9.1: Chapter Introduction and Objectives

War and Terrorism

Learning Objectives

1. Analyze War and Terrorism through Sociological Theories: Understand the application of conflict theory, functionalist and symbolic interactionism to the study of war and terrorism. Examine historical contexts like world wars and United States wars to understand war as a social phenomenon. Explore how ideologies, prejudices, and sociopolitical changes contribute to the inception and continuation of wars.
2. Explore the Social Impact of War: Investigate the broader social consequences of war, including the effects on civilian populations and veterans. Understand the prevalence and impact of rape and sexual assault in war contexts, and explore the societal challenges in supporting and rehabilitating American veterans. Examine other impacts of war, including on population, ideology and social structures.
3. Examine Military Policies and Efforts to Prevent War and Terrorism: Analyze militarism, the U.S. military budget, and its implications from an international perspective, including U.S. arms exports. Understand terrorism as a global and sociological issue, including strategies for preventing war and stopping terrorism and how is terrorism defined. Explore sociological perspectives on global efforts to address and mitigate the causes and consequences of war and terrorism.

War and Terrorism

Chapter Introduction

Real World Application: Gaza

From a sociological standpoint, the protracted conflict in Gaza, part of the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can be analyzed through various lenses, including those of power dynamics, social identity, and the consequences of prolonged conflict on societies.

The Gaza conflict is deeply rooted in a complex history of territorial disputes (colonization), religious significance, national identity, and geopolitical interests. Sociologically, it is a manifestation of ethnic and nationalistic tensions exacerbated by historical grievances and competing narratives of victimhood and justice. This conflict is not only about land and sovereignty but also about the identity and recognition of people's right to self-determination.

One key aspect from a sociological perspective is the concept of in-group and out-group dynamics. Both Israelis and Palestinians have strong in-group identities forged through shared history, culture, and experiences of conflict. These identities are often in opposition to each other, leading to a heightened sense of "us versus them." This dynamic is further complicated by internal divisions within both Israeli and Palestinian societies, such as political factions and differing ideologies.

Additionally, the conflict in Gaza illustrates the concept of structural violence, where social structures or institutions harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. In Gaza, the blockade and frequent military confrontations have led to severe economic hardships and health crises, affecting the daily lives of its residents. These conditions can perpetuate a cycle of violence, where oppressive structures lead to resistance, often met with further oppression.

Moreover, the role of international actors and global public opinion plays a significant part in the sociological analysis of the Gaza conflict. International policies, humanitarian aid, and media coverage significantly influence the course of the conflict and the lives of those affected by it. One example of this is the South African government submitting a case on December 29th, 2023 to the United Nations International Court of Justice that charged the Isreali government of genocide in Gaza. On January 26th 2024 the ICJ ruled that Isreal must comply in doing “all in its power to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza” (Amnesty International, 2024).

In summary, the ongoing conflict in Gaza provides a complex case study in understanding how historical, cultural, and social factors intertwine in prolonged conflicts. It underscores the importance of examining the deeper sociological underpinnings behind such conflicts, including issues of identity, power dynamics, and the impact of structural violence on societies.

Real World Application: Ukraine

The war in Ukraine, which escalated significantly in 2022 with the Russian invasion, comes nearly eight years after the democratically elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent coup by pro-western protesters, the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian government, and the failure of Ukraine to follow the Minsk Accords. This situation offers a complex and multifaceted case study from a sociological perspective, particularly in the context of understanding modern warfare, national identity, and geopolitical dynamics.

Sociologically, the conflict can be viewed through the lens of national identity and sovereignty. Ukraine's struggle against Russian military aggression is not just a territorial conflict but also a battle for national identity and self-determination. This is particularly evident in the context of Ukraine's historical relationship with Russia, including the Soviet era, and it's more recent aspirations for closer ties with Western Europe. The conflict has galvanized a sense of Ukrainian national identity and has seen widespread domestic and international support for the Ukrainian cause, while at the same time causing international outrage towards the Ukrainian government for corruption and refusing to negotiate a peace deal with Russia.

Another critical aspect is the role of information and propaganda in modern warfare. The Ukraine war is taking place in an era of unprecedented information technology, where both sides use digital media to shape narratives, mobilize support, and conduct psychological operations. This “information warfare” is a crucial component of the conflict, influencing public opinion both within the combatant countries and internationally. The censorship by social media platforms and governments to not allow journalists or government-funded media (e.g., RT News) to present investigative reports on the Ukrainian master-narrative has also impacted public opinion.

The war also highlights the dynamics of international relations and the global order. The conflict has had significant implications for international law, with accusations of war crimes and breaches of international norms. It has also impacted global alliances and power structures, with NATO and the European Union playing significant roles in the response to the conflict and the global south countries standing behind Russia’s military operation and goal to create a multi-polar world. The sociological impact of these geopolitical shifts is profound, affecting international relations, global security, and economic stability.

Furthermore, the human cost of the war is a critical area of sociological concern. The conflict has led to significant human suffering, with thousands of deaths, massive displacement, and a humanitarian crisis. The war's impact on civilians, including the psychological trauma of living in a war zone, the disruption of communities, and the long-term effects on health and well-being, are crucial areas of study.

In conclusion, the war in Ukraine offers a contemporary example of the complexities of modern warfare and its sociological implications. It encompasses issues of national identity, information warfare, international relations, and the human cost of conflict. Understanding these facets is essential for comprehending not just the conflict itself, but also the broader implications it has for global society and international order.

The following text is remixed under the CC-BY License Social Problems: Continuity and Change v. 1.0 | Chapter 16 Understanding Social Problems | OER | published by Saylor Academy | 2012 | CC BY NC SA |War and Terrorism Saylor Academy 2012

Social Problems in the News

“War Crimes Haunt Iraq Vet,” the headline said. In the early 2000s, John Milton, a pseudonym, joined the Army and was sent to Iraq. There he served as a medic but was also armed. At age 21, he and five other soldiers were driving one day back from a beer run when a small bomb hit their vehicles. One of the soldiers died instantly, but the others survived and shot the bomber. As the bomber was lying on the ground and needing medical attention, the soldiers began to punch and kick him. Instead of tending to the bomber’s injuries, Milton fatally shot him in the head.

In the years since his military service ended, Milton’s war crime has haunted him. He continues to have nightmares and cannot get rid of his guilt. He talked with a psychiatrist at a Veterans Administration hospital, but that did not help because the psychiatrist “didn’t understand what [he] was talking about.” Before he entered the Army, Milton said, he “used to love being around people, but no more.” He was thinking of moving from his home in New Jersey to a quieter, emptier state like Montana or Wyoming.

Milton also remembered being ordered to euthanize wounded but treatable Iraqi soldiers, yet another war crime. After he did so several times, he decided he could no longer in good conscience follow those orders. He recalled, “I can still see every one of their faces, individually, exactly what they looked like that day.”

Source: Bykofsky, 2012Bykofsky, S. (2012, February 10). War crimes haunt Iraq vet. Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120210_Stu_Bykofsky__War_crimes_haunt_Iraq_vet.html.

Great war novels like The Red Badge of Courage and War and Peace highlight the heroism and horror that both occur on the battlefield. This news story likewise reminds us that war, however heroic, is also horrible. Atrocities happen; soldiers are killed or wounded, physically and/or mentally; and civilians suffer and die. As Sydney H. Schanberg (2005, p. 1),Schanberg, S. H. (2005, May 10). Not a pretty picture. The Village Voice, p. 1. a former New York Times reporter who covered the US wars in Vietnam and Cambodia, has bluntly observed, “‘History,’ Hegel said, ‘is a slaughterhouse.’ And war is how the slaughter is carried out.”

For much of human history, people considered war a necessary evil that was often waged for noble reasons. World War II, for example, was what we now call “the good war,” fought to end Hitler’s attempt to conquer much of the world. Millions died on the battlefield, in cities bombed by planes, and in concentration camps before Hitler and his allies were finally defeated.

About two decades after World War II ended, the United States began fighting another war meant to save the world for democracy, but this war was very different from the one against Hitler. This war was fought in Vietnam, and however a noble effort World War II might have been, the Vietnam War was just as ignoble to its critics. It was a war, some said, not to save the world for democracy but to help extend America’s power where it did not belong. The war’s severest critics called it an act of genocide against Asians. If the World War II generation grew up with a patriotic love for their nation, the Vietnam War generation grew up with much more cynicism about their government and about the military.

Ironically, that generation’s concern about the military was shared by none other than President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned about the dangers of what he called the military-industrial complex—the friendly interplay of the military, the defense industry, and political leaders—in his farewell presidential address (Ledbetter, 2011).Ledbetter, J. (2011). Unwarranted influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the military-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisenhower himself had been a member of the military-industrial complex, having served as a five-star general and supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II before becoming president. His military experience made him no fan of warfare; as he once observed, “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.” He also feared that the military-industrial complex was becoming too powerful and gaining “unwarranted influence” over American life as it acted for its own interests and not necessarily for those of the nation as a whole. He warned that the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist” (Eisenhower, 1960).Eisenhower, D. D. (1960). Public papers of the presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about what he called the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex.

Source: “Dwight D. Eisenhower,” Wikimedia, Last modified on December 13, 2011, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dwight_D._Eisenhower _-_NARA_-_531434.jpg.

Eisenhower’s fears about the military-industrial complex reflected his more general concern about militarism, or an overemphasis on military policy and spending, which he thought was costing the nation far too much money. In a remarkable and now famous statement made early in his presidency, Eisenhower (1960, p. A1)Eisenhower, D. D. (1960). Farewell Speech. New York Times, A1. declared, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

Eisenhower’s concerns are even more valid today. As the United States and other governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on their militaries, mass death and destruction from war beyond what Eisenhower could have ever imagined are a major concern, and serious social needs go unmet. It is probably trite to say that war profoundly affects societies, but that is precisely why war and the threat of war are considered perhaps the most pressing social problem of our times and a threat to the entire planet.

Terrorism also profoundly affects societies. Yet most Americans probably did not consider terrorism a social problem before September 11, 2001, when, as has often been said, the world changed. On that terrible day, terrorists drove two passenger jets into the World Trade Center in New York and another into the Pentagon; a fourth plane apparently headed for a Washington, DC, target crashed in central Pennsylvania when brave passengers fought back. The shock of the 3,000 deaths that resulted continues to haunt us even as we have become accustomed to homeland security measures in our airports and elsewhere that would have seemed inconceivable a generation ago.

Against this horrific backdrop of the modern era, this chapter examines war and terrorism as the final social problems discussed in this book. As forms of armed conflict that aim to defeat an opponent, war and terrorism have been part of the human experience for thousands of years. However, their manifestation in the contemporary era is particularly frightening, thanks to ever more powerful weapons, such as nuclear arms, that threaten human existence. We consider their causes, dynamics, and consequences before discussing certain actions and policies that might conceivably reduce these threats to peaceful societies and human existence.