What do you think?
Rate this book
Pourquoi la guerre ?
" Un brillant essai." Lire-Magazine littéraire
La guerre, pour reprendre l’expression du général Le Borgne, serait « morte à Hiroshima » il y a plus d’un demi-siècle. Et pourtant elle n’a jamais cessé.
Actes terroristes, conflits israélo-palestiniens et moyen-orientaux, implosion de la Yougoslavie, pays déchirés par les factions, sans même parler des autres guerres : économiques, psychologiques, informatiques, guerres des sexes ou des générations... L’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie a pourtant rebattu les cartes. Cette fois, dit-on, c’est le retour de la vraie guerre, avec ses exactions, ses horreurs, sa violence. Mais qu’est-ce qu’une vraie guerre ?
En convoquant de grands philosophes politiques, de Platon à Marx, en passant par Machiavel et Hobbes, ce livre tente de répondre à cette question, qu’elle accompagne d’une série d’autres : qu’est-ce qu’une guerre juste ? Quelles sont les forces morales engagées dans un conflit ? Est-ce l’État qui fait la guerre ou la guerre qui fait l’État ? Enfin, après avoir exploré les significations et les enjeux du spectre de la guerre « totale », il affronte l’ultime question : pourquoi la guerre ?
La guerre, pour reprendre l’expression du général Le Borgne, serait « morte à Hiroshima » il y a plus d’un demi-siècle. Et pourtant elle n’a jamais cessé.
Actes terroristes, conflits israélo-palestiniens et moyen-orientaux, implosion de la Yougoslavie, pays déchirés par les factions, sans même parler des autres guerres : économiques, psychologiques, informatiques, guerres des sexes ou des générations... L’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie a pourtant rebattu les cartes. Cette fois, dit-on, c’est le retour de la vraie guerre, avec ses exactions, ses horreurs, sa violence. Mais qu’est-ce qu’une vraie guerre ?
En convoquant de grands philosophes politiques, de Platon à Marx, en passant par Machiavel et Hobbes, ce livre tente de répondre à cette question, qu’elle accompagne d’une série d’autres : qu’est-ce qu’une guerre juste ? Quelles sont les forces morales engagées dans un conflit ? Est-ce l’État qui fait la guerre ou la guerre qui fait l’État ? Enfin, après avoir exploré les significations et les enjeux du spectre de la guerre « totale », il affronte l’ultime question : pourquoi la guerre ?
147 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 11, 2023
8 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
About the author
Frédéric Gros
62 books151 followersFrédéric Gros, né le 30 novembre 1965 à Saint-Cyr-l’École est un philosophe français, spécialiste de Michel Foucault. Il est professeur de pensée politique à l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 27, 2026
Gros makes very good points about war, and he comes up with some new stuff, but I don't feel like his construction of a comprehensive system of the ethics and processes of war is very novel. He uses the war in Ukraine (a return to a "traditional" war at first glance) as a jumping-off point to analyze how war has mutated and changed recently. Missing from the book is the genocide in Gaza, but I think the first French edition came out before Al-Aqsa Flood, so it's not intentionally egregious.
Still, Gaza even before 10/7 would have been a great case study, especially when Gros talks about how the idea of a black-and-white moral war is probably just an excuse for the crude and severely destructive weaponry that armies use today. The military operations that America and Israel have been running for a long time are focused on minimizing professional casualties on their side through drone and missile strikes with as few boots on the ground as possible, which inevitably leads to a lot of collateral civilian injuries and deaths; as a result, there has to be some sort of justification for why Iraq's innocent children are more worthy of death than America's adult soldiers who signed up knowing that they were supposed to be risking their lives. Gros says that this justification comes by way of "moral wars" in which one side is declared to be wholly evil and worthy of complete eradication. Ironically, says Gros, a war fought for "moral" reasons is deadlier than a war with set rules that treats it all like a big game, because in the second scenario they respect their enemy and don't need to cleanse the earth of evil.
I wish Gros analyzed the existence of the military draft. I've always said that Israel's universal conscription is an innovation that blurs the line between civilian and soldier, making them one and the same in the eyes of the IOF. Because there's no longer a distinct difference, Israel is able to determine that every Israeli soldier is actually a civilian that needs to be preserved at all costs and every Palestinian civilian is a soldier worth killing. Gros doesn't consider the idea that universal conscription turns soldiers into civilians while appearing to turn civilians into soldiers, but he does consider it from the other side: terrorists, by hiding among civilian populations, give the West enough flimsy justification to consider all civilians to be potential terrorists. I agree with Gros on that point, but I think that the situation is made even clearer when you contrast it with the responsibility that the West feels to take care of its own killers. America babies the murderers and murders the babies.
Still, Gaza even before 10/7 would have been a great case study, especially when Gros talks about how the idea of a black-and-white moral war is probably just an excuse for the crude and severely destructive weaponry that armies use today. The military operations that America and Israel have been running for a long time are focused on minimizing professional casualties on their side through drone and missile strikes with as few boots on the ground as possible, which inevitably leads to a lot of collateral civilian injuries and deaths; as a result, there has to be some sort of justification for why Iraq's innocent children are more worthy of death than America's adult soldiers who signed up knowing that they were supposed to be risking their lives. Gros says that this justification comes by way of "moral wars" in which one side is declared to be wholly evil and worthy of complete eradication. Ironically, says Gros, a war fought for "moral" reasons is deadlier than a war with set rules that treats it all like a big game, because in the second scenario they respect their enemy and don't need to cleanse the earth of evil.
I wish Gros analyzed the existence of the military draft. I've always said that Israel's universal conscription is an innovation that blurs the line between civilian and soldier, making them one and the same in the eyes of the IOF. Because there's no longer a distinct difference, Israel is able to determine that every Israeli soldier is actually a civilian that needs to be preserved at all costs and every Palestinian civilian is a soldier worth killing. Gros doesn't consider the idea that universal conscription turns soldiers into civilians while appearing to turn civilians into soldiers, but he does consider it from the other side: terrorists, by hiding among civilian populations, give the West enough flimsy justification to consider all civilians to be potential terrorists. I agree with Gros on that point, but I think that the situation is made even clearer when you contrast it with the responsibility that the West feels to take care of its own killers. America babies the murderers and murders the babies.
August 6, 2025
J'ai été déçu par ce livre dont j'attendais beaucoup. La guerre y est présentée comme une boucle perpétuelle. L'auteur ne remet pas en cause les perspectives de classes de la guerre et les rapports de dominations qu'elle entraine. L'auteur souligne que personne ne veut la guerre, ce qui est faux. Toute personne qui comprend moindrement le monde dans lequel nous vivons est à même de saisir que les grands capitalistes ne répudient pas la guerre lorsqu'elle est profitable pour leurs affaires. Je ressort de cette lecture en me disant que l'auteur n'a pas bien compris ce qu'est la guerre, qui la motive et dans quel but. L'auteur passe peut-être beaucoup de temps à citer des philosophes qui pnt réfléchis a la guerre du 17-18-19 e siècles et non à poser un regard critique et non occidental sur le monde dans lequel il vit.
1.3/5
1.3/5
October 20, 2025
As Gros sets the foundations with what war means, what war does to men, how the state manipulates and uses war, and in the end how we interact with each other in times of peace, you can see clearly a succinct philosophy of war.
If you’ve read Hobbes, Marx, Erasmus, Aristotle and Plato you can skip this, otherwise this is a great distillation of war holistically, historically and in the modern age. In 91 short pages, you can learn a wealth about the history and philosophy of war through the ages.
Thank you Verso Books and Netgalley for the ARC!
If you’ve read Hobbes, Marx, Erasmus, Aristotle and Plato you can skip this, otherwise this is a great distillation of war holistically, historically and in the modern age. In 91 short pages, you can learn a wealth about the history and philosophy of war through the ages.
Thank you Verso Books and Netgalley for the ARC!
February 11, 2026
Worth considering, at least. Covers a lot of war in the abstract. Skips over a lot of the pretenses that are fabricated in order to mobilize for war and the ways that wars are sold to a populace (pretend humanitarian efforts, deposing "dictators" of the narco variety, "national security"), but I guess there's plenty of that covered endlessly elsewhere, so this isn't necessarily a blind spot.
January 19, 2026
Occasionally a book comes out* that really captures the times and offers a cogent and convincing thesis that becomes a focus and moves us collectively on intellectually. Regrettably, this is not such a book. It has merit, a certain elegance of exposition. But woefully short, it reads like a very good Master’s dissertation, one worthy of a distinction but, practically, unable to make a dent in the weighty question it poses.
In so far as it does scratch the surface of the question – and this is more “what is war” rather than the promised “why do we fight” or “why war” – it has a use, and would be instructive to the layman. Too often we are emotionally (or politically) led to gross exaggerations when it comes to military conflict, and the detail gets lost. At the time of writing “warmonger” Trump has just bombed Venezuela, and people are beginning to fear his sabre-rattling over Greenland is sincere. To his credit, readers of Gros will probably have a more subtle manner of describing what kind of militarism this is – partly preventive, but one that subverts a rules-based order of jus in bello – rather than the more obtuse things thrown about.
But saying that, Grosz’s own conceptual framework is not really geared to understand some of the complexities of the emerging international order. One reason is it is not a job for a philosopher. Yet the author tends to generalise, and this is not helpful. Written against the backdrop of the invasion of Ukraine, one feels a disorientation, that the author is writing to work something out, rather than writing to explain what he has understood. The claim the invasion is a “total war” is very suspect, this perhaps better as a explanation of the state of Ukraine rather than the aggressor. It certainly describes the reality of Gaza quite well, and the mindset of the country committing (asymmetrically) the most slaughter.
It would take an essay longer than the book itself to unpick the problems in his argument, in so far as there is one. I think he would like to say we are entering a new paradigm, and the recent behaviour of Trump might have given him fuel for that, but Ukraine as he notes, upsets that. Sure there are technical innovations, drones and satellite communications in particular, but the fighting has many throwbacks to the second world war or Vietnam. If anything, the Ukraine war is extemporised. Russian probably thought Kiev would simply fall. It didn’t, so if the rule book was not totally thrown out, it is being rewritten as we speak.
To describe the opening move by Putin as a Blitzkrieg, is to be grossly unfair to Hitler (did I just say that!) Most wars are asymmetrical to a degree. Because advantage is found in asymmetry. Hence we don’t actually need to be so categorical when understanding it, because nuance gets lost and all must be oppositional.
* Thanks to Netgalley and the Publisher for an advance reader's copy of this book.
In so far as it does scratch the surface of the question – and this is more “what is war” rather than the promised “why do we fight” or “why war” – it has a use, and would be instructive to the layman. Too often we are emotionally (or politically) led to gross exaggerations when it comes to military conflict, and the detail gets lost. At the time of writing “warmonger” Trump has just bombed Venezuela, and people are beginning to fear his sabre-rattling over Greenland is sincere. To his credit, readers of Gros will probably have a more subtle manner of describing what kind of militarism this is – partly preventive, but one that subverts a rules-based order of jus in bello – rather than the more obtuse things thrown about.
But saying that, Grosz’s own conceptual framework is not really geared to understand some of the complexities of the emerging international order. One reason is it is not a job for a philosopher. Yet the author tends to generalise, and this is not helpful. Written against the backdrop of the invasion of Ukraine, one feels a disorientation, that the author is writing to work something out, rather than writing to explain what he has understood. The claim the invasion is a “total war” is very suspect, this perhaps better as a explanation of the state of Ukraine rather than the aggressor. It certainly describes the reality of Gaza quite well, and the mindset of the country committing (asymmetrically) the most slaughter.
It would take an essay longer than the book itself to unpick the problems in his argument, in so far as there is one. I think he would like to say we are entering a new paradigm, and the recent behaviour of Trump might have given him fuel for that, but Ukraine as he notes, upsets that. Sure there are technical innovations, drones and satellite communications in particular, but the fighting has many throwbacks to the second world war or Vietnam. If anything, the Ukraine war is extemporised. Russian probably thought Kiev would simply fall. It didn’t, so if the rule book was not totally thrown out, it is being rewritten as we speak.
To describe the opening move by Putin as a Blitzkrieg, is to be grossly unfair to Hitler (did I just say that!) Most wars are asymmetrical to a degree. Because advantage is found in asymmetry. Hence we don’t actually need to be so categorical when understanding it, because nuance gets lost and all must be oppositional.
* Thanks to Netgalley and the Publisher for an advance reader's copy of this book.
January 9, 2026
An elegant, incisive, and remarkably well-written meditation on war—its history, justifications, causes, and devastating aftermath. Though brief in length, the book is dense with insight, packing a wealth of philosophical reflection and historical analysis into just over a hundred pages. Gros’ prose is precise and refined, reminiscent of a French dissertation, with an impeccable structure in which every argument is clearly developed and supported by examples drawn from both historical conflicts and contemporary wars, including Russia and Ukraine. Tangents are kept to a minimum, making the book an efficient yet deeply rewarding read—one best enjoyed slowly, in comfort, despite its short length.
What makes this book especially powerful is its unflinching rejection of the idea of a “just” or “necessary” war. Drawing on thinkers like Hobbes, Gros shows how war is ultimately driven by greed, fear, and vanity, and how its costs—human, moral, and material—always outweigh any supposed gains. By the end, the reader is left not only feeling more intellectually equipped, but also profoundly grateful to live outside of war’s direct reach. This is an excellent, tightly argued book that makes one truth unmistakably clear: war is always a tragedy, and humanity is painfully slow to learn from it.
What makes this book especially powerful is its unflinching rejection of the idea of a “just” or “necessary” war. Drawing on thinkers like Hobbes, Gros shows how war is ultimately driven by greed, fear, and vanity, and how its costs—human, moral, and material—always outweigh any supposed gains. By the end, the reader is left not only feeling more intellectually equipped, but also profoundly grateful to live outside of war’s direct reach. This is an excellent, tightly argued book that makes one truth unmistakably clear: war is always a tragedy, and humanity is painfully slow to learn from it.
July 29, 2025
An elegant, extremely well-written book about war - history, causes, excuses and aftermath.
Frederic Gros' prose reads like a French dissertation. The structure is impeccable, each point is supported by historical examples (or recent events, like the current war between Russia an Ukraine). Tangents are reduced to a minimum, making for a very efficient read.
This is a short book, the type that you can read in an evening. Ideally, you want to be in the comfort of your home, cuddling your favorite blanket, and extremely comfortable.
You will feel more intelligent after reading it. But first and foremost, you will feel grateful. Grateful, because (as brilliantly elaborated by Hobbes) war is motivated by greed, fear, or vanity. You probably live in a country that is *not* at war - and for that, you are lucky. Because, despite all appearances and propaganda, war is a horrible thing. There is no good war, no "just" war. Even wars for greed will probably cost more than whatever the winning power will gain (especially accounting for lost lives). War is a tragedy, and an extremely costly one. It sure takes a long time for humanity to learn its lessons.
Thank you #NetGalley and Verso books for the ARC. And thank you Frédéric Gros for an excellent book.
Frederic Gros' prose reads like a French dissertation. The structure is impeccable, each point is supported by historical examples (or recent events, like the current war between Russia an Ukraine). Tangents are reduced to a minimum, making for a very efficient read.
This is a short book, the type that you can read in an evening. Ideally, you want to be in the comfort of your home, cuddling your favorite blanket, and extremely comfortable.
You will feel more intelligent after reading it. But first and foremost, you will feel grateful. Grateful, because (as brilliantly elaborated by Hobbes) war is motivated by greed, fear, or vanity. You probably live in a country that is *not* at war - and for that, you are lucky. Because, despite all appearances and propaganda, war is a horrible thing. There is no good war, no "just" war. Even wars for greed will probably cost more than whatever the winning power will gain (especially accounting for lost lives). War is a tragedy, and an extremely costly one. It sure takes a long time for humanity to learn its lessons.
Thank you #NetGalley and Verso books for the ARC. And thank you Frédéric Gros for an excellent book.
February 24, 2026
Tegu on reaktsioonilise pamfletiga täiemahulise Ukraina sõjategevuse puhkemisele. Autor arutleb sõja olemuse ning selle juurpõhjuste üle. Teose eesmärk ei ole kaardistada sõjapidamise, kui kontseptsiooni, filosoofilise mõtte kulgu. Eesmärk on anda autorile keelemudel, mis talle tuttav, ning rakendada seda oma seisukohtade ning veendumuste kanaliseerimiseks laia maailma.
Jah, me saame väga kena ja süsteemse ülevaate sõjapidamise teoreetilistest ideedest. Aga kahjuks ei leia me selget lõppakkordi mängitavale palale. Nagu kirjutasid filmikriitikud "Meie Erika" kohta - lõppeb siis, kui hakkab huvitavaks minema. Siin on sama mure - olles ülesrivistanud vajalikud malendid partii läbimängimiseks otsustab autor, et nüüd on tehtud!
Väga hea ja kergesti loetav sissejuhatus. Aga pealkiri indikeerib suuremaid ootusi teosele, kui tekst tegelikult meile anda suudab. Samas jääb siiski lootus, et ehk on oodata järge ...
Jah, me saame väga kena ja süsteemse ülevaate sõjapidamise teoreetilistest ideedest. Aga kahjuks ei leia me selget lõppakkordi mängitavale palale. Nagu kirjutasid filmikriitikud "Meie Erika" kohta - lõppeb siis, kui hakkab huvitavaks minema. Siin on sama mure - olles ülesrivistanud vajalikud malendid partii läbimängimiseks otsustab autor, et nüüd on tehtud!
Väga hea ja kergesti loetav sissejuhatus. Aga pealkiri indikeerib suuremaid ootusi teosele, kui tekst tegelikult meile anda suudab. Samas jääb siiski lootus, et ehk on oodata järge ...
January 28, 2026
War, what is it good for? Well, I don't really know. Frederic Gros' A Philosophy of War: Why We Fight offers a philosophical inquiry into the aspects of war. These include what it means of us returning to a world of war, the heroism versus barbarism of war, whether war can ever be just, states manufacturing war and total war. The chapters refer back to philosophy and different philosophical outlooks on war.
This book is through the lens of philosophy and does not have the expertise of the military. This is not a problem per se but it is worth mentioning. The book gives an overview of the different perspectives of war particularly total war and just war.
I would say this is a good read to understand the connections between philosophy and war.
This book is through the lens of philosophy and does not have the expertise of the military. This is not a problem per se but it is worth mentioning. The book gives an overview of the different perspectives of war particularly total war and just war.
I would say this is a good read to understand the connections between philosophy and war.
March 9, 2023
Un petit ouvrage de 145 pages exhaustives sur la guerre et pourquoi l'humanité la fait et l'a toujours faite ; les différents état de la guerre, son histoire et son évolution, ses justifications, ses lois et codifications, et la question abyssale, pourquoi les hommes la font. "Normâlité des guerres, chaque fois s'y rejouent, s'y réinstituent, s'y réassurent la séparation et la primauté du masculin". En convoquant les philosophes en illustration du propos.
January 4, 2026
This is more of a history of war than a philosophy of war- and it feels like it’s missing a lot. Whenever the author does head into anything that can be slightly philosophical, it’s just shallow. I don’t think he makes any moral or logical arguments of his own about anything, and it really does just feels like he’s just regurgitating other philosophers’ ideas about war. This was incredibly disappointing.
Thank you to Verso Books (US) for the Digital ARC!
Thank you to Verso Books (US) for the Digital ARC!
January 13, 2026
Very disappointing. More an essay on the historical genealogy of the justifications for war than a philosophy. Gros glosses over any role of political economy and provides no analysis of the systems at play, merely describing the timeline and defining terms while seemingly intentionally ignoring any nuance to the causes of the war in Ukraine, almost to the point of satire. I struggle to identify the intended audience for this work.
Read
August 2, 2023Un livre plutôt intéressant, bien sûr parfois compliqué.
Cependant, quelques petites choses ont altéré ma lecture : de nombreuses fois, le mot "homme" est employé à la place du mot "Homme", tout comme, il me semble, le mot "histoire" est employé à la place du mot "Histoire". De plus, quelques problèmes de ponctuation, avec plusieurs virgules manquantes.
Cependant, quelques petites choses ont altéré ma lecture : de nombreuses fois, le mot "homme" est employé à la place du mot "Homme", tout comme, il me semble, le mot "histoire" est employé à la place du mot "Histoire". De plus, quelques problèmes de ponctuation, avec plusieurs virgules manquantes.
May 2, 2024
Il libro non parla delle guerre che si sono effettivamente combattute, non parla di come gente normale si faccia convincere a morire e uccidere per difendere linee immaginarie sul terreno e non parla del nazionalismo - il che è strano visto che le guerre possono farle solo gli stati. Pensatori radicali come Marx e Foucault sono completamente assenti. A me è sembrato un saggio veramente carente.
March 11, 2026
An interesting and thoughtful bit on just what the title indicated. Doesn't so much propose solutions as describe the space in a way that is readable and interesting and, as always, very relevant. What it says about Ukraine can now be said about Iran and tomorrow about some other war. If war is eternal then the study of war and how to get to peace must be as well.
July 27, 2023
3.5
Gros nous donne une bonne petite pilule pour réfléchir à la guerre et à tout ce qui s'y rapporte. J'ai particulièrement apprécié les extraits et réflexions plus philosophiques qui nous amènent à réfléchir sur le pourquoi des conflits.
Gros nous donne une bonne petite pilule pour réfléchir à la guerre et à tout ce qui s'y rapporte. J'ai particulièrement apprécié les extraits et réflexions plus philosophiques qui nous amènent à réfléchir sur le pourquoi des conflits.
May 19, 2024
pourquoi pas finalement
July 25, 2024
3/5
Un livre très intéressant, qui explore les raisons de la guerre à travers l'histoire, la sociologie et la philosophie.
Un livre très intéressant, qui explore les raisons de la guerre à travers l'histoire, la sociologie et la philosophie.
April 12, 2025
J’ai pas compris mais je me suis senti intelligent
December 24, 2025
Je m’attendais à plus, et pas simplement une histoire de la guerre et de ce qui y découle
Read
February 5, 2026did not like it
February 26, 2026
Insightful book on why humanity wages war but it’s definitely a book that requires lots of tea as writing isn’t the easiest
February 23, 2026
I liked this, maybe I liked it because I haven’t studied politics and now just enough about history to be interested in it? Especially liked learning about different styles of war and underpinnings behind it. Some parts over my head but for someone who isn’t ’into’ philosophy engaging
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews