[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The article isn’t a very good description of dehumanization during a war. More about racism and stereotyping.
All combat is by it’s very nature dehumanizing in that it is very difficult to kill another man. You must fight for something in war, whether it be land, revenge or a way of life. You need to dehumanize the enemy to kill. You shoot a soldier not a man. You aim to destroy a tank not it’s occupants. The death of the man is a consequence.
The Unites States isn’t fighting for land, the most common of all disputes, particularly in European history. The US is fighting for an ideal and a way of life. We want the world to live terror free and Democratic. The enemy doesn’t. We are also trying to hobble the terrorists and kill as many of them as possible. They would prefer we didn’t and have enlisted fellow travellers and the ever present useful idiots as allies. The weak resent this. The opinion of the enemy is of no concern.
First world nations don’t fight each other anymore because they are run by reasonable and pragmatic men. Much of the ME is not run by reasonable and prgmatic men and they also subscribe to an idealogy that breeds fanaticism and gives moral authority to kill those who don’t believe in the same God. Bad combination.
The world is slowing waking up to the seriousness of the situation. This spells bad news for the ME. The problems will be dealt with and the West is growing weary of the threat and is beginning to realize that peace with many of these countries is quite hopeless. The US has the might to deal with it. Others don’t. In the end the US will prevail, the level of pain that causes the ME is really up to them.
Good post, Hedo.
I would add that the “dehumanization” angle is more of a “pop theory” than anything quite reliable as real criticism. After all, war is full of hard, difficult choices, and “total war” advocates believe that the trade-off of a harsher war actually saves lives in the long run.
By any measure, isn’t the desire to fight more ruthlessly now to save more lives later the very opposite of “dehumanization”, whatever that trendy term means?
From the looks of “dehumanization theory” - which flirts with false conciousness conspiracies of radical politics (“the media dehumanizes people so as to get people on board with the war”, etc.) - it is another venture down the road of “feel-good” policy that does little to actually prevent harm from being done. War is awful and hellish - trying to “humanize” it according to this theory will only make wars drag on, for one simple reason: unless “dehumanization theory” is the lowest common denominator, then someone will always use its precepts to take advantage of their opponent.
Such a hope is mere utopian fantasy - an illusory hope that suddenly your enemy will lay down their arms and experience an epiphany of loving behavior. If war has taught us anything it’s that human nature won’t work like that, so fighting wars like that is a recipe for wasted lives.
Wage war to win and to break the back of your opponent. That doesn’t always mean “carpet bomb” - but it does mean teaching your enemy to fear you and to think twice about raising arms against you in the first place. “Dehumanization theory” is a trip down a familiar, dangerous road - and should be resigned to coffee house and never the war room.[/quote]
T Bolt
I will agree that the dehumanization aspect, as quoted in the Wikpedia entry reeks of pop culture. As I saud I think it adressed racial and ethnic stereotyping more then anything else.
My opinion is that the theory of fighting wars is often debated among pundits, generals and the general population and much of this takes place in the comfortable vacuum of academia and coffee houses. In the field combat hasn’t changed very much on the gut level. Kill your enemy, quickly and w/o pity. Whether this is done with a rock, sword or M-1a1, the goal is the same. A soldier from the civil war or WW1, could with some training adapt to the modern battlefield. My thoughts on the dehumanization process are the key of the combat soldier to cope with killing his enemy. If he views him as a man then he will hesitate and lose. He must view his enemy as an objective and the means to an end in order to maintain his sanity. This is how it has been for all times, in my opinion. This view must be shared by the civilian population and visited upon the enemy if war is to have an outcome worthy of the sacrafice. The US didn’t start this latest go around, despite what the apologists say. The enemy has no one to blame but themselves. The civilians will suffer for the mistakes of a few…they always do.
I’ve always thought that the military must remain lethal, deadly and feared and when objectives are set the civilians must back off and let them work. Dehumanizing absolutely. Effective yes. Most of the discussion about winning hearts and minds has never worked and to be honest will never work. It goes against human nature. This hasn’t changed in centuries and I see these concepts as merely passing fads.
I think the total war concept will be used in the coming years. Our enemy will require it to be defeated. Our citizens will demand it eventually. You will see as radical change in the world order as the world did after WW2.
When will the US take the gloves off? After the Islamic Radicals detonate a WMD in the US. I don’t think anything else will initiate it and I don’t think the population will settle for anything less when it does. By the way the US could lock the gates and isolate itself right now and it will not stop the activities and agenda of the enemy. It’s fine to understand the enemy but it is foolish to agree with him or accept his advice on how to fight him.