AOW 15

War Really Is Going Out of Style

New York Times

Joshua S. Goldstein and Steven Pinker

Authors:

Goldstein is a Professor of International Relations and award winning author of a book Winning the War on War, and has written an internationally acclaimed textbook called International Relations. Pinker Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of seven books.

Summary:

Quite clearly, as stated in the title, the authors are argueing that the affinity nations had towards war is on a decline. They say that in no way is it impossible, but statistics show that the sheer number of wars, as calculated 1000 deaths in one year, has dropped. Other than the current battle between the United States and Iraq, which they state is coming to a close, they do not see any imminent wars in the future. Their support? They believe the reason is that it is simly no longer profitable. When there were huge land gains to be had, and nations to be colonized, war reaped huge profit for the victors. However, they remind, today most nations' economies are based on trade, which is only hurt further by war.

Analysis:

The article seems to be a reflection of some optimistic American views that have been born in the context of the long awaited pulling of the troops from the Middle East. However, I believe an audience such as theirs that are active readers of the New York Times will be, and should be, a little sceptical. Despite strong backgrounds associated with Harvard and college text books, their ethos came into question. (This is my opinion) For well studied professors, I believe they have forgotten the point in studying history. We learn so we may identify patterns; one pattern that seems to come up incessantly is war. I also believe the theory, "we have nothing to gain" is completely unsupported. The world is still controlled by superpowers, and those superpowers will and are fighting to maintain control of resources. The gold is no longer just in land, but now in critical resources such as oil. Also, the premise that no other war is continuing is disproved by the very existance of the Arab Israeli conflict, where the battle still resides over land and borders are shifting "by force" every day. The cell phone cameras in that region all seem to mysteriously stopped working...

(sorry... not part of the analysis)

Rhetorical Devices:

Juxtaposition - Their arguement lies on the idea that the world has changed over the past decades, or centuries. They highlight this by contrasting wars and their prevalence in the past compared to today.

Repetition: They start off each point with a question they then proceed to argue. Their answer is often supported by refutations, warrants, and statistics.

Definition: They define both civil and international wars with set numbers so as to solify the line between skirmishes and wars.