in China", there are other options if people stop being so lazy.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Only the US wants war in any region of the world, feeding the military industrial industrial complex!
You're not very smart, are you?
Lockheed Martin can only build so many jets for a country. If none are getting shot down, there are no new orders. Hey, that's capitalism and the market for ya.
The neocons are hawkish! Most Americans don't want another war. China and Nippon wouldn't go to war? The two countries are rattling sabres. Both are sober enough to realise that a real war would be detrimental.
It's all about flexing muscles on the one side and having a strong stomach on the other.
executive summary to the article: "i'm not really sure but it's possible."
China is the aggressor in this situation. Their nine dashed line claiming almost the entire South China Sea is not only outrageous, but in violation of UNCLOS. The Philippines and Vietnam both are right to insist on their 200 mile EEZ; this is also part of UNCLOS. China is clearly the outlaw state! The USA must defend Philippines and Vietnam, whatever it takes; her credibility depends upon it. The USA must also help push back aggressors; if she had done so in 1938 and 1939, WWII in Europe would not have happened. World peace depends, once again, on USA beating back aggressor, outlaw states, like China. If it can be done peacefully, so much the better for human well being and world economic well being; if not, then China beware, or they will suffer the same fate the Admiral Yamamoto predicted: "All we have done is awakened a sleeping giant"!
Did you know that UNCLOS became international law after China had already claimed the 9 dash line a few decades earlier. All other countries in the region made their 200 mile EEZ after UNCLOS.
Imagine societies moving forward in time like a forest. Both involve a heavy positive feedback loop. After a long period of time consisting of relative stability, the forest becomes susceptible to a large collapse – a massive fire. Societies suffer from the same problem. Distant memories of conflict make societies vulnerable to new wars or revolutions. A simple spark can set it off – like the death of a fruit vendor (Arab Spring), the death of an archduke (World War I) or some simple graffiti (Syrian conflict) . 1913intel.com
I'm surprised that "arrogance" was left out of "fear, honor & interest". Our own country, the US, is a proof of that. China is fast approaching that level of arrogance. And then we'll have TWO super powers arrogantly tampering with their neighbors.In the 19th century the Raj was the lone super-power and they demonstrated extreme arrogance all over the world before the US nudged them aside & CCCP joining them later. We are going to see the consequences in Africa (where the Cold War II has already commenced), SE Asia & the Indian Ocean; with S. America, Middle East & Central Asia to follow.
My comments vanished 3 times due to political content- that is not a way to run news in a democracy.
Being persistent payed off-the Thought Police must have gone to the bathroom.
If I state here what Michael C. Rupert said in his video ,they will bump my comments off.
Paul!
I coulndt have said it any better,outspoken without fear and I admire your courage. Most of them are spineless to speak the truth about Jews or Israel and if you do then they call Antisemitismn!!!! wow this how Benjamin Nathaniyahu defends with his jewish lobby in the U.S.
Just wait...
The fact is we have been and are at war for global dominance for decades – its just that most people do not realize that or want to admit it. China will surpass the US without firing a shot – their trade wars, currency manipulation and dumping of cheaply made products in our markets has already forever damaged the US economy and US workers. The saddest part, of course, is that they have used our own greed against us – to satisfy our corporate greed and maximize corporate profit, we've given them our jobs by the millions, and built up their production capacity to make whatever they need or want in short order. We have done little to even participate, much less win, this war – instead, we've sat back and watched, and many of us have actively helped, our own decline. We've been led to think in military terms because, quite frankly, that's the only type of war we understand and can win – our leaders are completely clueless when it comes to anything but maintaining military superiority spending trillions and trillions of our tax dollars with very little, if any, return on that huge "investment", while our economic strength continues to decline before our eyes.
rob all I can say is...Well said you are 100% right. china knew it couldnt take on a military giant (america) head on so they hit us where it would hurt the most "OUR pockets". Sun Tzu would be proud. fyi Sun Tzu is pretty much the father and creator of all the fundamental tactics/strategies of war (not just limited to physical warfare) mental,economical and social warfare is spoken about as well. I recomend reading his book "THE ART OF WAR" to all
Don't forget China signed the UNCLOS thereby superceding and rendering the (illegal) nine dash claim vastly ineffective. It's like saying the Italians can assert its right to other countries because it was under the Roman empire before, or the Spanish or the Portuguese or the British, or the French can lay such claims because at one point in history some countries or islands was under their empires. Wake up China!
Well said
Come on, the USA invades and attacks whoever it wants when it can be done without severe repercussions. the industries of the USA know when they are going to be threatened. The financial rebound determines attack and counter-attack of/on the USA. It has always been so throughout the millennial of history. The economic power of the age determines the military power too. Morality is economically and militarily determined.
Only China weapons will work! US and allies weapons fail! J-20! Anti Carrier Ballistic Missle System! We have new carrier....err Floating casino! 5 million man army! we dont even need guns! America can not fight! does not know how! Americans all born yesterday! Too bad you leaders sold you all out...haha! Americans stupid enough to give Enemy huge advantage, now there nothing you can do! You leaders have good ideas....for China!
Enjoy you Wasteland, you will not recover America!
Thank you, Yong Chi. You said it all.
well said
Spot on Yong Chi! you read my mind!
Ditto!
hold on a sec... the other quads in my building are almost ready to comment too....just need the supervisor to make the rounds to oversee them!
Shut up Yong chi China will go to hell and the war will kill it
U r rite zang
If they did, it would last about 30 minutes.
If North Korea started a Nuke war with the U.S.no way in He^^ would China lose the billion plus dollars they make from exports into the U.S. plus that whole toe to toe nuclear slug fest thing that they would have to deal with also ...YA NO WAY ...China would be like "have at it North Korea that's all you."
lol yes I'll reply to my own post ..........
29 Billion in export money and Nuclear fallout from fighting U.S. in Nuke war ...or ...North Korea can finish what they started
Ya North Korea would get completely left high and dry by China ....that would be total and complete lose lose for China all around !!
china and us should work together for space, no much time left for human race.