the postmodern war

Postmodernism is a philosophical school of thought that had a lot of currency till the mid of this decade, until some of the most prominent proponents died out.

Authentic experience of reality, according to postmodernists, is dead, if not dying. Though this is a somewhat fantastic notion, there is much to it, atleast the trajectory of the society is going that way. Because of technology, mass communication, pop culture, the permeation of media in every sphere of our lives, people in western societies have increasingly ceased to have subjective selves, but in fact live lives in narrow avenues of thought, constructed for them in a mass medium of manufacturing thought, just as increasingly human labour has increasingly been replaced by automated systems. imagine a virtual reality suit, or the matrix. And these artificially constructed, sanitized realities are as real as the ‘real’ reality.

And this is crucial. People who come back from the Gulf war, when interviewed, often used to say that shooting people or deploying bombs felt just like a video game.. or a particular movie. And using this fact.. games these days are constructed to simulate war conditions, such as Full Spectrum Warrior, on which soldiers are actually trained. In other projects, Marines are trained to react to emotional situations (an ‘emotional’ woman is holding her dying son, a crowd is forming, what do you do?) using computer simulations. Trained using ‘artificial’ emotions and artificial humans in order to perceive and react to ‘real’ people.

Before modernity, killing someone was the most personal, most real experience possible. Before modernity, killing someone wasnt like something you had ever played in a game or seen everyday, often in a feel-good context where the person deserved it.

And yet, 1000 people killed in Gaza. Mostly by pressing buttons, on screens that looked like something in a computer game. In the past, wars were brutal, casualties were often much, much higher, yet those actions were registered in the subjective souls of those killing. If nobody else, atleast your killer had to acknowledge your death, and give it some consequence, even if that is triumph and joy.

The brutal coldness of the warfare pioneered by the West, without conscience, without reflection, with increasingly diminished psychological import. For all the savagery of the jihadies, for all the necks that are slit, for all the bodies burnt, there is something still more callous about the technologically packaged, sanitized, only partly human western war.

Very good "philosophical" analysis.

Modern wars in fact have made the very concept of "war" obsolete. War was always about competition where the fittest, and technologically advanced side won. Muslim stories of wars are filled with examples where 1 Muslim soldier could take on 10 enemy soldiers. That in fact was the result of superior training, morale, and better war fighting skills.

Compared to almost all of human history, the most recent 300 years have seen a major change in war fighting. Mostly Europeans went through a rapid technical development and now they have produced the fittest and technically advanced militaries.

WWII was probably the last war that perhaps fits as a traditional war. Since then, the winners of WWII have advanced to such a level, that no one can compete with them.

Most of the wars after the end of WWII have been one-sided slaughter. Korean war, Veitnam war etc. all the way to GW II, the ratio was 1 death of European soldier to 100 (and sometimes 1000) deaths of their opponents.

Take the case of Vietnam war. Roughly 50,000 Americans died, while close to a million N. Vietnamese lost their lives.

Knowing the ruthlessness of the war, Europeans have devised modern methods where POWs are not killed and for uniformed armies Geneva convention is followed to large extent.

In summary -- Since WWII, one must think twice before starting a war. Yes this may be construed as cowardice by some, but committing suicide is not allowed either. And in modern wars, unless you can match satellite for satellite, plane for plane, ship for ship, and financial muscles, there is no point in fighting. It is just suicidal.

Humanity has certainly gotten better at perfecting projectiles and the methods used to transport such weapons. Undoubtedly there were those who thought the advent of the gun on the battlefield made war less personal than the weapons before it such as the bow and arrow which required a closer proximately to your enemy. And let's not forget our old brothers, the Neanderthals. They had very personal battles face to face with the use of clubs rather than any projectile weapons, does that face to face battle until death really make them less callous than a snipper or drone operator?

i know the point you're making. this is the rational consequence of human technological development. our lives are improved by the same technology in a million different ways. and yet this fruit of rationality can be ugly because it makes the brutal more efficient and dehumanizes. consider the bureaucratic efficiency with which jews/poles/other germans were killed in WWII. with neat little memos from middle managers sending train loads of people to concentration camps.. killed by a faceless bureaucracy. is modern bureaucracy the most efficient way of organizing people. yes. does that change the fact that this efficient and faceless murder is monstrous? this has only been extended now to the hand that pulls the trigger, so they too can be divorced and detached from what they're doing. it is also more than the increased range of weapons.. it is that killing someone has lost its meaning and consequence, with this immersion in media, with this similitude of games.

the act of killing is the act of killing. how it is done says a lot about the values you have. the western civilization is headed towards an almost unconscious, impersonal, semi-automatic, unreflective ... callously indifferent form of murder, where the consequences of what is done never registers... where there almost is no agent at all, where the notion of individual or collective conscience is anachronistic.

yes, one needs to be practical in the fights they pick, but that is not the point I wished to discuss. let us say there is a war. the way war is fought says a lot about your values.

and while a lot of people died in Gaza, I didnt intend to make the focus on how many people were killed. thousands of people have been killed in wars before as well. but there were consequences. the nature of the earlier wars changed the philosophical scene for example.. freud gained popularity because people started believing that after this kind of death and destruction one had to think that man in inherently irrational.

this is different.