What I'm anticipating to see in my research is that many wars that ended big began over small things. The political scientist also argues that the aims of the belligerents, and ultimately the final settlement of the war, reflect the degree to which each side needs a quick settlement. Domestic politics is often central to undertaking and ending wars because state leaders recognize that delaying settlements or accepting compromise settlements may have significant domestic repercussions. In our time, the Vietnam War illustrated the centrality of domestic concerns. Democracy is a double-edged sword in warfare, Werner said.
Democratic leaders are under a lot of domestic pressure about the costs of a war.
On the other hand, because democratic leaders are held more accountable than despots for a successful foreign policy, they feel pressure to win any war they've entered. By the late '60s, the domestic costs were mounting, as more Americans came to believe that achieving victory would be meaningless. Finally, Werner is looking beyond peace to see if a settlement provides tinder for a future war. The bargaining framework leads me to anticipate that the settlement should be durable as long as the bargaining position stays the same. If there is a regime change or one party grows faster than another, the result could be renewed conflict.