Posted at Jan 28/2010 08:39PM:
Prof. B: Some of the things I'm seeing coming out of this discussion in terms of categories of our thoughts on what defines war (and add comments below if you disagree or want to elaborate!):
Who are the actors? (parties involved, fighters, decision-makers) What are the means? (violence, dehumization, destruction, fear)
What are the outcomes, desired or achieved? (win/loss, contact, advancement (and technological and economic issues can be both outcomes and inputs as we discussed))
What is the scale? (series of events, number of actors)
Maybe we should take this further and continue to brainstorm whole categories of things that are necessary to define warfare instead of just specific facts/numbers/motivations etc?
Posted at Feb 15/2010 09:20PM:
Anish K. Mitra: I remember someone in class making a comment implying that all battles, especially those fought during the Egyptian time period, were essentially "massacres." (This was during the period when we were trying to differentiate between battles and massacres)
I would just like to respond with the idea that while people can certainly be "massacred" within a battle, I do not think the amount or nature of violence actually determines whether or not an encounter is a battle, melee, massacre, etc.
I think the issue has more to do with purpose. As I suggested in class, I believe battles are the building blocks of war; staying on this train of thought, I believe the main characteristic of a massacre which differentiates it from a battle is that the excess killing, destruction, etc. might not be necessary for winning the war or for purposes of the battle. While there may be some added advantages (fear, word-of-mouth rumors about how dangerous the army is, etc.), a massacre, at some minimal level, is probably unnecessary and may not add any strategic value in the same way conducting a battle might.
-AKM
I'd also add (this is Prof. B now) that the notion that all Egyptian battles were massacres is based on very one sided evidence, usually deployed in ritual settings. So in addition to questioning the relationship between battle and massacre, we have to ask if in fact our evidence is good that there WERE massacres in ancient Egypt. It seems pretty secure that some people are killed after the battle, but it's also totally clear that in most cases most people weren't killed - all those captives that get brought back! But even if massacre isn't deployed as an actual move on the ground (might not, as you say, add anything of value towards gaining objectives) it was definitely part of gaining the ritual objectives of depicting war. This then forms a great example of why depictions might not be accurate and should be treated with care - objectives were different in the "real" world and in the ideological and religious realm.
Posted at Feb 17/2010 11:22AM:
Prof. B: What about the notion of battle and whether or not we are in fact entering something of a post-battle style of war? If we are, how might this be shifting a quite ancient paradigm of western war, what it means both in practical terms on the ground and in terms of what we might call the ideology of modern war?
In fact the other day I read an article in the paper that basically had a bunch of soldiers in Afghanistan crying foul because they were being forced to follow rules - one of those definitions of warfare that Carman gives - and the insurgents weren't. And the "insurgents" knew about the rules and totally used their knowledge that the US guys had to follow them to their advantage. Like they know they can't be shot while not holding a weapon, so they shoot from cover, drop their weapons, walk openly to another place where weapons are cached, and resume shooting. And the US guys felt simultaneously hampered on a tactical level and understanding of the strategic importance of limiting civilian casualties to win the "hears and minds" aspect of the "battle".
