/32/ - Psychopolitics

Interesting observations anon. I would say that the motivations for war are becoming increasingly economically focused, and it's unsettling to note the many private military contractors playing the big roles in the Middle East right now.

Now to the actual psychopolitical analysis. Most of the effects you're seeing now are more likely caused by withholding information relating to the actual goal and interests involved with the current wars, or at the least swaying the public to be inclined to believe that any current war benefits the country. The patriotic conditioning is of course tied to respect for the military and nation and any disapproval of the war will be tired, often by popular consensuses, to being unpatriotic.

In response to the second question it is certainly indicator of underlying commercial interests not only prevalent in warfare, but also in politics as a whole. I wold not say this is necessarily a logical development of warfare.

Low-income, males, usually from ages 17-28 are the most reasonable targets for military recruiting for a number of reasons. The first being that there are limited opportunities for employment or education given the lack of money available. Poorly educated men for low-income backgrounds may see this as a means of upwards mobility that would not require getting a degree. It's highly unlikely given the commercial focus of the upper branches of the government and military that this demographic is being chosen for any other reason except for their susceptibility.

Well that's my attempt at analyzing.

It seems erroneous to think that modern wars are not motivated by the well-being of a nation's people while the ones of earlier times were. Firstly, because the economic factors that can act as causes for hostilities between nations can also be major factors in the well-being of those nation's populations. In fact, one can trace a good deal of the most common problems that a society faces to economic causes. The problem arises when the well-being of a handful of companies is confused with the well-being of a country's economy in general: certainly very few people would try to save a studio that made snuff films with the justification that letting any media company go under would incur great loss to the film industry in general.

The second problem is that economic motivations have been central to warfare for a very long time, just look at the Punic Wars. Despite the notions of nobility and honor, our ancestors were men such as we, and equally likely to be motivated by greed and pride.

Thus, a discussion can be started not only on your questions, but on your subject. The search for what makes a war "just" has been going on for as long as there has been war, and is likely to continue for as long as it exists. Notions of justified use of violence between nations vary according to the historical and cultural context in which such conflicts take place, but it is generally accepted that war is less advantageous for all parties involved than being in peace. Yet, all throughout history nearly every nation has been at war at one point or another, and while many have not initiated such conflicts, the choice of violent resistance over peaceful submission is still one that should be looked over. This can be attributed in part to the fact that societies, by nature, are managed by small groups of individuals, who are usually a minuscule fraction of the total population. This obvious observation has as a consequence the fact that one does not need to convince the whole group of the necessity of war, only the smaller group in charge of making decisions to whom the rest of the society has agreed to transfer control over themselves. Without going much further into what is one of the central psychopolitical matters, those who are in control of a society usually have a great influence on who they share their influence with and who will succeed them, as such, it is expected that personal interests of those who are part of that group will affect society as a whole.

>Is it possible to educate the population at large about the commercial aspect of war, or is the patriotic conditioning too strong in most people? If so, how?

I personally believe that it is possible, although not while these efforts are intentionally being opposed by those in positions of power. A mass disillusion would require not only great competence and reach on the part of those hoping to expose the hidden motives of war, but also a great deal of mistrust of those in power from the population. This second factor would likely have other consequences first, since it is easier to blame a concrete individual than a disembodied concept such as patriotism. But I should also note that as far as I see it, not all patriotism is bad, and trying to destroy it can have unforeseen negative consequences for a society (I'm sure anarchists will disagree).

(1/2)

>>1936

(2/2)

>Is the increase in the use of private military contractors an indicator of these hidden interests, or is it a natural and logical development in warfare?

Both. Hiring a top-tier private army can be more effective than maintaining larger armed forces, and better than having to resort to a draft. There are undoubtedly situations where it makes no only financial but tactical sense to use PMCs.

>Is the targeting of young, low-income, poorly educated men by the recruiting apparatus morally reprehensible, or are they merely offering another option to a demographic that has few of them?

I see any effort to make men overcome their most basic instincts and become able to kill other human beings in an industrial scale as a deeply disturbing thing, regardless of the social placement of those men (or women). The young and poorly-educated are targeted because of how well they react to the conditioning, and the fact that they are poor is usually tied with the second, as well as being an extra encouragement from them to take any stable employment they can get. I am currently reading "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Grossman, and the mental toll that falls on humans when they are forced to commit acts that go against their very nature is testament to how abhorrent system that is currently in place is.

I agree with the previous poster in the sense that honesty would be a refreshing stance to be seen from our rulers, not only when it comes to matters of war. Truthful and accessible information would be perhaps the solution of a great deal of political and moral problems, not only when it comes to nations. But that is another discussion. Something related to that is the idea of men going into war out of their own volition, and conscious of the reasons behind the conflict. Two situations come to mind: mercenaries and religious fanatics.

Mercenaries choose to fight purely for personal gain, both in the sense of the money and their search for adventure. They have no illusions about their reasons to fight, and do so fully aware of the futility of trying to justify their actions from the perspective of "normal" individuals. Perhaps the only completely moral war would be one that was fought exclusively between mercenary forces somewhere where no civilians or their property could be damaged.

Religious fanatics are another possibility, as long as the religious leaders themselves also believe in the justification being used for the conflict (i.e. are being honest).

Naturally this is all meaningless if there are uninvolved victims (as it is usually the case). I'll end my post with a quote from M*A*S*H:

Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.

Father Mulcahy: How do you figure, Hawkeye?

Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?

Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.

Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.

>>1934

>the patriotic conditioning too strong in most people

>natural and logical development in warfare

>both morally reprehensible and offering another option to a demographic that has few of them

the only solution is to wipe out every aggressor until it is known that no digression from the norm is tolerable