SNIP
>What he means is that in any war there are, of course, huge personal sacrifices made and acts of incredible heroism. Individuals go above and beyond the call of duty and often pay the most terrible price. But ultimately, from a nation state perspective, wars are fought for self-interest. No country goes to war, has ever gone to war in his opinion, without self-interest as the primary motivator. And more often than not self-interest boils down to the protection, or accumulation, of wealth; land, resources, etc. If good can be done against evil at the same time, so much the better. But without a self-interest motivator, a country does not go to war.

>If one accepts this position then one must always be careful when bragging about how country A saved country B and how grateful B should be because of it. Because, ultimately, A saved B for A's own self-interest and there is a difference between altruism and self-interest. In both cases A may well have saved B, but not for B so much as for A.

Exactly. I think the only 'altruistic' wars were the crusades - some were fighting for God and not country or personal interests (and then that was not the case with all). Look at how that turned out! That's a separate discussion entirely (what people will do in the name of religion or for power...)...

However, leaders have played on their countrymen's altruistic nature and need to 'do the right thing' to gain support for the war.