How Wars End by Reiter, Dan [Princeton University Press, 2009] (Paperback) [Paperback]

by Reiter

How Wars End by Reiter, Dan [Princeton University Press, 2009] (Paperback) [P...

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction, International Relations

Paperback

First published September 1, 2009

About the author

Also writes under the pen name G. Russell Gaynor.

Born in a common house, in a common land, during a common time, Reiter was issued to the world in the same manner as any other notion of life. Born of circumstance and perspective, he came to see life from a standpoint most might label askew (but let’s not get him started on labels). It was through this angle of vision that his mind opened up to the limitless possibilities of thought and existence.

Since our first act is to covet, Reiter’s train of thought was detoured to mythology and how such fantastic stories were used to explain scientific fact. That is where his abilities were first applied; the battle that rages between Atlas and Hercules continues to this day. The Moon moves closer to the Earth and then further away, depending on who is winning the contest. It is a simple beginning, perhaps, but a beginning nonetheless and one that ushered other stories that grew along with the young man, encompassing greater scope and depth.

What some called it daydreaming, he called a work in progress. There is a universe out there, full of theory and definition – waiting for its story to be told. It holds comedy, tragedy, adventure, mystery, horror, action and intrigue. Reiter is but one of its storytellers!

Reviews

[ariela lopez · Rating 3 out of 5]

THESIS: Two main factors lead to the end of wars: information and treaty credibility. Wars happen because states are uncertain of each other’s capabilities, fighting can give them more information, and when states realize that either defeat is most likely or victory is not necessary, they will move to end fighting (fits with Schelling bargaining theory). More importantly, Reiter shows that the second factor is crucial because if one state thinks that the other’s commitment to stop fighting is not credible (because you can’t enforce agreements in an anarchic system), they will be motivated to NOT end a war and continue to an absolute victory or a victory that ensures the other state will not be able to break the agreement at all (sound familiar?).

Basic argument that, yes, helps explain certain current events but I was hoping for some more novelty (although I think the commitment credibility analysis was novel when this was published). Shamefully made me miss a certain hunter elective and teacher… let’s not think about it.

[Rebecca P]

So this book isn’t *actually* about how wars end. Reiter doesn’t give a concrete answer. It’s more about war duration and why credible commitment problems draw out wars that information problems start.

[Santi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Such scholarly effort wasted in hammering an idea (committment more important than informatio in wars) into the evidence.

[Eleanore · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book attempts to build on Fearon's famous article on warfare and commitment problems using historical case studies to focus on war-termination behavior. Reiter's fundamental argument is that war-termination behavior is better explained by the commitment problem than by the information problem. There are many situations in which battle outcomes (and their theoretical effect on the information possessed by both adversaries about capabilities and stakes) would seem to predict a rapid conclusion to conflict where empirical evidence reveals conflict continuance or even escalation. Reiter notes that awareness of commitment problems attending negotiated settlement between a set of adversaries shapes the conflict behavior prior to such a settlement. While the book adds some complexity and interesting insights, it doesn't substantively expand beyond Fearon's basic thesis. Furthermore his implicit conclusion that absolute war is often the only way of dealing with commitment problems of negotiated settlements and his categorization of "regime change" as being a form of "absolute warfare" is misleading and wrong headed. The shadow of the Bush Iraq War experience lies heavily upon this book and distorts the argument's clarity and potential influence.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reiter's book seeks to explain under what conditions wars end, and when stats are willing to make concessions to their competitors. He discusses conflict as a form of information sharing, in which both sides signal their commitment and aims. This is the "information problem"; conflict breaks out because neither side knows fully what each others' intentions are. A more serious problem, however, is the commitment problem, that neither side can trust the other. This leads to continued fighing even in the face of defeat.