FACULTY OF COMMUNICATION & MEDIA STUDIES

MASTER OF ARTS IN MEDIA AND INFORMATION WARFARE

MIP707 - WAR, RELIGION AND SOCIETY 

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

Prepared for:
AHMAD EL MUHAMMADY

Prepared by:
AHMAD NAQIUDDIN MOHAMAD
2017887122

Date of submission:
14th March 2018
DEFINITION OF WAR

1. War is a means of achieving an end, a weapon which can be used for good or for bad

purposes. Some of these purposes for which war has been used have been accepted by

humanity as worthwhile ends: indeed, war performs functions which are essential in any

human society. It has been used to settle disputes, to uphold rights, to remedy wrongs: and

these are surely functions which must be served. One may say, without exaggeration, that no

more stupid, brutal, wasteful or unfair method could ever have been imagined for such

purposes, but this does not alter the situation. (Eagleton, 1948)

2. According to international law, war, in principle, can only take place between sovereign

political entities, that is, States. War is thus a means for resolving differences between units of

the highest order of political organization. The majority of those who have been concerned

with war as a socio-political phenomenon have also adopted as their basic premise that there

is a fundamental difference between domestic conflicts, for which there are normally

mechanisms for peaceful resolution, and international conflicts, which occur in a state of

anarchy. Wars have been seen to involve directly State institutions, such as the foreign office

and the armed forces. Since war is put in an international context, the stakes of war may be

the life and death of States (Aron, 1966)

3. Von Clausewitz (1911) defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponents

to fulfil our will”, and elsewhere he emphasized the continuity of violence with other political

methods: “War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other

means.

4. Sorel (1912) defined war as a “political act by means of which States, unable to adjust a

dispute regarding their obligations, rights or interests, resort to armed force to decide which is

the stronger and may therefore impose its will on the other”
5. Kallen (1939) seems to favour a political definition of war when he writes: “If war may be

defined as an armed contest between two or more sovereign institutions employing organized

military forces in the pursuit of specific ends, the significant term in the definition is

`organized’.” He further adds that this organization of the contending armed forces extends

back behind the battle lines and tends in modern wars to embrace all civilian activities, such

as the industrial, productive, and commercial, and also the social interests and individual

attitudes.

6. Barringer (1972) considers war to be “one possible mode of policy activity aimed at

effectively and favourably resolving an ongoing conflict of interests. In this sense war is but

one of numerous conflict procedures, others being negotiation, conciliation, mediation,

arbitration, and adjudication. It is merely a particular subset of the larger set of all conflict

modes, encompassing all the socially (if not legally) recognized situations in which armed

hostilities of considerable magnitude are conducted on a systematic and continuing basis by

the armed forces of two or more political factions, organizations, nations, governments, or

States. Because the term ‘war’ carries legal implications and connotations that no political

body cares any longer to suffer or risk publicly, the de facto situation of war will be referred

to as `hostilities’.

7. Bernard (1944) attempts an all-purpose definition of war which is neither so general that it is

indefinite and vague nor so detailed that it is confusing. It may be stated as follows: “War is

organized continuous conflict of a transient character between or among collectivities of any

sort capable of arming and organizing themselves for violent struggle carried on by armies in

the field (or naval units on water) and supported by civil or incompletely militarized

populations back of the battle areas constituted for the pursuit of some fairly well-defined

public or quasipublic objective.”

it is assumed that the existence of war is a matter for objective determination. His concern is

with the legal status of war. According to the interpretation war is neither a delict nor a

sanction. It is not a delict because war is not forbidden by any general international law. It

followed, thus, that any State could war against any other State without violating any law. On

the other hand, war cannot be a sanction either, since there is no international law authorizing

war. While every State authorizes its own wars and condemns its enemies, this hardly

constitutes a legal state of affairs. War is, thus, beyond legal praise or blame.

9. Midlarsky (1975) developed a classification of wars, based on a combination of the premises

of rank order and scope, along with the explicit use of the variables “structural

differentiation” and “participation”. In addition, two variables specific to political violence

are included. These are the intensity of violence in the form of the number killed, and

duration, as a temporal indicator. Finally, the motivation of actors is taken into account.

10. In this set of distinctions, the boundary conditions of the conflict appear to be the primary

criteria of classification. Whether a war is categorized as an imperial or civil war apparently

depends upon the extent to which the conflict is contained within, or extended beyond, certain

boundaries, implying the presence of both structural differentiation and participation

(Midlarsky, 1975).
THEORIES OF WAR

1. The Male Warrior Hypothesis

Formulated by a group of evolutionary psychologists, this hypothesis suggeststhat men evolved to be

violent and warlike in order to secure access to women and other resources. Essentially, forming

violent coalitions with fellow men was a mating strategy. The more successful the "war coalition"

was, the more successful the men would be in passing along their genes. Often this idea is reduced to

the notion that men's sex drives are at the root of war, which is only half the story. In fact, the idea is

that men evolved to form war bands with each other to gain access to resources. Having such

resources would have made them better able to support families and communities, and thus pass along

a genetic predisposition for forming armies.

Another version of this idea is the "demonic male hypothesis," which suggests that the urge to go to

war goes back to the last common ancestor between humans and apes. Because chimps exhibit

behavior that is warlike — with one band of males attacking another band — evolutionary biologists

have suggested that human males inherited the urge to make war from distant evolutionary ancestors

that we share with other hominids

2.  War as Predation

Essayist Barbara Ehrenreich spent many years researching the origins of war, and determined that the

male warrior hypothesis didn't exactly fit the facts. Instead, she suggests that war grows out of the

ancient human fear of predatory animals. When humans were evolving, one of our formative

experiences as a species would have been hiding from more skillful predators than Homo sapiens. But

once we'd gained the tools necessary to be predators ourselves, we celebrated this accomplishment in

"blood rites" of sacrifice. These rites began as hunting rituals, but over time evolved into war rituals

with neighboring humans. This theory explains why war doesn't usually feel "natural" to most men,
and requires a kind of ritualistic transformation like a religious warrior ritual or Basic Training. War is

a learned behavior, and its rituals are a defense against fear of predation.

3. The Persuasive Hawk

In debates over conflicts, there are hawks and doves, with hawks favoring forceful actions to end

tensions and doves advocating negotiation. Hawks usually win because of inherent biases we all have.

Nobel laureate in economics Daniel Kahneman and government researcher Jonathan Renshon

crystallized this idea in a famous article for Foreign Policy, where they explained that, oddly, the

Persuasive Hawk Theory is a result of humanity's optimism bias:

Psychological research has shown that a large majority of people believe themselves to be smarter,

more attractive, and more talented than average, and they commonly overestimate their future

success. People are also prone to an "illusion of control": They consistently exaggerate the amount of

control they have over outcomes that are important to them — even when the outcomes are in fact

random or determined by other forces.

In other words, we go to war because we mistakenly believe that we are always going to win, because

we are the best. A related idea is the "Rubicon Theory," which suggests that when people believe they

are already threat they cross a psychological threshold where new biases take over. Instead of

proceeding rationally, they become overconfident and engage in riskier behavior — such as starting a

war instead of seeking peaceful alternatives.

4. Malthusian Overpopulation

Based on Thomas Malthus' population theories, this idea suggests simply that war is the inevitable

result of an expanding population with scarce resources. Stanford economist Ran Ambramitzky

explains this idea quite simply in a paper. The human population increases at a geometric rate, faster

than the food supply. Voluntary "preventative checks" try to keep population growth down, such as

when people make rational decisions about the number of kids they are going to have based on their
income, etc. When these checks fail, "positive checks," including war, famine and diseases, reduce the

population and balance it with resources. Malthus believed that as long as humanity didn't come up

with decent preventative checks, the positive check of war would ensure that population didn't

outstrip food supply.

This idea overlaps a bit with the "ecological imbalance" theory of war, in which "conflict flash points"

are the result of ecological stress from humans exploiting too many resources from the land. When

resources run out, conflicts arise.

5. Groupthink

Groupthink theory explains that during a crisis, groups — no matter how smart or well-informed —

will suppress dissenting opinions because of the pressure to agree on a plan of action, leading them to

make terrible decisions. This is in some sense a more policy-oriented version of the male warrior

theory crossed with the persuasive hawk. The idea is that, when threatened, people naturally form

bands of "us" vs. "them," and then make risky decisions in order to maintain their sense of superior

group identity. Political scientists have recently applied the theory to the Iraq war.
DEFINITION OF WARFARE

Warfare is generally understood to be the controlled and systematic waging of armed conflict between

sovereign nations or states, using military might and strategy, until one opponent is defeated on the

field or sues for peace in the face of inevitable destruction and greater loss of human life. The first

recorded war in history is that between Sumer and Elam in Mesopotamia in 2700 BCE in which

Sumer was victorious, and the first peace treaty ever signed ending hostilities between nations was

between Rameses II (the Great) of the Empire of Egypt and Hattusili III of the Hittite Empire in 1258

BCE.

In both of these cases, war was waged, and a treaty signed, to resolve political and cultural conflicts.

Warfare has been a part of the human condition throughout recorded history and invariably results

from the tribe mentality inherent in human communities and their fear or mistrust of another,

different, `tribe' as manifested in the people of another region, culture, or religion.

DEFINITION OF REBELLION

This means that rebellion is an act of disobeying, resistance, revolting, fighting against, rejection to

submit or to bow to any authorities that the person thinks they are against his/her goal. Therefore,

when somebody rebels, his or her rebellion is usually to serve a specific need. For example, it can be

fighting against governments' tyranny to get freedom, declining boss's unfairness, breaking with

conventional customs and rejecting the social traditions and values. A rebel person is the one who

rises up and refuses to comply to anything that is forced on him/her and thinks that this counters

his/her beliefs or is a threat to his/her humanity. Moreover, the rebellion can take different forms; it

can be covert or overt. It can be through writings (poetries, novels, play…etc.) or through other
violent ways such as fighting. Therefore, weather they choose a peaceful or violent path their ultimate

purpose is anticipation for improvement.

DEFINITION OF INSURGENCY

One who participates in an insurrection ; one who opposes the execution of law by force of arms, or

who rises in revolt against the constituted authorities. A distinction is often taken between "insurgent"

and "rebel," in this: that the former term is not necessarily to be taken in a bad sense, inasmuch as an

insurrection, though extra legal, may be just and timely in itself; as where it is undertaken for the

overthrow of tyranny or the reform of gross abuses. According to Webster, an insurrection is an

incipient or early stage of a rebellion.

DEFINITION OF TOTAL WAR

Total war is one in which the whole population and all the resources of the combatants are committed

to complete victory and thus become legitimate military targets. With few, mostly 20th-century,

exceptions, all the other wars in history have been limited, in that they have engaged less than the

entire energy of the societies involved and have stopped short of unconditional surrender by one side.

Total war can be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral and is characterized by an absence of rules or

restraint in the conception and execution of military action in pursuit of unlimited political objectives.

It precludes capitulation, so there is no incentive to cease fighting even when defeat is objectively

inevitable. Practically by definition, total war is or becomes ideological in nature at an early stage, not

least because the ruled need to be reassured that the sacrifices they are called upon to make are for a

worthwhile cause and not, as is invariably the case, to increase the power of the rulers.
DEFINITION OF JIHAD

Jihad is simply the process of “exerting the best efforts,” involving some form of “struggle” and

“resistance,” to achieve a particular goal. In other words, jihad is the struggle against, or resistance to,

something for the sake of a goal. The meaning of the word is independent of the nature of the invested

efforts or the sought goal.

Contrary to common belief, the word “jihad” does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone

“war” and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as

peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly,

“jihad” as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious

contexts.
REFERENCES

1. Raymond Arons Peace and War, Thirty Years Later. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018

2. Inc. (1947, January 01). Eagleton,Clyde:InternationalGovernment, The Ronald Press

Company, New York, 1948, 481 sider plus tillegg og indeks., Nordic Journal of International

Law. Retrieved March 14, 2018.

3. Reflections on Violence - Revolvy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018.

4. War: patterns of conflict. Technical manual. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from

https://adams.marmot.org/Record/.b17514952

5. Bennington-Castro, A. N. (2014, March 24). The 10 Most Important Theories About Why We

Make War. Retrieved March 14, 2018, from https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-10-most-

important-theories-of-why-we-make-war-1550133753

6. Warfare. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from https://www.ancient.eu/warfare/

7. The Definition Of Rebel And Rebellion English Literature Essay. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14,

2018, from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-literature/the-definition-of-rebel-

and-rebellion-english-literature-essay.php

8. What is INSURGENT? definition of INSURGENT (Black's Law Dictionary). (2011, November

04). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from https://thelawdictionary.org/insurgent/

9. “Total War” - Georgia Institute of Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018

10. The Meaning of Jihad. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from

http://www.quranicstudies.com/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad/