What do you understand by this concept? I am due to right an essay on this issue and would like some feedback on what images you get when hearing this phrase. I take it to mean the ever-increasing/differientiating role of the media, the difference in warfare since the end of the cold war and the role of states towards international institutions. What about you?
Hey! I’m writing an essay about this same topic!
The media is an incredibly powerful socialising tool - it arranges verbal and visual cues into what we know as reality. I’m also exploring notions of the media as the Fourth Estate and whether or not it lives up to this ideal - particularly when profit and ratings come into the equation. I’m still in early stages, but I definitely want to incorporate some sort of analysis of GW2, including embedded reporters and the way “spectacle” has been used in the coverage, arguably making everything less “real” to the audience.
Jean Baudrillard’s “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place” and the movie “Wag the Dog” might be helpful to your essay.
People are calling this one “World War Four.” My roommate objected to this, as “war” means trenches and bayonets and so on, therefore there have been only Two.
I argued that no, “war” no longer has that meaning, because there never will be another war in that sense. “War” now means something else, I think along the lines of “the world splitting into two antagonistic sides”, like Us vs Russia or Us vs the Arabs.
The interesting (and postmodern) thing about this new kind of “war” is how much it is constructed and self-reinforcing: it is impossible to separate the hostility towards Muslims (for example) that is driving the war from the hostility that is being driven by it. War is now highly socially constructed.
That’s what “postmodern war” means to me.
Try “The Transformation of War” by Martin Van Creveld.
Also, check out this article that summarizes the difference between Van Creveld’s and Von Clausewitz’s theory of war.
If I were to write an essay about post-modern war, I’d probably focus a bit of attention about the identity of modern and post-modern states.
The US, in the typical view of a post-modernist, is increasingly a society where individualism and consumerism are the true sources of national strength, as opposed to a modern state that is empowered through the strength of its government organs.
A post-modern state, with an all-volunteer military and a strong media to inform and influence the public, would approach war in a different manner - like, there’s the paradox that we do not want to see casualties in war, even, to a certain extent, those on the other side. The leader of such a state does not have to mobilize his country to generate national production, only keep the populace interested in victory and not protesting on the streets.
Contrast that to modern states, like Iraq, in in extrimis, Nazi Germany, where the people are not really individuals, but a mass from which the government must draw. The public must be put into a nationalistic frenzy in order to support the goals of the state, hence anachronisms like that Minister of Information guy.
“My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all” – that cracks me up.
I must disclaim at this point that I think post-modernist thought is mostly hooey, but I’d probably write something along those lines if forced to. Christopher Coker writes a lot on post-modern war, you might want to check out your local library. He’s a very entertaining person.
I construe the term to include the use of extreme technologies and heavy use of specialist and elite assets to prepare the battlefield in advance of the battle.
Until this past war, I thought all the DoD’s press about “the modern battlefield” was just a bunch of hooey which would fall apart as soon as it hit the field. I was completely wrong.
Particularly in the area surrounding Baghdad, I think that Iraq was literally crawling with covert units which were observing the enemy forces, taking GPS readings on their positions, assessing strength and morale, and quite possibly even “tagging” enemy units somehow so that they could be tracked once outside of the view of the observers. Psychological operations were performed and appear to have paid off well.
If I had to define the term “post-modern warfare” I think the definition would have to encompass the following points:
[ul][li] Real-time observation of the enemy on the battlefield.[/li][li] Near-complete denial of the enemy’s command and control capabilities.[/li][li] Real-time command and control of low-level units by high-level operations command staff with an overall knowledge of the battlefield.[/li][li] The ability to project overwhelming firepower on the enemy–including those on the move–through the use of guided munitions, night vision, and possibly tracking devices.[/li][li] Heavy use of PsyOps to reduce the morale and effectiveness of the enemy.[/li][/ul]
Each one of the items on the list can be considered a “force multiplier,” something which increases the effectiveness of the troops in the field. This past war was remarkable (despite my reservations about it being fought at all) in that most of the fighting was performed by only four divisions of troops (3rd Infantry, 101st Airborne, 1st Marine, and the UK Epeditionary Force which was comprised of three brigades). That’s the equivalent of a very large corps or the smallest possible army, and attacked as an invader against somewhere in the neighborhood of two dozen Iraqi divisions. Such an attack would be considered insane by past examples of troop matchups.
They succeeded because their victory was prepared well in advance, and that I think is the essence of post-modern warfare.
Cheers all, Ravenman is more at what I am trying to write about, and he came up with some good points about the nature of the state and its effect upon warfare. Sofa King - I believe my essay is more pushed towards the theoretical side of why? and not how? However your post was extremely interesting anyway! Got a few more ideas sorted in my head now, cheers
It sounds like an odd juxtiposition. A key element of postmodernism is that it’s fake. It’s whatever your professor says it is. It’s no falsifiable. War is as real as it gets. People are killed. One side wins and imposes its will on the other.
My guess is that the assignment comes from someone who knows a lot about postmodernism and not very much about war.
If you want a good grade, you should ignore my advice. Your teacher won’t agree and won’t appreciate its POV.
When I see the term “Post-Modernism” I think of where the hell are they getting this crap from??
Modernism is the supposed revolution away from Victorian principles of art, music drama and literature.
In my mind modern means new, state of the art, in the present, cutting edge, vibrant, alive.
Modernism is old its a concept waaay past its prime or even its function. It is obsolete.
Then some idiot thinking of coining a new era came up with a name that means beyond modernism. POST modernism!
…oy that is about as significant as the penultimate supper.
This is what you get when you call something new and cutting edge but never keep up with the times. Its like naming a black and white TV the “Entertainment of the Future” or calling World War I the “war to end all wars” its gibberish.
Theres no such thing as a post-modern war because there is not a set modern war. All wars are modern. Anyone not fighting a modern war are called the losing side. If this is called the post modern war, what do you call the next one and the one after that?
The post-post-post-modern war? :dubious:
I’m going to disagree with you, Sofa - sorry old soak 
The absolute key factor in ‘post-modern’ warfare (to my mind) is that it is not ‘warfare’ as we know it at all for one side of the conflict – not so much ‘post-modern as an entirely new paradigm, if you will.
In essence what we have – as witnessed in Kosovo/Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq - is conflict which until now could only happen with nuclear weaponry i.e. where one side inflicts losses on the other with impunity – almost no losses, human or equipment.
What this means is that the threshold – the limit of moral acceptability of what is done in our names in democratic societies - has radically altered. That’s why the media has become so vital; instead of body bags coming home being the primary influence on public opinion, now it’s the imagery presented by the media.
We don’t have losses anymore so its what we’re seen to do to the others that’s the vital brake (or not) on how we conduct conflict – of course when I say “no losses” I mean no more than die in road deaths around the average city each morning.
This, then, is a different planet from Vietnam, never mind the 60,000 in a morning on The Somme era.
The irony of this is that ‘smart technology’ was specifically sought in order to assuage the liberals who didn’t like civilian casualties and were appalled by terms like ‘collateral damage’ – now the military have the technology to assuage liberal morality, it means they can attack wherever …which isn’t, one imagines, what yer average liberal was looking for …
Anyway, that’s enough from me … if its an essay, I’ve left plenty of holes for you to fill in …