The use of racial and ethnic epithets--to include the most common term, hadji--must be banned by junior leaders and that ban must be enforced and its rationale explained. Furthermore, junior leaders must emphasize the common humanity between soldiers and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan
Racism can be a lens through which Soldiers view the war they are facing. Their level of racism - or lack thereof - is a huge factor is the likelihood of abuse, torture and war crimes. At its most "innocuous" level, racism is little more than calling Iraqis or Afghans "hadjis." This is extremely common among all the Soldiers I have encountered, no one thinks anything about it. Yet is it also the insidious underpinning upon which a My Lai or Abu Graib can be built. This sounds like an overly harsh statement, and I do not mean that anyone who uses the pejorative "hadji" likely to commit a war crime. But a racism dehumanizes the enemy, and in its most extreme cases, provides the transformation that can allow a Soldier to commit abuses.
A cursory overview of wars in the 20th century supports the racism - abuse link. What allowed Soldiers fighting in Europe to converse, even play football with the enemy, during lulls in combat? This would have been unthinkable on the Pacific front, or in Vietnam. While the nature of these wars were different (especially with regards to the guerrilla aspect of Viet Nam) and the brutality of the enemy was certainly a factor, race, ethnicity and the resulting lack of a common humanity were a significant factor. Enemy combatants in Europe looked like Americans, there were cultural similarities due to America's immigrant population. It is hard to dehumanize the enemy when he looks a lot like you. There were no such limitations in Asia/the Pacific. When the enemy has a different skin color, when he is rice farmer in Vietman, or a Pashto herdsman, when the common humanity is not as obvious, racism comes easier. And racism, if encouraged or unchecked can ultimately contribute to the war crimes that stain the military's history.
8 comments:
You're absolutely right. HR McMaster banned the use of the hadji for his regiment and I am going to for my platoon.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that wars fought between peoples of different races tend to be more fierce and more bloody. Can anyone confirm or find a source for this?
but we did dehumanize our german enemies...we called them Huns and had posters scaring our little kids that the evil hun, with dark grey skin and evil red eyes was coming to get them. yes there are stories about lulls in combat and both sides coming together...however there are also horror stories and I can guarantee that when SS units were caught that similar atrocities happened--only diff in WWI and WWII they didnt have CNN following them around
and Ive always heard that wars b/w the same race are much more brutal...I dont have any proof, I just remember civil wars being an example of why thats true
You will note that I didn't claim that we did not dehumanize our German enemies. I claimed that it is more difficult to dehumanize the enemy when he looks much like you.
i will concede that fact, but the point still remains that every enemy we have had--has been dehumanized. its simple psychology...killing other human beings is inherently wrong and yet it is our job therefore in order to stay sane you have to dehumanize them, whether it be hun, japs, charlie, haji...its always been there and always will be. War is nasty and brutish, it cannot be fought effectively on a "higher" humane level...if that was the case then the need for war wouldnt exist. so i would argue it might be harder...but necessary to dehumanize an enemy--more so when they look and act like you
furthermore...you still have the case of civil wars being the most brutish and evil type of war. In such wars you are fighting your own family and the brutality and horrors that come from these wars far outstrip any atrocities committed in any "regular" war.
I had no idea this prompted such a good debate. For my two cents, it's clear there was significant dehumanization of the "krauts" in WW2 but it wasn't as much as the Japanese because they were more like us, not just in superficial race but also in belief system. That was not true for the devoted Nazis and would imagine we probably did kill a lot of SS POWs.
At the same time, I don't think it is necessary to dehumanize someone in war. Personally, I can feel compassion for them but the truth of the matter is that because of our respective life circumstances I have to kill him. Generally, dehumanization is bad if it leads to a focus on killing bad guys. If you've done your job well you should be able to destroy his organizational system or political base and take him alive.
Post a Comment