The creation of an enemy is one of the topics covered in Loss of Innocence, a documentary about the seductive appeal of War to man.

The basic argument is that the creation of an enemy is necessary for successful psychological push to convince a population that a war is beyond all means necessary. The historical record with regards to this idea is filled with evidence, consider World War 2.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, the US population did not want to engage with any war with either the 3rd Reich or Imperialist Japan. However the attack on Pearl Harbor solidified the case for war instantly, nearly a million Americans signed up, internment camps were created. Propaganda posters from the time show the Japanese as beastly beings, with slit eyes, yellow skin, fangs and claws. The enemy is dehumanized and generalized, even though in reality hegemony is never achieved, however there is a need to inherently dissolve their individuality to make them our enemies. The word 'Jap' became a derogatory term, in fact vocabulary is key in dehumanization of an enemy.

Vietnam followed the same path, with the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that made it seem like the NVA attacked US ships even though this was proven false. Vietnamese were portrayed as red communists, part of a larger threat embodied by Red China and the USSR based around the Domino theory. The words from that time - 'Gook', 'Victor Charlie', 'VC' and so on.

Iraq, Gulf War 1, the main drive for war publicly was the false testimony of Kuwait Embassy, the daughter of the ambassador was couched by a PR firm to relate a story of Iraqi troops pulling infant babies out of incubators. The public support increased instantly for going to War. The words - 'Sand nigger', 'Towel head', 'Hajji' most repeated now in the current war.

What is fascinating to me is that the enemy creation is necessary for violent acts of war, the same time it's seductive, its easy to psychologically develop an us vs them stand point, its simple. They are all guilty, they are all the enemy, so they must all perish so we can develop a better life for ourselves. But how do you tell a terrorist from a civilian? How do you not lash out at civilians who support the insurgents? Just like US troops lashed out at civilians in Vietnam because they knew or believed they helped the VC and NVA? When getting shot on a day to day basis by an unseen enemy, how does one not give into the urge to lash out against the civilians who you see everyday, there is a man there... in his early 20s combat age, he looks fiercely at your OP, his hands formed into tight fists, eyes like bullets. He bends down to pick something up, is it a stick? is it an RPG? Do I aim and pull the trigger?

To end evil we must commit great evil in kind, but we risking becoming evil ourselves for when we stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at us.

Great comment. Thank you for the link; I will watch it later. History is full of examples of people in power using scapegoats, events, or creating events in order to sway the public toward an action they want. I look at the PR campaign leading up to the Iraq war. Anyone who spent anytime researching the claims would have either dismissed the reasons and/or brought up serious objections. Or recognized the very coordinated effort by officials to imply nuclear threat against the US, but then later deny that they is what they meant. The American public was treated as a dupe and responded as one (as a whole.)

I don't agree with the assumption that we must commit evil to end evil. That is the difference between justice and revenge. We both know that Iraq was an unprovoked attack that had nothing to do with justice.

"The Sutras of Abu Ghraib" is a story of an American soldier who finds his belief in Buddhism strengthen over time to where he applies (and eventually gets) a conscientious objector discharge. The author does a good job of showing people, good people, bowing and giving up their morals in the face of group pressure and the stresses of occupying a hostile country. You will find the same type of behavior in this war (with racial slurs, etc.) Could this be a self defense mechanism by the soldier? Dehumanize the country's inhabitants because they can't tell which are hostile and which just trying to live their lives? It seems logical that this psychological defense would arise when you may hurt someone who is just trying to live their life. Winning and losing have little meaning when you lose yourself.

I agree that dehumanization is also a psychological defense, by dehumanizing you eliminate the enemy as being inherently human, its easier to kill then because you aren't killing human beings. Its a form of cognitive dissonance, that can be backed up by any number of reasons.

This can be seen in paintings, consider the Shootings of May 3rd by Goya, the killers have their backs to us, they are alien while those being shot at closer to us. We emphasize with those about to get killed through the emotions that play over each one. In other mediums like cinema we see it when an army is being assailed by a faceless nameless enemy, we are drawn to those whose plight we see, their attackers are distant, inhumane, this is done in alot of action films and especially in World War 2 movies. Our responses are being shaped in subtle ways.

Other forms of psychological lockdown also exist for example in Guantanamo Bay, troops there were trained to greet and acknowledge each other by the saying "Honor bound to defend freedom" . This is a psychological device to remind the troops of their mission and why there are there, its coercive because it eliminates internal criticism, the same could be seen in the armed forces post 9/11 where those events created the necessary ethical argument to committing evil acts in themselves. To against that flow was hard. Criticism was seen as lacking patriotism or worse aiding the enemy.

My statement that we must commit great evil to end evil is simply a realistic observation of man's involvement in war. Its the rationale that we create, this was the rational used in the Vietnam war, Gulf war, Serbia and other conflict. As if one nations atrocities are somehow better then anthers, but this is the view that most Americans are programmed to have. That Americans do no evil, that somehow their involvement is clean, just and required for the "survival of civilization as we know it against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism". Pretty words to simply justify a never ending war.

For me the issue is presented simply by the following quote - "Robert McNamara: I think the human race needs to think about killing. How much evil must we do in order to do good."

There is a speech by Chris Hedges talking about War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning - http://www.videosift.com/video/War-is-a-Force-that-Gives-us-Meaning-by-Chris-Hedges-1H

I recommend reading Chris Hedges - "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "Dispatches" by Micheal Herr.

I will put those books on my ever growing list of books to read.

My statement about not having to commit evil to end evil comes more from an ideological side. I truly believe that we don't have to commit evil to end evil. I believe that there are better ways and they have been shown to us, albeit rarely.

As for how the world currently exists, evil is committed to fight evil. It has happened many times in the past, present, and will in the future. But I still hold to the ideal that there is a better way. It is harder and I don't know if I will be able to ever make a difference in changing that attitude, but I have to try. It is an ideal that I will patiently "fight" for as long as I can.

Of course I'm not completely unaware of my own psyche. I realize that this impassioned feeling may be influenced by me being young (early 30's.) With that said, I've mostly followed what I feel is right in my heart and head throughout my life. This is something that I found no inkling of doubt about inside me.

From what I've seen in recent years (though it might be because I live and work in an academic setting), the concept of the "enemy" is a dying one in western culture. Personally I only consider myself to have one enemy--pleased to meet you, hope you guess his name--and more and more people are joining my camp. Since the end of the cold war, the death of racism (at least partially), and the rise of fast global communication, people have more opportunity to SEE foreigners and better understand them. We look at war as something fought between governments or organizations more than between citizens of two nations. We don't look at radical Islamic fascism as a nation. We see it as an organization within a nation (or nations really). We still perceive "your average citizen" as a friend in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So the enemy is the organization who's shooting at you. Even the MEMBERS of that organization are often viewed as victims more than enemies. For example, Iran is not an enemy, Ahmedinejad (by his insistence) is. North Korea is not an enemy, Kim Jong Il is.

Unfortunately that perspective is not reciprocated by the Jihadis. They certainly believe in the concept of the enemy. They would certainly not call a Jew, a Christian, or really any westerner a "friend" or and "innocent."

Of course there are still a HUGE number of people in the west still living with the WWII mentality of Us vs. Them, but in popular culture and in and "civilized" society, they are being marginalized and shunned like racists were 20 years ago.

As for what is evil and what isn't? People are evil in general, but that's beside the point; most people try to be good at least. I guess my opinion is that if someone is shooting at you and telling them to stop doesn't help, shooting them is not evil. Unfortunate maybe, but not evil. In an ideal world, you might be able to negotiate every argument, but in this world, some people only understand the sword.

War is stupid, but sometimes it's the only viable option. As long as there is a single Imperialistic convert-or-die religion (or philosophy), there will be war.

There does however see to be one thing that prevents war. MONEY. Rich countries don't fight. The only exception is when a country is trying to conquer land... or if you still have an insane dictator running your country into the ground. We will never be fighting the UAE for example. We are rich. They are rich. No loony leaders. Nobody wants to waste time fighting when we can be trading and getting richer. Prosperity is a profound deterrent of war. We've never been at war with a country that has McDonalds. When you're rich and prosperous, the only thing to fight over is land.

I disagree with that, countless times in history various parties have pronouced the end of war due to intellectualism, idealism or economic factors yet war and the concept of enemies remained.

Yes ideally we should be able to differentiate between enemies as a populace and enemies as organizations, but we are fallible, and most do not see it that way. This is helped on by the administration that hopes to push forward a perpetual war, remember how ominously it would proclaim not just a war on terrorism but a wider clash of cultures between Islam and Christianity. Not helped at all by President Bush's constant usage of Judeo-Christian concepts in his speeches at the start of the war.

The majority of the population does not see the differentiation at all, most Americans have no seen foreigners unless you happen to live in multicultural cities and along the coastal areas. Further feelings of xenophobia abound, as well as racism, how many people have I seen fidget nervously on airplanes at the site of a Muslim wearing the dishdasha.

Popular culture does not shy away from these concepts, rather it utilizes them to build upon preconceived notions. The administration never says we are fighting against a particular person, we are always against Iran or North Korea acquiring nuclear material, as if the entire population of those countries is hell bent upon that singular issue. The wider contextualized story is never presented, such as the aspects of why such nations would choose to be so hostile to the US.

I do not believe that people are inherently evil or inherently good either, I believe people are inherently selfish, the concepts of good and evil are simply built upon by social influence most of the time, it is better to be good because of law individually, but the morality compass can sway either direction depending on how it would benefit your actions. People are far more motivated by fear then any other emotion. This is manifested in fear of Islam, fear of terrorism, fear of death and so on. Again factors used in manipulation of the masses.

I also disagree with your thinking that religion or philosophy is in any way the driving force behind the conflicts we witness today, those are merely facilitators of acquisition of power.

I recently read Ahmed Rashid's Taliban, which chronicled the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Pakistan and Afghanistan, it was clear that the Islam created was a fallacy, it wasn't Islam more as it was Pushtan tribal traditions coated around an Islamic undertones, stripped of over 2000 years of Islamic scholarship to something totally alien. This is not real Islam as its world participators know it but a sabotaged form of it.

I would agree that wealth dissipates war but not entirely, consider Saudi Arabia, a country that is the largest exporter of Oil, yet most of its population lives in utter subjugation due to a fundamentalist strict Wahhabi version of Islam that sustains the Saudi Royal family in power and in control of the oil resources while rich its wealth does not reach most of its population who are then converted to anti-western sentiment by the government controlled religious schools who preach it so that criticism of the Royal family never flourishes. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. But there is a benefit to the US and Saudi Arabia of this going on, because the US assures defense and support despite a brutal and authoritarian regime, SA assures the supply of oil and foreign funds to the US.

This is a case of economic development still fostering conflict in the future, the same is for the Western actions when it comes to dealing with nations like Iran and North Korea, mainly by marginalizing them and cutting them off from economic development by way of sanctions.

Globalism might assure more reasons not to commit to war in the future, but it will not prevent it, because war is not derived from ideology but from power, western capitalism depends on a imbalance of power to thrive and if the scales are tipped in the favor of power in the hands of one nation over others it will lead to eventual conflict.

Hi Doc_M. Thank you for taking time to comment. I appreciate it.

I would like to make a few comments. It may seems a somewhat linear because I am tired.

First, I was listening to the radio earlier today. It was an interview with Rich Steves. There was talk about marijuana legalization of course, but then I found out he is currently trying to get permission to take a trip to Iran to visit the people. He mentioned that 90% of Iranians love Americans and he wants to expose that in his show. Funny how coincidences work, isn't it?

I think the internet is a wonderful tool for people to learn about other cultures. However it will not normally change someone's preconceived ideas. I think all people would benefit from being thrown into a culture where suddenly you are the odd one. You are the one with all the weird habits. Nothing quite drives home the concept that we are all different (and there are real, historical reasons for this) like that experience. With that said, I know that the internet has brought exposure of other cultures to many people and is an invaluable tool.

I think that Jihadis, along with every fundamentalist group, will not see reason. Fundamentalism breeds contempt for things that are different because if they are different, they are wrong.

I agree that there is much Us vs Them mentality today. It is propagated and used by many groups to their advantage: media for high ratings, leaders for a direction of action, etc. However, in my mind, the Us vs Them and the use of enemy create the same barrier and attitude. It seems as if we are on the edge of semantics.

Farhad beat me to the people are selfish, not evil... I don't like the word evil. It is used so often these days. There is a wide range of meaning of evil depending on who you talk to. With some people that are in my life, evil has become a word that has become like enemy and has a wide range of meanings (just for that one person) depending on who they are talking about.

Goodnight.

great post.

the real-life Billy Pilgrim is buried here in my home town: Rochester, NY.