Colonial Wars Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This example Colonial Wars Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

The term colonial war is used to refer to conflicts fought to determine the future status of potential colonies, or currently held colonies, that generate at least one thousand battlefield casualties per year. This definition may be applied to two distinct categories of conflict: wars fought between great powers over a (potential) colony, and wars fought between a great power and a colony over its future status, otherwise referred to as asymmetric conflicts.

Trends In The Literature

The political science literature on colonial wars concentrates on asymmetric conflicts. This literature focuses upon the causes of colonial wars and their outcome, with an emphasis upon great powers’ losses to smaller powers, building upon Andrew Mack’s balance-of-interests theory. Influenced by France’s failed attempts to maintain its colonies in Indochina and Algeria, as well as the U.S. experience in Vietnam, Mack argues that the resolve of participants in asymmetric conflicts inversely relates to their relative capabilities. Weak powers have more to lose when fighting great powers and thus “fight harder,” while great powers have fewer interests at stake in an asymmetric conflict, making domestic veto players more sensitive to losses.

Other authors have observed that explanations of asymmetric conflict such as Mack’s cannot account for why and when great powers win small wars. Two theories based on strategic interaction have been put forward to account for why great powers win and lose asymmetric conflicts. One theory, advanced by Ivan Arreguín-Toft, argues that the outcome of asymmetric outcomes is contingent upon interaction between the strategies of great and lesser powers: “Every strategy has ideal counterstrategy” (104). Great powers lose when they choose the wrong counterstrategy. Patricia Sullivan argues that outcomes in asymmetric conflicts result from the war aims of great powers. Great powers are forced to terminate their participation in asymmetric conflicts when the “costs of victory exceed a state’s prewar expectations” (Sullivan, 497).The costs of securing victory are determined by whether a great power’s war aims require that its target comply with its demands; these costs are lower when the great power pursues conquest rather than compliance.

Problems With The Colonial War Concept

In response to the literature on colonial wars, there have been salient critiques of the very concept of a singular colonial war. First, this term conflates war with (one of) the issues or motivations responsible for its outbreak.

Second, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish between certain colonial wars and great power wars. The literature on colonial wars implicitly focuses on wars fought over territories located in the third world. However, there is little real distinction between wars fought by great powers to acquire or maintain colonial possessions in the third world and wars fought by great powers to either acquire or maintain territory within their locales. Wars fought by great powers to maintain or acquire additional territory only differ from colonial wars in that they are more likely to bring about war with other great powers. For example, efforts by great powers to attain regional dominance, such as Meiji Japan’s pursuit of hegemony in Asia at the beginning of the twentieth century, may be indistinguishable from attempts to acquire colonies.

Third, war widening, along with the expansion of war aims, further blur the distinction between colonial and great power wars. Some conflicts that begin as disputes over extra regional territories may escalate and become hegemonic wars (i.e., a war that redistributes the overall international balance of power). One example is the transformation of the French and Indian War (1754–1763) into the Seven Years’ War (1756– 1763). Other conflicts may begin as wars between great powers, but the fighting may spread to great powers’ extra regional territories. World War I (1914–1918) began in Europe, but the fighting spread to parts of the European powers’ colonies in Africa.

A radical means to clarify the conceptual confusion now proposed is to abandon the term colonial war. Instead, the study of conflicts fought for control of territory would distinguish between the motivations that lead to the outbreak of war and the participants involved, allowing international relations theorists to focus upon the imperial motivation for war. This refers to states’ utility for maintaining or acquiring additional territory. Rather than studying wars between great powers and wars between great and lesser powers under the same conceptual rubric, the strength of the imperial motivation for war could be studied across symmetrical (wars between great powers) and asymmetrical (war between a great and a lesser power) conflicts. It remains to be seen, however, whether this critique will become dominant in political science.

Bibliography:

Arreguín-Toft, Ivan. “How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict.” International Security 26, no. 1 (2001): 93–128.
Mack, Andrew. “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars.” World Politics 27, no. 2 (January 1975): 175–200.
Sullivan, Patricia L. “War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51, no. 3 (2007): 496–524.