War is a necessity. It is a part of life that cannot be avoided. It solves disputes between nations when all other avenues have become dead-ends. Granted, there are times throughout history when confusion and misinterpretation have caused war when one could have been avoided. However, it is my belief that war can be a unique, operative tool in international relations if harnessed correctly. By this I mean war must be used only when all misinterpretations and mistakes on judgment are corrected, exposing the real issue. This concept is known as Pluralist War Theory. To understand it, we must look at a main cause of war, a few examples in which wars were and weren’t necessary, and the role of the theory in each.

First off I want to make one thing clear. The wars that I use as examples occurred during 20th and 21st century America. We must ask ourselves “Where do wars come from? At what point does a skirmish or disagreement require military involvement?” To answer this we must look to the balance that exists during peacetime. During such periods, there is a balance of power between every state. Only when this scale is tipped does war break out with the aim of placing the scale back at equilibrium. The Balance of Power Theory, as described by Mingst, is based on systems of alliances. “[They] represent the most important institutional tool for enhancing one’s own power and meeting the perceived power potential of one’s opponent” (Mingst, 160). Every country perceives threat and in turn tries to neutralize that threat diplomatically in order to avert war. It is when this ability is lost or ignored that war breaks out. The Cold War is an excellent example of the Balance of Power Theory in practice.

Although in the Cold War, the US and USSR never attack each other directly, they did fight each other in numerable skirmishes, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The thing that kept the two superpowers from massing huge campaigns against each other was a sustained balance of power. Rice makes a valid point stating, “Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. … lost sight neither of the importance of the geopolitical relationship with Moscow nor of the absolute necessity of retaining robust American military power to deter an all-out military confrontation” (Rice, 2). This deterrence from an all out war against the Soviets forced the US to take action and policies that promoted a balance of power. Every time the Soviets gained the political or armament edge, America stepped up their might and supremacy in order to tip the scale back to a balance. The policy of containment was aimed at keeping a balance of power while halting the spread of communism.

From here, we want to see how the pluralist theory incorporates itself into the Cold War. Were the conflicts necessary? Could Vietnam and Korea have been avoided through more diplomatic solutions? Many will argue that US involvement in Vietnam was not necessary. Many viewpoints have been taken, including Peter Rodman, a journalist for the New York Post, who stated “[there were those] who thought America was evil and that the Communists represented the "progressive" forces of history” (Rodman, 1). The United States was practicing its policy of containment, but also seemingly intervening in foreign affairs. It is my belief that the Vietnam War was taken into the hands of the military quickly and without analyzing the other avenues. Communism is as much an ideology as it is a government and as we all know, a war over ideology cannot be fought with traditional military strength. They must be won through the spread of knowledge, propaganda, and aid, whether it is financial or intellectual supplements.

Now, the Korean War is a different story. The citizens were much clearer in their want for our help and diplomatic solutions seemed like a dead-end. The main goal was to halt the spread of communism before the domino effect fulfilled its promise. In point, the Cold War was marked by huge misinterpretations. Could the warring been avoided? According to theory, yes, but in reality the US, being the ‘defender of democracy’, would use all military force to end the spread of communism regardless of the successfulness of diplomacy and mediation.

Wars, when pursued by the rules of pluralist theory, also serve secondary purposes. They build nationalism and encourage a healthy robust economy. I‘m not saying that economic gain or mercantilism are justified purposes for going to war. But, when we engage in war those are just a few of the benefits that supplement a victory. In the Second World War, our involvement was justified and accompanied by increased nationalism and a vigorous economy.

Although some historians will argue, the US did not engage fully in WWII until after the attack on Peal Harbor. Several policies and programs went into effect that showed United States support for the Allies. In short, the Lend/Lease program was where we ‘lent’ and ‘leased’ out military provisions with the aim that Britain would repay us later. The Destroyers for Bases deal allowed the trade of US destroyers to Great Britain for overseas bases. Although these acts show some amount of support, the US did not engage its full force until after the surprise bombing at Pearl Harbor. The attack, construed by Admiral Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy, overtook our nation by surprise and developed the flurry of nationalism that sparked an increased economy. There were no misunderstands or misperceptions when the US entered the war. Japan attacked the United States first. Therefore, we were right on December 8th 1941 when we declared war against Japan. Now that we have eliminated any misperceptions about the war, we must analyze the necessity of US involvement in WWII.

Was it necessary to declare war on the Axis and drive back the Japanese and German threats? Of course it was necessary. During the winter of 1941/1942 the Japanese navy and the German army were relentlessly propelling their forces across their respected fields. Japan was seizing military superiority in the Pacific Ocean and Manchuria on an imperial quest. Also, the direct attack on US soil produced uproars of nationalism that required our national self-defense in retaliation. On the western front, the Axis were pushing through France with minimal resistance and looked to head on to Britain, engulfing the entirety of Europe in Nazism under the rule of Adolph Hitler. The combination of these two forces made the US more than required entering into the arena and fight. Is it because as Hanks states, that “between 1939 and 1945, … you can honestly say the fate of the world hung in the balance?” (Werts, 1) Had the US not intervened and instead practiced isolationism, the Axis would have secured the victory and the world would indeed be a very different place. Based on the information known in 1941-42, the Pluralist Theory justifies US involvement in WWII. The theory is not extinct; it can be well applied to the wars of the modern age as well.

The early 1990s and the year 2003 have seen a totally different situation than ever before. War with Iraq: Is it necessary and did we pursue all other possible routes of diplomacy? Many adversaries of the first Gulf War would state, “The war in Iraq was a capitalist war … only in a capitalist system would Iraq subject Kuwait to force the West to accept its rule in the Middle East and its subsequent trade rates” (Workers Party, 1). It is my belief that the Persian Gulf War was supported by pluralist theory. Its objective, to liberate Kuwait, was met in a prompt and timely manner. The second point is that Bush Sr. did not push our forces into Iraq with the aim of seizing Baghdad and ending Saddam’s rule. Instead, he stuck to the UN charter agreements. The war itself was necessary to protect Kuwaiti oil from Saddam’s imperialism. The misperceptions, including ending Saddam’s rule, attacking his palaces and seizing Baghdad were averted by Bush’s respect of the UN agreements. Ten years after Operation Desert Storm, the US finds itself picking up where it left off. Now our nation is at war with Saddam and the Baath Party in Iraq. This war, Operation Iraqi Freedom, could have been avoided and is not supported by the Pluralist Theory. It is my belief that the President, G.W. Bush acted with haste and did not pursue all avenues of peaceful consultation and mediation through diplomacy. As stated, “Mr. Bush … determined ‘further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone’ would not be enough to contain the ‘threat posed by Iraq’” (CBS, 3). Bush acted immaturely, believing that war is the only answer to solve the US-Iraqi Conflict. He neglected to pursue alternative measures, such as continued deliberation, increased UN inspectors and their strictness. He also failed to gain the support of the UN. In conclusion, the ‘Second Gulf War’ is not supported by the theory.

Pluralist War Theory states that wars are a necessary part of international relations. They end disputes when all other negotiations have failed. Pluralists say that a war is acceptable only when all diplomatic solutions have not brought compromise and all misperceptions and misjudgments are cleared up. Under the theory, both the Cold War and WWII were justified while the current war with Iraq remains questionable. The pluralist theory is supported by the balance of power theory is essentially a modified conservative view, accepting war but only under certain conditions.

Comments, difference of opinon, feel free to email me. I welcome discussion. Click here to email me.