A matter of perspective yes, but one that relies heavily on how it is presented by the game mechanics. The old TMP for example: I suppose one way to look at it is that you get a bonus to your peasants' tax tolerance for going to war, but there was nothing overt to queue players that their serfs' tax tolerance was rising. You might not even realize at all that you could safely raise your taxes during a war, particularly if you were not the kind of player who learns about mechanics by coming to this forum. However, it was made quickly and *painfully* clear when that 'bonus' went away, as if you weren't paying close attention, region morale could suddenly plummet drastically within a few days due to your taxes suddenly being far too high. This made the effect feel like a penalty for peace, not a bonus for war.
The reason for this, in my opinion, is that many realms are, in fact, often at war. Therefore the ressources a realm has during wartime are defined as the "normal level", whether you want to call them bonuses or not.
The problem with TMP was not so much starting wars, it was what happened when they stopped. A realm that had been at war for a long time would get used to its war status. At some point, a realm could (*gasp*!) win the war. At that point it would be at peace. However TMP made winning look like a punishment. Moreover, because the realm had been at war prior and was used to it, it feels like it cannot go to war anymore because it is now not as strong as it was.
I think the idea of a war footing/peace footing as presented shows great promise to solve that problem. I think it is absolutely fine to give a bonus to a realm when it declares war - this would indeed incite realms to start wars. However, if this bonus diminishes with time, then actually winning the war will not feel like a punishment because nothing will be changing at that point. Moreover, starting a new war will not look impossible, it will look easier as intended.
