This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: Rubaii, K. (2023). Decentering death: The war on terror and the less-than-lethal paradigm. American Anthropologist, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13870
Talking Points
- The “less-than-lethal paradigm” is a military strategy aimed at managing the popular perception of violence by using less deadly and more concealed methods to justify imperial actions in a way that aligns with the principles of liberal democracy.
In the “less-than-lethal paradigm”:
- War is redefined as a prerequisite for peace, creating a narrative that presents coercive force as necessary, even if tragic.
- Killing and dying are rebranded, and military actions are portrayed as precise and humane.
- Non-lethal coercion is about maintaining control and domination while minimizing visible deaths, making the violence seem more acceptable and less brutal.
- Responsibility for violence is shifted onto others, which often means attributing blame to victims or other actors rather than the U.S. military.
Key Insight for Informing Practice
Advocacy groups should prioritize listening to the voices of those affected by violence and wars, using their stories as powerful tools in campaigns aimed at educating the public and policymakers about the true consequences of the U.S.’s military actions.
Summary
Since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the term “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) has become less common in official and everyday language. However, military strategies and operations associated with the GWOT, which emerged after the 9/11 attacks, continue in various forms, especially within Western democratic frameworks. Kali Rubaii’s research presents a timely analysis of the moral and political implications of these military practices and the violence they involve.
The article introduces the “less-than-lethal paradigm,” a military strategy aimed at managing the popular perception of violence by using less deadly and more concealed methods to justify imperial actions in a way that aligns with the principles of liberal democracy. Rubaii examines the U.S.-led war in Iraq, focusing on how the government and military used this paradigm to shape public perception and acceptance of violence. This paradigm relies on legal, narrative, and logistical strategies to present military actions as humane and necessary for peace, thereby reducing the political impact of death.
|
The less-than-lethal paradigm refers to a military strategy aimed at managing the popular perception of violence by minimizing deaths and avoiding killing, even during intense conflicts. This approach rebrands violence by “reframing war as a precondition for peace, minimizing killing and death, disseminating nonkilling forms of coercion, and assigning responsibility to others for violence.” The idea is to present military actions as humane and necessary for peace, often by framing violence as precise and justified. This strategy shifts the focus away from the deaths caused, making them seem less significant and morally acceptable. |
Rubaii supports her arguments with counterinsurgency research, media analysis, ethnographic interviews, and participant observations conducted between 2014 and 2023. These sources include interviews with Iraqis from the predominantly Sunni Anbar region, former military personnel, and private contractors. The author critiques the simplistic Western view of life and death, emphasizing the ongoing nature of violence and the complex harm caused by war. Four key findings emerge from this research.
First, the less-than-lethal paradigm redefines war as a prerequisite for peace, creating a narrative that presents coercive force as necessary, even if tragic, for achieving peace. By emphasizing preemptive killing, the paradigm suggests that future deaths are being prevented. Second, the research reveals how killing and dying are rebranded within this paradigm. Military actions are portrayed as precise and humane, minimizing their perceived lethality and framing them as essential for peace. Third, non-lethal coercion within this paradigm involves using tools such as batons, rubber-coated bullets, chemical agents, electric shock tasers, and sound waves. Although these tools are marketed as more ethical, they are also seen as effective in controlling uprisings, dissent, and insurgencies. The article also highlights that non-lethal coercion can be just as harmful as lethal methods. For Iraqi participants in the study, it caused physical and psychological suffering due to the disruption of communities and the degradation of the quality of life. For example, people might face torture, surveillance, and other forms of oppression that don’t kill them but still cause significant harm. In essence, non-lethal coercion is about maintaining control and domination while minimizing visible deaths, making the violence seem more acceptable and less brutal. Fourth, the less-than-lethal paradigm shifts responsibility for violence onto others. This shift often means attributing blame to victims or other actors rather than the U.S. military. For example, the shift to indirect rule by Iraqi forces was not intended to enhance Iraqi sovereignty but rather to distance the U.S. military from the violence through the exploitation of social divisions.
Separation from home and community, violations of bodily autonomy, and threats to cultural survival are consequences that underscore the true costs of military coercion, which extend beyond lethality, challenging the liberal democratic notion that individual lives are the ultimate measure of value.
In conclusion, Rubaii’s research calls for critically examining the justifications for using lethal and non-lethal force. By highlighting the experiences of Iraqis, the study reveals that the less-than-lethal paradigm continues a pattern of direct and indirect imperial violence with severe hidden effects, contradicting claims of a more humane approach to warfare. The study challenges the notion that U.S. military wars and occupations are less-lethal or non-lethal, gentle, and benevolent. Iraqi participants in the study described these complex forms of violence as “worse than death” at times.
Informing Practice
This study has practical implications for peace advocacy groups based in the U.S., particularly concerning language and framing. It challenges the dominant narrative that portrays U.S. military actions in other countries as gentle and benevolent. The study offers several critiques:
- It examines how U.S. military interventions, often presented as peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, perpetuate violence and instability. Advocacy groups can use this information to raise awareness and promote nonviolent alternatives.
- It details how the U.S. government shifts the responsibility for violence onto local forces, highlighting the significant role the U.S. plays in sustaining political conflict. Peace advocates can use this information to argue for accountability and transparency in U.S. foreign policy and military actions.
- It discusses how the U.S. government justifies its actions through a moral narrative of bringing peace and democracy. Advocacy groups can use this analysis to question these narratives and show how they often mask ongoing violence and control over the people and resources of other countries.
- It focuses on the long-term impacts of U.S. military strategies on local populations, including increased sectarian violence and weakened sovereignty. This is important for advocating policies that support locally led, genuine, sustainable peace and reconstruction efforts rather than short-term military “solutions,” which are nothing less than wars that cause death and destruction.
- The study emphasizes the importance of language in shaping perceptions of military actions. It highlights the colonial nature of the paradigm enacted by Global North countries and the dehumanizing language used in describing military actions. Peace advocacy groups can use this analysis to expose the colonial and imperial undertones of such rhetoric and to promote more honest language and just narratives.
The study’s findings, rooted in ethnographic accounts and participant observations, provide concrete examples of the human cost of U.S. policies. Advocacy groups should prioritize listening to the voices of those affected, using their stories as powerful tools in campaigns aimed at educating the public and policymakers about the true consequences of the U.S.’s military actions. By using the findings from this study to advocate for policy changes, peace advocacy groups can strengthen their arguments against current U.S. military practices and promote more peaceful and just U.S. foreign policies. [PH]
Questions Raised
What specific policy changes can be implemented to move away from the less-than-lethal paradigm towards more peaceful and equitable approaches in international relations?
How can policies and activism be designed to center the experiences and voices of those affected by violence without victimizing them, ensuring that they retain agency and actively participate in the decision-making processes that impact their lives?
Continued Reading
Booker, S., & Ohlbaum, D. (2021). Dismantling racism and militarism in U.S. foreign policy. A discussion paper. Center for International Policy and FCNL Education Fund. Retrieved August 8, 2024, from https://www.fcnl.org/dismantling-racism-and-militarism-us-foreign-policy
Okail, N. (2024, February 6). Reimagining progressive foreign policy. Center for International Policy. Retrieved August 8, 2024, from https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/reimagining-progressive-foreign-policy/
American University, Corcordia University, UC Irvine, and War Prevention Initiative. (2023). Words about war matter. Retrieved August 8, 2024, from https://www.wordsaboutwar.org
Organizations
The Dissenters: https://wearedissenters.org
Center for International Policy: https://internationalpolicy.org
Feminist Peace Initiative: https://feministpeaceinitiative.org
Win Without War: https://winwithoutwar.org
World Beyond War: https://worldbeyondwar.org
Keywords: Iraq, militarism, military intervention
Photo credit: Mustafa Bader via Wikimedia Commons
