(Name)

(Instructors’ name)

(Course)

(Date)

Theories of War and Peace

This paper seeks to give an analysis on the reasons why people prefer to go to war, as compared to attaining peace. Also, it seeks to know the perspectives of constructivist and feminists regarding peace and war. There are many words, which have been used to describe the going on of war and peace. They include; anarchy, free riders, The State, Power, Deterrence and Balance of power, among others. It is through power and the need to obtain it that people become obsessed and will not want to lose it. Most political analysts believe that people prefer to engage in war, as compared to the better option of peace building (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000. 12). The nature of human beings makes them want to have control over other people. It is through conquests of war that power is obtained, and this is at the expense of people lives being lost. Many countries especially those in the Middle East have often engaged in war, rather than peace. The region is always on the news because of the many incidents of war and example is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is possible for the people and the leaders to decide on taking the option of peace, but this has never taken place. Other times, peace negotiations are held, but so far, no progress has been yielded. For example in Pakistan, peace negotiations are taking place, but the news always highlights the various attacks taking place. This means that it should be found out, why peace never prevails as compared to war that is persistent, yet people are aware of the latter’s outcome (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000. 18).

It is evident that there is a becoming ontology whereby, commitment is shared between constructivism and feminism perspectives. Also, differences exist as well, in terms of what their opinions are concerning war and peace. .Security issues are known and explained by the perspective of constructivism (Frances, Bartowki. & Kolmar, 2005. 36). It was during the Cold War that matters concerning political realism were known. Security is a vital matter that often ensures that assumptions based on realist issues are challenged. According to the constructivism perspective, power and gender are not essential, while those who use the feminist perspective believe in the latter. The result is that it is not easy to find out about politics and the power, which is involved. Women who are considered as modern, believe that they have a role to play in enhancing peace in the world. They support women leaders and advocate for women to join the military. They are considered as being extremely liberalized. Accounts, which are held by constructivists, is not being able to accommodate a lot of power. On the other hand, construction of power is in the agenda of feminists. Both perspectives seem to agree that it will be difficult for there to be absolute peace in the world. Despite this, their views matter, and are extremely vital in knowing about International Relations.

Frameworks, which exist concerning international relations, do not address in detail peace and war issues. The latter is according to the views presented from a perspective, which is feminine. There is a need to known the role and contribution of women in matters such as war and peace. According to this perspective, the gender roles of women are often ignored. Women are only mentioned for their roles, which are domestic (Schlee, 2004, 150). The world is believed to be extremely socially constructed. In turn, it has influenced the manner, which peace and war is viewed. The issue of suicide bombers is not new and this is practiced as an act of terrorism. Some time back, it was only performed by men, but now even females are being recruited into this practice. Women are taught and meant to believe that they will be rewarded for being suicide bombers. Many naïve young women lose their lives fighting in a war, which they will never witness the outcome. Some fathers in countries such as Pakistan and Iraq, are forcing their daughters to join terrorist groups, so that they can benefit. The fathers are sometimes compensated in monetary terms. Women are more likely to join terrorist groups and become suicide bombers because; they are least susceptible by authority.

In the United States, there is a need to ensure that democracy prevails all the time. This is in accordance with the existing foreign n policy. Some critics argue that democracy should not be attained by the United States as it has adverse effects. Stability and peace are achieved when democracy exists. Certain leaders in the world have assumed a lot of power to the extent whereby, removing them from their positions leads to war. For example, the fallen president of Gadaffi who was recently killed was an example of a leader who assumed a lot of power. Gadaffi was not willing to hand out the power that he held. It seems that he believed that it was better to be murdered than to surrender, as that would mean that he had accepted defeat. This is the mentality that most autocratic leaders seem to possess.

The military is responsible for promoting wars, which are currently taking place in the world. For example, the United States military has its base in many countries. The military through the orders of the president plays a role in waging war. The main reason for the existence of soldiers is to fight in wars. Thus, every chance that they obtain, they will not hesitate to engage in bloodshed (Katzenstein, 1996. 69). Often civilians, who are innocent, are the ones who lose their lives. The military will for a short time period, enhance peace and latter, they will engage in the war they were trying to prevent .This is extremely ironic, taking into account that they are the ones meant to maintain peace and at the same time fight during war. One should not forget that the Middle Eastern countries have their own military, but are often not well equipped to fight against the Americans. For example in Iraq, the military often uses scare tactics, but unfortunately, this does seem to make them achieve power. Also, in the process, they have advanced the war process, instead of finding a way to join forces with American military personnel.

Lastly, one can take the example of Egypt whereby, the leader known as Hosni Mubarak, had extreme power. For many years, he had ruled over Egypt, and despite calls from people for him to resign, he did not. People wanted a democratic government, but according to Mubarak this would only lead to problems .Often, such leaders ignore their people and it is only through chaos and riots that they are willing to listen. Peace as a solution was tried by the Egyptians, but it seemed that it was futile. It is only after the death, injury and even displacement of people that finally Mubarak agreed to step down. Leaders give up power after heinous things have taken place, according to analysts in the political field.

In conclusion, it is extremely clear that war is an occurrence, which is taking place regularly. World leaders should ensure that they have democratic governments, as this ensures that they only stay in power for a limited time. As it has been witnessed, the effects of war are disastrous, and peace is the only solution. Unfortunately, chances of a solution being find to get rid of wars does not seem likely. Peace is a concept, which needs to be known by everyone. More efforts should be put to ensure that peace is enhanced, in turn; the world will be extremely safe. It is then true to conclude that people engage in war, instead of being involved in peace initiatives.

Work Cited

Schlee, Günther. “Taking Sides and Constructing Identities: Reflections on

Conflict Theory”, Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, (2004):pp. 135-156.

Brubaker, Rogers, & Cooper, Frederick. ‘Beyond Identity’, Theory and Society, vol. 29, (2000): pp. 1-47.

Katzenstein, Peter. (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York, Columbia University Press, 1996.Print.

Kalyvas, Stathis. ‘The Ontology of “Political Violence”: Action and Identity in Civil Wars’, Perspectives on Politics vol. 1, no. 3, (2003): pp. 475-94.

McFarlane, Alan. The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap, New York: Blackwell, 2003.Print.

Frances, Bartowki. & Kolmar, Wendy. Lexicon of Debates”. Feminist Theory: New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.Print.pp. 42-60.