Who does war benefit?

Answer 1

Usually special interest groups. Most disagreements could be better solved from the point of view of the "average" citizen by negotiation. However the good of the average citizen does not drive government policies. In most nations there are groups with an axe to grind. Some want more territory or access to resources, some are hateful of other ethnic or religious bands, and some simply want to sell their goods or services to the highest bidder. War creates a bigger market for certain specialized goods and services. For some private companies and certain branches of government, peace is a disaster.

When the decision is being made whether or not to go to war, special interest groups are much more influential than the average citizen. Here are five to consider.

• 1. The profit motive is always present for the

companies who supply war materials. (Now that the United States has privatized many aspects of war-making, these types of companies have proliferated and tasted the honey. This lobby will be gaining in power.)

• 2. Military and intelligence branches of government that

do business with the aforementioned companies are staffed with people who have made a career of war and may be looking to be hired by one of the companies they are doing business with after their government service is over. These branches also directly benefit from war by having their budgets increased and their sense of importance raised. Also, once a war starts, prior intelligence failures or missed opportunities may be glossed over by the need to address the crisis at hand. Critical oversight is weakened.

• 3. Access to territory and

the Natural Resources in it can motivate non-military companies or special interest groups to promote a war as a means of gaining preferential access.

• 4. If a religious disagreement is involved,

the religious group most savvy in lobbying the government may join forces with the other interest groups to sell the conflict. They may never realize a true long term benefit, but they can vociferously support a war anyway.

• 5. In modern society, the media may also be

enlisted to sell war. If media outlets find they will be rewarded for sending pro-war messages or disseminating false or misleading information, the profit motive may cause them to avoid or minimize anti-war messages or opinions. A threat to withhold the purchase of ad time or to boycott advertised products could also be used to alter the media slant on a conflict. Even letter writing or e-mail campaigns, if well organized, could serve to pressure media to favor a particular line of reasoning. The average citizen writes no letter, sends no e-mail to the media, so a small, focused minority can seem larger than life.

After the decision has been made to attack, it becomes very difficult to change course later, even if other facts come to light. In the worst scenario, some early military successes embolden the politicians to broaden the scope of the war, and serve to quiet dissent. This can lead to a world war. Even when things eventually turn bad in the public eye, what politician could hope to succeed in the government by stating "I was duped by special interests into a stupid war, and a lot of people died unneccessarily, but I'll do better next time"? At this point instead of inviting the citizens to question the workings of the government, politicians emphasize patriotism and religion to keep the populace in line. No one wants to seem unpatriotic when their relatives are dying in combat. In WWII, the Germans put "Gott mit Uns" on their soldiers belt buckles.