Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T22:36:57.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time Pressure and War Initiation: Some Linkages*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

T.V. Paul
T.V. Paul
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the linkages by which time pressure influences national decision makers to initiate wars. It is argued that time pressure matters most significantly as an intervening variable at the decision-maker level in conjunction with system and subsystem level variables, such as changes in relative strike capability and alliance relationships, and state level variables like military strategy and doctrine. Most studies treat time pressure as having relevance during an acute crisis; in this article, time pressure is viewed as having an intermediate-term significance, that is, prior to the escalation phase or during the early phase of a crisis. It is shown that independent variables such as relative capability, alliance relationships and military doctrines are most likely to be associated with war initiation when they are mediated by time pressure. The article also distinguishes between immediate time pressure—that occurs during the escalation phase of a crisis—and intermediate time pressure, which can happen prior to, and at the onset phase of a crisis.

Résumé

On cherche dans cet article à analyser les liens grâce auxquels la variable temporelle influence les dirigeants nationaux dans leur decision de déclarer la guerre. On constate que le temps est une importante variable d'intervention au niveau décisionnel, en conjonction avec d'autres systémes ou sous-systémes de variables,tels que le potentiel d'attaque et les alliances, ainsi que des variables au niveau de l'Etat comme la stratégie militaire et les ideologies. La plupart des études antérieures considerent la variable temporelle comme étant de toute première importance pour les decisions prises lors de crises aigues, tandis que cet article fait du temps une variable intermédiaire. On montre que des variables independantes comme les ressources, les alliances ainsi que les strategies militaires, sont associees aux préparatifs guerriers par l'intermédiaire du temps. On essaie aussi de distinguer entre les pressions temporelles immédiates—celles qui surgissent lors de l'escalade de la crise—et les pressions intermédiates qui précèdent la crise ou coincident avec son émergence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 255 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Powell reportedly told Bush that the force level needed to contain Iraq, about 230,000, would be reached by December 1, 1990. Powell thought a strategy of containment would grind the Iraqi leader down, although it might take a year or two (Woodward, Bob, The Commanders [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991],42)Google Scholar.

2 Domestic political factors can also be associated with war initiation when impelled by time pressure. An example is the Argentine military junta's decision to invade the Falkland Islands. The regime was under intense time pressure, as it feared inaction would undermine its survival. For different domestic sources of war, see Levy, Jack S., “Domestic Politics and War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (1988), 653–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the internal sources of external crisis behaviour, see James, Patrick and Hristoulas, Athanasios, “Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: Evaluating a Model of Crisis Activity for the United States,” Journal of Politics 56 (1994), 327–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For example, see Claude, Inis L, Power and International Relations (New York: Random House, 1964Google Scholar); and Organski, A. F. K. and Kugler, Jacek, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar. These variables have attracted attention in aggregate studies as well. See Singer, J. David, ed., Research Origins and Rationale, Vol. 1 of The Correlates of War (New York: Free Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Vasquez, John A, The War Puzzle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 The methodological approach parallels closely the one used by Blainey, Geoffrey, The Causes of War (New York: Free Press, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Selected historical cases are cited to exemplify the hypothetical relationship between time pressure and war initiation. Case studies are used to illustrate or elucidate particular relationships.

5 Snyder, Glenn H. and Paul Diesing, Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 77Google Scholar.

6 It is recognized that in some situations status quo states could also experience time pressure mainly because of pressure from the challenger and uncertainty regarding its actions. An example would be the pressures the Entente Powers felt in 1914. However, time pressure is usually felt more intensely by challengers, as war avoidance is often in the interests of status quo states.

7 Cross, John G., The Economics of Bargaining (New York: Basic Books, 1969), 13Google Scholar. For a set of essays on different dimensions of bargaining, see Young, Oran R., ed., Bargaining: Formal Theories of Negotiation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

8 Holsti, Ole R., Crisis, Escalation, War (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1972), 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Hermann, Charles F., Crises in Foreign Policy: A Simulation Analysis (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), 29Google Scholar.

10 Brecher, Michael and James, Patrick, Crisis and Change in World Politics (Boulder: West view Press, 1986), 26Google Scholar.

11 James, Patrick, Crisis and War(Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press 1988), 26Google Scholar

12 Holsti, Ole R., “Time, Alternatives, and Communications: The 1914 and Cuban Missile Crises,”Google Scholar in Hermann, Charles F., ed., International Crises: Insights from Behavioral Research (New York: Free Press, 1972), 58–80Google Scholar; and Holsti, Crisis, Escalation, War, 228.

13 Although the duration of intermediate time pressure varies from case to case, a three-year period is roughly the maximum such pressures can have strong influence. After that, if war has not occurred, time pressure may have dissipated. The rationale is that the independent variables that generate intermediate time pressure tend to be highly salient for roughly two to three years. These variables can change, affecting time pressure itself. However, the duration of time pressure depends largely on the duration of a crisis. Its intensity is most evident during the height of a crisis, usually lasting days or weeks.

14 Brecher, Michael, Crises in World Politics: Theory and Reality (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993), 25–26Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., 26.

16 Thus short-time need not be equal to actual time. This is because some decision makers require a short amount of time to work on a task while others may need longer (Robinson, James A., “Crisis,” in Sills, David L., ed., International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol. 3 [London: Collier-Macmillan, 1968], 510–14)Google Scholar.

17 Oneal, John R., Foreign Policy Making in Times of Crisis (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1982), 43Google Scholar.

18 The trigger or the catalyst for the onset of a crisis could be “an act or an event: a threatening statement, oral or written; a political act, like a trade embargo; a nonviolent military act, such as the movement of troops; an indirect violent act, that is against an ally or client state; or a direct military attack” (Brecher, Crises in World Politics, 3).

19 Pruitt, Dean G. and Snyder, Richard C., eds., Theory and Research on the Causes of War (Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1969), 2Google Scholar.

20 Manheim, J. B. and Rich, R., Empirical Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1981), 27Google Scholar.

21 Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Levy, Jack S., “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War,” World Politics 30 (1987), 82–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Dyadic wars are fought between two states, while systemic war involves a majority of major powers.

22 Blainey, The Causes of War, 36,123.

23 Thucydides, , The Peloponnesian War, trans, by Crawley, Richard (New York: The Modern Library, 1982), 14.Google Scholar

24 Kagan, Donald, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969), 35–37Google Scholar.

25 Ballard, G. A., The Influence of the Sea on the Political History of Japan(London: John Murray, 1921), 188Google Scholar.

26 Kuropatkin, General A., The Russian Army and the Japanese War, Vol. 1, trans, by Linsay, Captain A. B. (New York: Dutton, 1909), 123Google Scholar.

27 Nish, Ian, The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War (London: Longman, 1985), 27Google Scholar, 105.

28 Cited in Berghahn, V. R., Germany and the Approach of War in 1914 (London: Macmillan, 1973), 169Google Scholar.

29 Rosecrance, Richard, “Deterrence and Vulnerability in the Pre-Nuclear Era,” Adelphi Paper 160 (1980), 25Google Scholar.

30 Cited in Rzrghdhn, Germany and the Approach of War, 171.

31 Vagts, Alfred, A History of Militarism (New York: Meridian Books, 1959), 338.Google Scholar

32 Safran, Nadav, From War to War: The Arab-Israeli Confrontation, 1948-1967(Indianapolis: Pegasus, 1969), 52Google Scholar.

33 Thomas, Raju G. C., The Defence of India (Delhi: Macmillan, 1978), 3Google Scholar.

34 Paul, T. V., Asymmetric Conflicts: War Initiation by Weaker Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Kuldip Nayar, “Pakistan Provoked the 1965 War,” Sunday Magazine (Bombay), July 10-16, 1983.

36 Jervis, Robert“Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30 (1978), 167–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Quester, George, Offense and Defense in the International System (New York:John Wiley, 1977), 3Google Scholar.

38 Paul, Asymmetric Conflicts, 30.

39 Morton, Louis, “Japan's Decision for War (1941),” in Kent Roberts Greenfield, ed., Command Decisions (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959), 82Google Scholar.

40 The Statesman's Yearbook (London: Macmillan, 1941), 510Google Scholar.

41 Ike, Nobutaka, Japan's Decision for War: Records of the 1941 Policy Conferences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967), 106Google Scholar.

42 Heikal, Mohammed, The Road to Ramadan (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975), 10Google Scholar

43 Herzog, Chaim, The War of Atonement (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975), 24–25Google Scholar.

44 Le Monde, “Excerpts from Sadat's Interview,” reprinted in New York Times, January 23,1975, 4.

45 Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de, The War Trap (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 78–79Google Scholar.

46 Blainey, The Causes of War, 66.

47 It is, however, recognized that some alliances can prevent wars. Alliance partners can be contained through a tight network of relationship in which the allies' plans and actions can be constrained or controlled by the patron state. During the Cold War, members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact were under the ambit of such alliance relationships with their respective superpower patron.

48 Ostrom, Charles W. and Hoole, Francis W., “Alliances and Wars Revisited: A Research Note,” International Studies Quarterly 22 (1978), 215–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Tahir-Kheli, Shirin, The United States and Pakistan: The Evolution of an Influence Relationship (New York: Praeger, 1982), 16Google Scholar.

50 Kagan, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, 41, 80.

51 Ritter, Gerhard, Frederick the Great: A Historical Profile, trans, by Peter Paret (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 102–08Google Scholar.

52 Dennis, Alfred L. P., The Anglo-Japanese Alliance (Berkeley: University of California Publications, 1923)Google Scholar.

53 Dennett, Tyler, Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War (Gloucester, Maryland: Petersmith, 1959), 27–30Google Scholar.

54 Iklé, Frank W., “The Triple Intervention, Japan's Lesson in the Diplomacy of Imperialism,” Monumenta Nipponica 5 (1967), 122–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Tuchman, Barbara, The Guns of August (New York: Dell Publishing, 1962), 43–44Google Scholar.

56 Quandt, William B., Decade of Decisions: American Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967-1976 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 150–51Google Scholar.

57 Heikal, The Road to Ramadan, 16-17.

58 Ibid., 210.

59 See, for example, Evera, Stephen Van, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,” International Security 9 (1984), 58–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Posen, Barry R., The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain and Germany between the World Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

60 Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine, 18.

61 Ibid., 20.

62 Quester, Offense and Defense, 11.

63 Snyder, Jack, The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision-making and the Disasters of 1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), 199Google Scholar.

64 Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive.”

65 Ritter, Gerhard, The Schlieffen Plan: Critique of a Myth(Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979), 17Google Scholar.

66 Snyder, The Ideology of the Offensive, 23.

67 Williamson, Samuel R., “The Origins of World War I,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (1988), 795–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive.”

69 Mearsheimer, John J., Conventional Deterrence (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1983), 33–36Google Scholar.

70 Paul Asymmetric Conflicts, 24-29.

71 Ibid., 28.

72 Farrar, L. L., The Short-War Illusion (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio Press, 1973), 7Google Scholar.

73 Westwood, J. N., The Illustrated History of the Russo-Japanese War (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1973), 10Google Scholar.