Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This study aims to help answer the question: Is war a rational, deliberate, Clausewitzian pursuit of states and groups, or is war more often caused by miscalculation and misperception? Assumptions about the extent of rationality underlie policy debates on subjects ranging from deterrence and missile defense to peacekeeping. The rationality assumption also creates a large but mostly implicit scholarly debate about the causes of war. Many realists and rational choice analysts fall into the Clausewitzian camp, while political psychologists and students of bureaucratic and organizational politics fall into the miscalculation and misperception camp.
Debates about the rationality of war remain implicit for methodological, substantive, ideological, and ‘ivory tower’ reasons. Rational choice, large-N statistical, and case study scholars often ignore or are outright hostile to each other. Scholars argue for their position more than they weigh and test arguments and counterarguments from other ideological and methodological camps.
Thus, despite the manifest scholarly and public policy importance of the “Is War Rational” question, few studies weigh and test rationality versus miscalculation and misperception as causes of war. Using a variety of methods, this study has begun to conduct these tests, and join these debates.