Editing War (section)

===Rationalist===

[[Rationalism (international relations)|Rationalism]] is an [[international relations theory]] or framework. Rationalism (and [[Neorealism (international relations)]]) operate under the assumption that states or international actors are rational, seek the best possible outcomes for themselves, and desire to avoid the costs of war.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|title = Rationalist Explanations for War|last = Fearon|first = James D.|date = Summer 1995|journal = International Organization |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=379–414|doi = 10.1017/s0020818300033324|jstor=2706903| s2cid=38573183 }}</ref> Under one [[game theory]] approach, rationalist theories posit all actors can [[Bargaining model of war|bargain]], would be better off if war did not occur, and likewise seek to understand why war nonetheless reoccurs. Under another rationalist game theory without bargaining, the [[peace war game]], optimal strategies can still be found that depend upon number of iterations played. In "Rationalist Explanations for War", [[James Fearon]] examined three rationalist explanations for why some countries engage in war:
* Issue indivisibilities
* Incentives to misrepresent or [[information asymmetry]]
* Commitment problems<ref name=":0" />

"Issue indivisibility" occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining, because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, but only owned entirely by one side or the other. "[[Information asymmetry]] with incentives to misrepresent" occurs when two countries have secrets about their individual capabilities, and do not agree on either: who would win a war between them, or the magnitude of state's victory or loss. For instance, [[Geoffrey Blainey]] argues that war is a result of miscalculation of strength. He cites historical examples of war and demonstrates, "war is usually the outcome of a diplomatic crisis which cannot be solved because both sides have conflicting estimates of their bargaining power."<ref>{{cite book|author=Geoffrey Blainey|title=Causes of War|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Mcknp3tt0LMC&pg=PA114|year=1988|edition=3rd|page=114|publisher=Simon and Schuster |access-date=2016-03-19|isbn=978-0029035917|archive-date=1 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101210934/https://books.google.com/books?id=Mcknp3tt0LMC&pg=PA114|url-status=live}}</ref> Thirdly, bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Powell | first1 = Robert | year = 2002 | title = Bargaining Theory and International Conflict | journal = Annual Review of Political Science | volume = 5 | pages = 1–30 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.092601.141138 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Within the rationalist tradition, some theorists have suggested that individuals engaged in war suffer a normal level of [[cognitive bias]],<ref>Chris Cramer, 'Civil War is Not a Stupid Thing', {{ISBN|978-1850658214}}</ref> but are still "as rational as you and me".<ref>From point 10 of [http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/12/10/modern-conflict-is-not-what-you-think/ Modern Conflict is Not What You Think (article)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222013124/http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/12/10/modern-conflict-is-not-what-you-think/ |date=22 February 2016 }}, accessed 16 December 2014.</ref> According to philosopher [[Iain King]], "Most instigators of conflict overrate their chances of success, while most participants underrate their chances of injury...."<ref>Quote from [[Iain King]], in [http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/12/10/modern-conflict-is-not-what-you-think/ Modern Conflict is Not What You Think] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222013124/http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/12/10/modern-conflict-is-not-what-you-think/ |date=22 February 2016 }}</ref> King asserts that "Most catastrophic military decisions are rooted in [[groupthink]]" which is faulty, but still rational.<ref>Point 6 in [http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/12/10/modern-conflict-is-not-what-you-think/ Modern Conflict is Not What You Think] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222013124/http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/12/10/modern-conflict-is-not-what-you-think/ |date=22 February 2016 }}</ref> The rationalist theory focused around bargaining, which is currently under debate. The Iraq War proved to be an anomaly that undercuts the validity of applying rationalist theory to some wars.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Lake|first1=David A.|title=Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War|journal=International Security|date=November 2010|pages=7–52|doi=10.1162/isec_a_00029|volume=35|issue=3|s2cid=1096131}}</ref>