Ok, fair enough.
Maybe I'll agree with this, up to a point. Historical/empirical evidence seems to support the claim that our "nature" does somehow "institute war". But how are large groups of ordinary people persuaded to mobilize against other large groups of people? Is this "intuitive"? Perhaps it's only the "war instituting" actions of a very small minority, combined with the (manipulated?) uncertainty and fear of the masses, which propagate war to significant proportions. Perhaps this distinction doesn't negate the author's broader claim, but it does point to a potential fallacy in theorizing that all humans, by their own independent intrinsic nature, have war "instituted" within their makeup.
If a strong nation attacks a much weaker nation with overwhelming force, then isn't it clear that the weaker nation faces much more of the stress and destruction and carnage and "demand" of the conflict than the stronger nation? Seems self-evident to me, but maybe you see it differently.
Yes. It takes two to tango. Sometimes others effectively remove some of your realistic free will options. But that doesn't mean that they vanish entirely in every situation. For example, if one of the main goals of the Iraq war was disarming Iraq, then there was another option beside war available to do this (stepped-up, pressured inspections). That's where judgment comes in. Pres. Bush & Co. decided that first-strike war was the only option it wanted to pursue at the time, and as such, this war resulted from free-will decisions made by a small group, sold to the general population at large. Thus, perhaps free will, in this sense, still applies in many cases of making war.
I don't know. I just object to sweeping, general claims that war is simply intrinsic to humanity, a priori. Just an irrational fixation of mine.