Does War Have a Political Goal?


The effects of war are vast. A small percent of the population could call to the colors in the olden days, but now, 10 percent of the population can be mobilized. It is not surprising that women and children are more likely to be killed in wars than male soldiers. But the effects of war do not end with the death of soldiers. Its psychological and physical scars last for generations. In addition, wars also deprive civilian populations of food and water, resulting in a loss of energy and a breakdown of normal human relations.

Moreover, the first act of war can encompass small nations. This is because, unlike other forms of war, all moveable forces can be brought into operation at once. A civilised war cannot include all the fortresses, mountains, rivers, and people. In addition, the first act of war may embrace small nations as allies. It is not necessary for the belligerents to agree on the co-operation of their allies; often, it is delayed until the war has started and then increased.

War is an essential political instrument. Though it is a means to an end, its nature is a serious matter. It is a continuation of political commerce, but by means of a different kind. In addition, the peculiarities of war are the elements of its original violence – hatred and animosity – and the playing of probabilities. And war belongs to reason and cannot be conceived of as a form of pleasure. So, it is an important question to ask whether war has a political goal.

The political aspect of war is vital in maintaining goodwill and unity among the allies. While it is not feasible to bring all means of resistance into activity immediately, it is often necessary for the first decision to bring the balance of power back to normal. Besides, if this first decision has a negative effect, the second decision will only exacerbate the situation. Its ultimate goal is to prevent the war from escalating out of control. Once the war has started, the morale of both sides is affected.

The historical context of war has left an imprint on the minds of strategic leaders and the public. This context limits their ability to view war as anything other than a violent conflict between states. In this paper, we attempt to open up the aperture through which strategic leaders view the concept of war. By analyzing the global context in which wars are conducted, we offer a new definition of war that incorporates the complex characteristics of war fought today, and a wider view of who engages in such conflicts.

The definition of war and terrorism is complex. There is no single definition of a violent campaign that is inviolable. Experts disagree on the definition of war, and many nations have long regarded the actions of colonising groups as terrorism. While terrorism is a common definition of war, the two concepts have different legal implications. The United States, in particular, viewed actions carried out by colonising groups as terrorism. But there is some agreement that both forms of war can be illegal.