|
WARFARE AS SLAUGHTER
War may be waged in the name of a civilizational ideal, an ideology--or a nation. Whatever the symbol or entity, war is generated based upon a relationship between an idea or ideal, on the one hand, and killing and dying on the other.
People act to defend, support and to propagate ideals, ideas and nations in many ways. When people act to defend, support and propagate their ideals, ideologies and nations through acts of societally sanctioned killing and dying, then we have war.
War is a relationship between (1) an "X" factor in the name of which killing and dying occurs and (2) acts of killing and dying. Since the "X" factors vary from war to war (the causes), therefore the constant variable in war is (socially sanctioned) killing and dying. If there is conflict without killing or dying, we don't call it war.
The essence of warfare is the infliction of casualties, or slaughter. Historically, young men were that class of people that could be slaughtered: chosen sacrificial victims. The Second World War was notable in that this war expanded the categories of people that society deemed eligible to be slaughtered in the name of "X."
AVERTING OUR EYES FROM THE VICTIM
Today are less willing than they once were to die and kill in the name of sacred ideologies. Peoples' ties to grand narratives have loosened. We have become more conscious of the reality of what happens in battle: as a result of graphic movies and documentaries; and because of the profoundly significant "body bag" phenomenon that occurred during and after the Viet Nam war.
Television drew attention to the fact that dead bodies were are product of warfare. During Iraq war, the American government acted to draw attention away from dead and wounded bodies. Governments understand that people do not wish to be clear about the price of war.
Warfare revolves around killing and dying in the name of the sacred ideal--combined with a denial of what happens to the bodies of those who become victims of war. We prefer not to be reminded that soldiers' bodies are mutilated and destroyed in battle. Fantasies of glory--the excitement of propagating the sacred ideal--can be maintained to the extent that we repress awareness of the results of battle.
The son of Douglas Haig--British Commander-in-Chief during the First World War--reports that his father told him that he felt that it was his "duty" to "refrain from visiting the casualty stations because these visits made him physically ill." The French Commander Joffre--after pinning a military decoration on a blinded soldier in the same war--said to his Staff: "I mustn't be shown any more such spectacles. I would no longer have the courage to give the order to attack."
These two men--responsible for millions of casualties--did not want to know what actually happens to the bodies of soldiers in battle. They adopt heroic postures--leading the fight to defend their civilizations; but they did not wish to be reminded of the physical consequences of war.
Warfare revolves around slaughter in the name of a sacred ideal--combined with the desire to hide the dead and mutilated bodies. We "know" that slaughter occurs in war, but on a deeper level we do not know this. We avert our eyes and disconnect emotionally from the abject bodies of sacrificial victims.
Warfare involves the "good thing," on the one hand, one's beloved nation, sacred ideal or civilization; and the "bad thing," on the other--the body that is mutilated or destroyed. In warfare, the good thing cannot be separated from the bad thing. Warfare is slaughter in the name of the good thing. The fusion of the glorious ideal and abject suffering is what war is.
|