What Sustains and Ends Wars with Scott Atran

History tells us that the armies with the most money, weapons, and technology should win wars. Yet, just when everything seems predetermined, something happens that no one foresaw: a weaker group resists, fights, and often turns the outcome on its head. Take the Battle of Mosul: well-equipped and well-trained forces, such as the Iraqi army or Sunni militias, flee before ISIS fighters who are poorly equipped but possess absolute conviction. The burning question is this: What really drives people to fight—and what makes it possible to end a conflict, or conversely, to prolong it? The biggest mistake in international politics textbooks is to believe that wars can be explained solely by material interests, rational strategies, and power balances between states. But this view overlooks the devastating power of sacred values, collective identities, and that hunger for meaning that drives men and women to risk everything, even the lives of their loved ones, for something they feel is more important than themselves. Scott Atran and his team have spent years in war zones—from Mosul to Ukraine, from the Polish border to Kurdish villages—to understand, on the ground, what truly makes a difference. One striking detail: during an experiment, PKK and ISIS fighters refused to rate their own or their opponent’s physical strength on a scale, as requested by the scientists. For them, the only thing that matters is “what you have in your heart.” So the researchers changed the question: they measured perceived spiritual strength. The result? “Spiritual formidability” — the perception of moral strength and the fusion of identity with the group — predicts willingness to fight and die far more than any material incentive. And this pattern is repeated in every culture, from Casablanca to Eastern Europe. All the data, from questionnaires to brain scans, confirm that when sacred values—whether religious or secular—are at stake, people act on impulse, without calculating costs and benefits. A Kurdish commander, with his family held hostage just a few miles away, confesses in tears that the cause he is fighting for is “more important than his own family.” In recent history, underestimating the “will to fight” has led to colossal disasters: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. The United States poured billions into local armies without being able to buy motivation, and when the enemy was driven by an idea, the entire arsenal was not enough. This was a mistake that was also risked in Ukraine: at the outset, the U.S. doubted whether the Ukrainians really wanted to resist. Only after witnessing their determination on the ground did they change their strategy. But there’s more: whenever attempts are made to buy peace by offering material benefits—such as more land, money, or opportunities—resistance often intensifies. Studies of Israelis and Palestinians show that the more incentives are offered, the stronger the refusal to give in on issues perceived as sacred. Only public apologies—not material compromises—have shown any effect in reducing tension. That is why theorists of realism, who view war as a game of chess between rational states, are profoundly mistaken: the bloodiest wars and the most tenacious resistance arise when dignity, respect, collective memory, or identity are at stake. Just think of Thermopylae, Masada, or the Alamo: battles lost but remembered for centuries, because they tell the story of what it means to be human. A dissenting voice, such as that of Stephen Walt of Harvard, argues that morality is the true enemy of peace: if you let emotions and values come into play, the conflict never ends. However, a close look at reality suggests the opposite: ignoring values is what makes wars chronic. Therefore, ending a conflict is not just about finding a balance between those who have more tanks or more dollars. It is necessary to recognize and address the underlying reasons that bind people to their cause, even when those reasons seem absurd to an outside observer. After all, as Gandhi wrote on a wall at Columbia University: “Your values become your destiny.” If you believe that the true strength of a war lies in the will to fight and not in the number of rifles, on Lara Notes you can use I'm In to indicate that this perspective is now yours. And if you happen to discuss it with someone—perhaps by sharing the story of the Kurdish commander or the fighters who threw away their iPad—on Lara Notes, you can tag those who were present with Shared Offline, because certain conversations are worth remembering. This Note comes from the Conference on Resolution of Intractable Conflict: you’ve saved yourself over an hour of listening.