"We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace"
About this Quote
Jeane Kirkpatrick distills a hard lesson about conflict: war is not an accident of history or a meteorological event; it begins when someone prizes a goal more than the quiet of peace. That framing locates agency at the center. Even if one side prefers compromise, fighting can erupt if the other side elevates territory, security, ideology, revenge, or honor above the costs of violence. The clause at least one of the parties undercuts the comforting belief that war requires mutual belligerence. It takes only one actor whose aims are nonnegotiable or whose valuation of victory eclipses the value of restraint.
The insight also clarifies why diplomacy fails. Negotiations are bargains over values: land, status, safety, justice. When a stake is seen as indivisible, when leaders face domestic audiences that punish compromise, or when promises lack credibility, the perceived payoff of force grows. Misperception and optimism matter, but Kirkpatrick points to something more elemental: preference ordering. If peace is second place, choices will reflect that.
Context sharpened her view. As Ronald Reagans ambassador to the United Nations and author of Dictatorships and Double Standards, she argued that the Soviet Union and revolutionary totalitarian movements often preferred expansion and ideological triumph to coexistence. Peace, in that setting, would not hold by wishing it so; it had to be made more valuable than aggression. Deterrence, alliance solidarity, and clear moral language were tools to shift the calculus, raising the price of war and widening the space for settlement.
There is a practical ethic here. To prevent war, change what the actors want or how much they want it. Address fears that make security feel unattainable without force, provide face-saving exits, make commitments credible, and ensure that the costs of aggression are unmistakable. Peace survives when it is not merely a slogan, but the most attractive option on the menu of choices available to those who might otherwise light the fuse.
The insight also clarifies why diplomacy fails. Negotiations are bargains over values: land, status, safety, justice. When a stake is seen as indivisible, when leaders face domestic audiences that punish compromise, or when promises lack credibility, the perceived payoff of force grows. Misperception and optimism matter, but Kirkpatrick points to something more elemental: preference ordering. If peace is second place, choices will reflect that.
Context sharpened her view. As Ronald Reagans ambassador to the United Nations and author of Dictatorships and Double Standards, she argued that the Soviet Union and revolutionary totalitarian movements often preferred expansion and ideological triumph to coexistence. Peace, in that setting, would not hold by wishing it so; it had to be made more valuable than aggression. Deterrence, alliance solidarity, and clear moral language were tools to shift the calculus, raising the price of war and widening the space for settlement.
There is a practical ethic here. To prevent war, change what the actors want or how much they want it. Address fears that make security feel unattainable without force, provide face-saving exits, make commitments credible, and ensure that the costs of aggression are unmistakable. Peace survives when it is not merely a slogan, but the most attractive option on the menu of choices available to those who might otherwise light the fuse.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Jeane
Add to List
