Fully Facing the Pros and Cons Before Declaring War

FULLY FACING THE PROS AND CONS BEFORE DECLARING WAR

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.    5-11

ABSTRACT:  Psychological reasons why government officials declare war without sufficiently considering the costs are presented.  Ways to correct this lack of consideration are proposed.

KEY WORDS:  war, declaring war

Government officials charged with the responsibility of sending the country’s troops into battle (or declaring war, something that is rarely done in the modern world) have a tendency to be more influenced by the reasons to go into battle than by the reasons not to go into battle.  A number of factors and reasons that operate to encourage us to go to war are listed below.  It is unfortunately human nature to put considerable weight on reasons (justifications) for taking an action that, on balance, we wish to take, and to ignore or deny reasons that might prevent us from taking that action.  In the case of war, we wish both to eliminate insecurities and barriers to making the world the way we wish it to be and to protect our cherished self-image as a nation, by taking warlike actions.  In making the decision of whether or not to go to war, we tend to ignore or deny the human, property, and public relations costs, because to fully consider these would make the decision more complicated and difficult, and because it might result in not going to war.

1. If the situation poses a threat to U.S. citizens or overseas businesses, there is a strong tendency to want to protect our own, particularly when we are so powerful that we think anyone who opposes or threatens us must be demented.  We like to think that our citizens deserve to be able to go safely anywhere in the world, and we assign no responsibility to citizens who take risks in foreign countries or take risks by being in foreign countries.

2. If the situation poses a threat to the honor or manhood of the country, there is a strong tendency to respond with aggression or at least with threats, in order to preserve what is thought of as self-respect (mostly male self-respect).  There is a strong tendency to view other options (containment, negotiating, sanctions, working through the United Nations, simply waiting while the other side self-destructs, etc.) as unmanly and weak.  Elected officials fear that this tendency to equate manhood with aggression will put their re-elections at risk if they do not respond aggressively.

3. Officials fear that if they don’t respond aggressively, other nations or groups will be more likely to aggress against us in the future because they will think that they can get away with it.

4. We are more aware now than ever of our dependence on the rest of the world, for energy resources (oil), manufacturing materials (precious metals, computer raw materials), etc., and it frightens us when a conflict threatens these supplies.  We have a tendency to overcompensate and to try to guarantee (we think) that our way of life will not remain in jeopardy.

5. If the situation is viewed in larger terms (e.g., an epic battle between Capitalism and Communism, as in Vietnam, between “freedom” and “tyranny”, or between one god and another)), there is a tendency to be drawn toward playing our appropriate role in that epic battle, since not to do so seems like abandoning the field to a feared or hated enemy, as well as admitting that our cherished values might be false.

6. Since we view ourselves as a moral country that always acts appropriately, officials tend to assume that any other views or actions must be “wrong,” without even examining or debating the actual right and wrong of the situation.

7. Historical evidence suggests that there will always be a large number of men in the country who will be willing to fight an armed conflict, whether that fighting is in the best interest of the country or not, so officials do not worry about not having enough troops.  This gives them a feeling of power, and it feels powerful to them to deploy these troops against an enemy.

There are also reasons not to go to war.

1. A number, often a large number, of citizens (more men than women) will be killed or permanently disabled in combat, thus depriving many children and families of breadwinners and of having both parents alive as models for their children.  Attacks on our own territory would also result in the deaths and disability of many non-combatant citizens.

2. Going to war in an ill-considered way makes other nations wary of us or angry at us, which will influence how cooperative they will be with us in the future, in commerce, treaties, etc.

3. War is costly financially as well as in human life.  This cost affects the financial system as well as making the lives of citizens in general more bleak.  The U.S. has had a tendency to borrow costs of wars recently, so that citizens do not see the true costs during the military action, but this borrowing will eventually affect all citizens (and even future generations).  Due to changes in the world economy, the days are gone when the U.S. could hope that war industries and inventions would open up enough new financial opportunities after the war that the costs of war could be absorbed by this added economic activity.

4. If parts of the war occur on one’s own territory, then property destruction will add to the costs of war and the miseries of citizens.  The U.S. has been fortunate to have had little of this property destruction on our own soil for centuries, so we tend to ignore property destruction as a consequence of war.  The destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001 was a great shock to us (even though compared to our total finances and properties, it was tiny).

MAKING BETTER DECISIONS ABOUT WAR

In times of peace, it would be useful to develop a comprehensive plan for making the decision to go to war, including both pros, cons, and a required consideration of the positive bias toward war described in the first section of this essay.  The biggest problem with decisions regarding war is this human tendency to ignore data which would move one away from what “feels” like the right decision at the time.  The problem with ignoring the costs of war arises later, when the country mourns the losses of life and the anguish of the disabled, because these outcomes were pushed aside as considerations when the decision to go to war was made.  (The government may well have a complex roadmap for making a decision about war, but it probably does not include correcting for the positive psychological bias toward going to war.  We assume that whatever we do with our reason is by definition rational, but in fact human beings are not particularly rational.)  It is sad to observe the after-the-fact efforts to justify a war, as many people push to fight even harder so that their “sacrifices” will gain “meaning” through a victory, and government officials push to fight without giving up so that their decision to go to war will not look bad.

The most useful activity to include in the deliberations for war would be audio/visual aids regarding the results of war—pictures, in other words, of the dead, wounded, disabled, and their families in recent wars, and their recorded comments about the results of war.  Pictures of property destruction in other countries as a result of war should be included.  All government leaders and legislators should be required to view these results of war, so that they can better balance these with any hoped for gains from the possible war.  Past and expected casualty and property destruction figures should be given to legislators and officials. 

Part of the comprehensive plan for considering war should be a required meeting of officials and legislators, led by a psychologist(!), examining and reflecting objectively on each of the reasons for going to war in terms of the positive bias toward doing so.  (Sadly, not all psychologists are objective, especially about war, but there are some who could provide this leadership and consultation.)

Another useful exercise to make decisions about war more comprehensive and meaningful is for all decision-makers to ask themselves (and take seriously) the question of whether they would be willing themselves to participate on the battlefield in this particular war.  Of course, due to age most of them would not be drafted or even allowed to fight or assist, but they should think deeply about whether they view this war as worth the sacrifice of their own lives.  Next, they should think seriously about whether they would willingly send their children as soldiers in this particular war and whether the importance of this war would justify the deaths of their own children.  If it would not, then it is not right for them to send other young men and women onto the battlefield.

One might think that women would be much more careful than men in decisions about going to war, since we imagine that they would be less willing than men to have their children risk their lives in battle.  It is very interesting that the voice of women has in general been quite muted on this point through the centuries.  Perhaps this is because one of the most important things that women need men for (mostly unconsciously these days) is to defend the home, so if they believe that the home (or the country) requires defending, then they allow their men and their children to take action, even if fearfully and reluctantly.

The country would naturally assume without question the costs of a defensive war, if the country were directly attacked, but for every other war, forecasts of the economic impact of the proposed war should be required, from several types of sources so that there will be no bias toward minimizing or exaggerating the costs.  Medical costs and lost wages from the deceased should be included.  A plan for paying these costs should be required before going to war (or engaging in any other military actions that the President might order without actually declaring war).

A straw vote of the people on whether to go to war might be considered, but there would be times when leaders would actually do the “right thing” for the country in the long-term by going against the results of such a vote.  Voters have their biases, too! 

Making big decisions, such as whether to go to war, is very complex, and we can do a better job of deciding by adding consideration of our psychological frailties to the discussion.

 

blog\postings\beforedeclaringwar