Why Do Leaders Obsess Over War?

The Disconnection Between Power and the People in Modern Conflict

“War is an extension of politics by other means,” Carl von Clausewitz famously declared. Yet in the 21st century, this adage feels increasingly hollow. Leaders across the globe continue to invoke the specter of war, leveraging its rhetoric to consolidate power, stoke nationalism, and mask domestic failures. However, the reality of modern warfare has shifted dramatically. No longer do generals lead armies from the front lines; instead, conflicts are orchestrated from air-conditioned war rooms, guided by drones and cyberattacks, with bullets fired by remote control. The human cost, however, remains devastating—borne not by the architects of war, but by the very people they claim to protect. This blog post delves into the paradox of leadership in modern warfare, questioning why those in power remain fixated on conflict in an era that has outgrown it.

I. A Historical Paradox: Leaders and Warrooms

Warfare has always been a game of distance. From the chariots of ancient Egypt to the Napoleonic campaigns, military leaders have often directed battles from afar. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War emphasized strategic positioning and information, not physical proximity to the battlefield. Yet in the modern age, this disconnect has become starkly glaring.

Take Winston Churchill during World War II. While his fiery speeches united Britain, he never set foot on a contested front. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation from a Washington D.C. office, far from the Civil War’s bloodshed. As General S.L.A. Marshall noted, “The man who issues the order is usually remote from the man who receives it.” This historical pattern underscores a truth: leadership in war has always been about control, not comradeship.

But today’s warrooms are even more insulated. A president in the Oval Office can launch a drone strike from thousands of miles away, reducing the act of killing to a video game. This technological detachment, as writer and military analyst Sebastian Junger observes, “desensitizes leaders to the human toll of war, while transforming it into a cost-benefit analysis for those in power.”

II. The Calculus of Conflict: Why Leaders Still Choose War

So why do leaders continue to champion war? The answers lie in the interplay of politics, economics, and ideology.

1. The Profit of PowerWar is a lucrative business. In the U.S. alone, the defense industry generates over $1.5 trillion annually, with lobbying by major arms corporations influencing policy. As Noam Chomsky, the renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy, states, “The military-industrial complex is not just a metaphor—it’s a machine that thrives on perpetual conflict.” Each war contract, from F-35 jets to surveillance satellites, fuels a cycle that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

2. Nationalism and the Politics of UnityConflict often becomes a unifying force for fractured societies. Consider Vladimir Putin’s use of the “return to Russian greatness” narrative to consolidate support, or former U.S. President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner during the Iraq War. As historian Niall Ferguson argues, “Leaders weaponize patriotism to distract from domestic crises, turning enemies into scapegoats for their own failures.”

3. The Illusion of ControlModern technology gives leaders the illusion of invincibility. Drones, AI, and cyberwarfare allow for “surgical” strikes with minimal risk. But as author and philosopher Bertrand Russell warned, “The power to wage war has increased, but the wisdom to prevent it has not.” This hubris—believing war is a tool for reshaping the world—fuels escalations that no one can truly control.

III. The Human Cost: When War Becomes a Weapon of the Innocent

While leaders strategize in safety, ordinary citizens pay the price. In Iraq and Afghanistan, over 230,000 civilians died between 2003 and 2021. In Ukraine, the war has displaced millions, with children starving in shelters. These are not “collateral damages” but the direct consequences of decisions made by those who’ve never held a rifle.

Veterans, too, bear the scars of this disconnect. Sergeant First Class Leroy Petry, a Medal of Honor recipient, recounts seeing wounded civilians ignored by military convoys: “The war in their eyes was to secure territory, not save lives.” Similarly, journalist Chris Hedges, who covered conflicts in the Middle East, writes, “Leaders wage wars to rewrite history. The dead write it with their blood.”

IV. Accountability and the Immunity of the Powerful

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of modern warfare is the near-total impunity of leaders. Consider the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction. No official was held accountable—notBush, not Blair, not Rice. Similarly, Slobodan Milošević, the Yugoslav leader responsible for ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, was prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal, while 21st-century aggressors remain unscathed.

This immunity, as philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, “encourages the pursuit of power at any cost.” When consequences are absent, the logic of war becomes irresistible.

V. The Path Forward: A Call for a Post-War Ethos

If modern warfare is a relic of the past, what must change?

1. Education and AwarenessAs educator and activist Howard Zinn wrote, “Consciousness is the first weapon of change.” Teaching the true costs of war—through curricula, media, and public discourse—can dismantle the myth that war is a tool of power.

2. Restructuring Global InstitutionsThe United Nations and other international bodies must shift from reactive peacekeeping to proactive conflict prevention. Democratic participation in foreign policy decisions can also dilute unilateralism.

3. Embracing Alternative SolutionsFrom diplomacy to economic investment, societies must recognize that “peace is not the enemy of security,” as former President Barack Obama asserted.

4. Holding Power AccountableLegal frameworks like the International Criminal Court must be strengthened to prosecute war crimes. Citizens must demand transparency in military actions.

A World Beyond the War Room

The world has evolved beyond the need for war. Technology, globalization, and interconnected economies make large-scale conflict catastrophic for all. Yet leaders, much like ancient kings, remain fixated on power and prestige. As Martin Luther King Jr. implored, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

The time has come to reject the war-wanted rhetoric of power-hungry elites. Let’s build a future where leaders serve the people, not glorify the battlefield. After all, as Einstein once said, “The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one: the problem of the survival of mankind.” In a world without war, humanity’s greatest weapon will not be a missile, but our collective will for peace.