What Is War? Defining War, Conflict and Competition

With rising great power contestation and increasing strategic risk across the globe, everything seems to be called ‘war’. Examples of war’s colloquial use include the trade war between the United States and China, and the concept of grey-zone war (sometimes known as grey-zone warfare). This style of ‘political war’ is defined as “…political influence, economic coercion, use of cyber, use of information operations, and …use of military posture” to shape an opponent, their allies and partners.[1] Although war means more than its narrow dictionary definition, the question remains: what is war?[2]

Defining war, conflict, and competition is vital, particularly for us as professionals of war. Without understanding what war is, how can we adequately advise policymakers or statespersons? More importantly, how do we guide our subordinates on the relevant use of land power during these times of rising strategic competition and growing risk of conflict and war?

This blog defines war, conflict, and competition as a spectrum of political coercion. The blog explains how violence is the primary means of coercion in war. Meanwhile, conflict and competition use violence, and its threat, in different ways. Before defining war, it is important to recognise the risk war’s colloquial use poses to our understanding of war.

If War Means Everything, It Means Nothing

If we cannot define war, it is difficult to recognise the differences between war, conflict, and competition. In modern parlance, the word ‘war’ is used to describe a range of coercive situations that are military and non-military, violent and non-violent, in nature. Yet, using ‘war’ to describe everything has turned the word into a rhetorical device (or crutch), leading it to mean nothing. Having no definition causes some to think war is defined by technology.[3] Others confuse it with strategic competition and realpolitik, calling it ‘political war’.[4] It does not help that war and conflict can be, and historically have been, blurred.[5]

War—Violence is the Primary Means of Coercion

To define war, we must understand what war is used for. The book World History of Warfare details how the reasons for war—from the Neolithic and Mesolithic periods through to modern times—remain enduring: territory, economics, fear of other people, or fear of threats.[6] These common themes led Clausewitz to recognise that war is “…a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means".[7] These ‘other means' are primarily violent. Although such violence may be lethal (intent to kill or maim) and non-lethal (intent to damage and destroy material and resources), it is always physical and extends beyond the nation-state.

The Clausewitzian view of war is not limited to nation-state actors. The concept of ‘political intercourse’ can occur at community, group, tribal, cultural, national, and super-national levels.[8] Hedley Bull’s interpretation of war reinforces this view, where war is

…organised violence carried on by political units against each other. Violence is not war unless it is carried out in the name of a political unit; what distinguishes killing in war from murder is its vicarious and official character…[.] Equally, violence carried out in the name of a political unit is not war unless it is directed against another political unit; the violence employed by the state in …the suppression of pirates does not qualify because it is directed against individuals.[9]

These common themes of human will, politics, coercion, and physical violence shape the definition of war:

War. the continuation of a group’s; be it a tribal element, community, nation-state or super-state; policy using violence as the primary means of coercion.

By defining war as the continuation of a group’s policy primarily through violence, war is both untangled from, and linked to, conflict and competition.

Conflict—Violence is But One Means of Coercion

War is not the only arena where violence may be used for political coercion. LWD 1 notes:

[a]ll war is conflict, yet not all conflict is termed war, with the spectrum extending from ‘no conflict’ situations – like humanitarian relief – up to and including ‘total war’ between states. This reaffirms that conflict, at any level, is a competition of political and human will that can use violent and non-violent means to influence a diverse group of actors to achieve the political objective.[10]

Army’s capstone document helps clarify the distinction between war, conflict, and competition. Both war and conflict use a range of means to coerce others: direct organised armed violence; economic and diplomatic actions, trade sanctions, espionage, sabotage, terrorism, insurgency, human security, cyber; and other non-traditional military considerations.[11] What differentiates war and conflict is the primacy of violence.[12] Conflict is

the continuation of a group’s policy where violence is one method that either complements another primary means of coercion, or rotates primacy with other non-violent means throughout the conflict.

Conversely, competition favours the threat of violence more than the direct use of violence.

Competition—Coercion and Persuasion Through Non-Violent Means

Although war and conflict are both competition, pure competition (sometimes called strategic competition) rarely includes organised and sanctioned massed violence.[13] Instead, the threat of violence (as seen through deterrence and posture) and other non-violent means are used to both coerce and persuade others.[14] This suggests war, conflict, and competition form a spectrum of political coercion and persuasion (Figure 1).

War, Conflict, and Competition—A Spectrum of Coercion

Figure 1 overlays war, conflict, and competition along a spectrum of coercion. This helps differentiate these three concepts. Such a coercive spectrum is not mutually exclusive. An actor (be it a nation or cultural group) may be experiencing all three within any given situation against a range of actors, or even the same actor.[15] This spectrum can even be extended to include cooperation, where actors pursue common policy outcomes, without precluding elements of competition (or conflict) when policy objectives do not align.[16]

Understanding the distinction between war, conflict, and competition is vital for us. It helps us, as professionals, better advise policymakers. It supports our understanding and study of these three phenomena. Finally, it enables us to think about, plan, and execute operations suitable for competition, conflict, or war. If we cannot recognise the differences, we may believe everything is war. This may lead us to confuse violence’s role within, and subordinate to, politics. Such failures could inflame tensions during this time of great power contestation, causing the very war we seek to prevent.