Introduction

In 2005 about 35 wars and conflicts were being waged throughout the world (GlobalSe curity.org 2010). The Routledge Handbook of War and Society provides readers with a set of unique perspectives on two major wars: the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most handbooks are written in retrospect, summarizing long-term trends in research. In contrast, the chapters in the Handbook have all been written while the wars were being fought; each chapter provides a distinct angle on the wars and society as they continue to evolve. These perspectives purposefully eschew the omniscient view of many handbooks, instead providing theoretically informed research perspectives on the war-associated phenomena they examine. The chapters provide some of the first empirical social and behavioral science research on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More research will certainly follow. As of the middle of January 2010, the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the

US government alone over $950 billion dollars (National Priorities Project 2010), expenditures that have contributed to an increase in the national debt – a debt that will have to be paid off by the coming generation. Roughly three-quarters of the cost has been incurred in Iraq, with the rest resulting from the war in Afghanistan. The wars have resulted in nearly 4,700 deaths of coalition soldiers in Iraq and nearly 1,600 more deaths in Afghanistan. In addition, 31,616 US troops have been injured in Iraq and another 9,496 US troops injured in Afghanistan (iCasualties.org 2010). Estimates of civilian deaths vary widely (see Schwartz 2008) and the psychological and cognitive costs are only beginning to be understood (Talielian and Jaycox 2008). Because these wars are not over the casualty toll will continue to mount. These well-known facts serve as the backdrop to the chapters in this handbook, which explore the national and international lead-up to these wars, as well as the broader human costs of these wars; costs that range from how militaries fight and are funded to the effects these wars have on civilians far from combat. Since World War II (WWII) few countries have fought conventional international

wars: wars fought by uniformed national armies along relatively clearly defined fronts. Instead, armies have been called upon to fight non-conventional wars: wars fought primarily against insurgent groups, who for strategic reasons avoid battles along conventional fronts. Civilians increasingly are the target rather than soldiers. Although most of these wars have been internal (aka civil) wars (Harbom and Wallensteen 2009), some have involved internal conflict as well as the armed forces of other countries, as in Iraq

and Afghanistan. Not only has the face of war changed, so too has the organization and recruitment of national armies. Since the end (in the 1970s) of the post-WWII boom in economic growth, the national militaries, particularly the US military, that have been called upon to fight these wars have also changed dramatically, from conscription-based armies to all-volunteer forces (Moskos et al. 1999), supplied by an increasingly professionalized and diverse body of service members (Ender 2009) as well as a contingent of civilian contractors (Miller 2007). The present volume covers two major and traditional regions of war: the war front

and the home front, and the blurring of lines within and between these two geographical spaces. We begin with part I, which examines the war front, combat, and the aftermath. In particular, dramatic changes in the type of war being fought in conjunction with the sea-change in how national militaries are recruited and funded reveal severe gaps between what the military is called upon to accomplish and what it can sustain (see Ross). The lack of clearly defined fronts in fighting complex insurgencies required militaries to apply a variety of non-conventional models in solving strategic problems. These changes have affected the way in which war is fought more generally (see Roxborough, as well as Pavilonis). For soldiers, war in Afghanistan has dramatically affected how they see themselves, their relationship to stated military missions, and their descriptions in public forums (see Pengelly and Irwin). In a parallel development, there are severe gaps between the types of war soldiers are trained to fight and the wars they are called upon to fight. This gap, between the ways in which soldiers have been trained and how they have to fight, has created psychological dilemmas for these soldiers (see Scott, McCone and Mastroianni) but also innovative strategies in understanding enemies such as Saddam Hussein (see Reed and Segal). Similarly, these new wars, in which captives do not fall neatly or obviously into the standard categories of “civilian” or “combatant,” have exposed severe problems with the way in which armies treat captives. This issue is most clearly illustrated by the treatment of detainees at the US prison at Abu Ghraib (see Mastroianni and Reed, as well as Caldwell and Mestrovic). The next part of the volume features chapters highlighting non-combat operations,

which involve non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and military contractors, as well as non-combatants. Thus, changes in the way militaries are organized, in conjunction with the rise of international NGOs and civilian contractors, have dramatically complicated the non-combat landscape in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the 20 years preceding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, international NGOs grew dramatically, fueled in part by increasing activism at the grass-roots level, but also by dramatically increased funding that pumped billions of dollars into that sector (Reimann 2006). In addition, the dramatic changes in military organization alluded to above meant that many of the functions previously performed by the military had to be contracted to civilian companies. As a result, the organizational landscape in Iraq and Afghanistan is exceptionally complicated, requiring careful coordination between the military, NGOs, and civilian contractors; coordination that would be difficult to achieve under the best of circumstances. Such chaotic conditions stem in large part from the insurgents’ attempts to destabilize the civilian police institutions traditionally tasked with maintaining day-to-day order (see Deflem and Sutphin, as well as Deflem). As analyzed from the point of view of the NGOs themselves (see Benini, Conley, Donahue, and Messick) as well as the military (see Cupp and Latham) such coordination is attempted in the absence of mutual trust and under the chaotic conditions engendered by conflict. Faced with such chaotic conflict, the military has attempted to combat these conditions through information campaigns

designed to build support among the civilians – attempts that meet with varying success (see Griffith). Finally, these wars affect civilians in indirect and often unanticipated ways. Wars destroy public health infrastructures, diminishing a country’s ability to generate electricity, treat sewage, or pump clean water (Carlton-Ford 2004). The result often is increased mortality and morbidity among civilian populations, an outcome seen as a result of the Iraq war (see Poole). In addition, wars affect the psychological well-being of those involved. Typically children are adversely affected, experiencing higher levels of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-like symptoms (Attanayake, McKay, Joffres, Singh, Burkle, and Mills 2009). The impact on adolescents is, in contrast, extremely underresearched; research (see Carlton-Ford, Ender, and Tabatabai) suggests that Iraqi adolescents react to conflict very differently compared with children. Iraqi adolescents, whose identities are most threatened by conflict, seem to rally their self-image. Next we turn to the home front during war and social reactions to the war fighters –

both heroes and enemies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted from complex global processes that have continuing international implications, all of which are debated in and shaped by the media. The long-term lead-up to the Iraq war is framed and influenced by the national political and economic interests of the US and its allies (see Egan). The course of the war in Afghanistan, although triggered by the attacks on the Twin Trade Towers in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington, is influenced by complex international relationships among Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the US; these relationships were formed during the Reagan era, as the US attempted to thwart the Soviet Union’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Matters are further complicated by the relationships that were formed between Pakistan’s military and the groups that became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, as well as by fears concerning the potential involvement of India and China (see Shaikh). The mass media are not simply independent reporters of events leading up to or

during these wars. The way the media gather and report their information plays a significant role in a country’s ability to manage risk (see Pieper). Further, the coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq war in major national newspapers, rather than promoting a liberal anti-war bias, presented a truncated discussion of the political, diplomatic, and legal implications of pursuing unilateral preemptive military action (see Nikolaev and Porpora). There were similar discussions carried on in other, and more novel public venues, of much more limited scope (see Hedley and Clark). Ultimately, as one might expect given Coser’s (1956) prescient discussion of the ways in which war generates internal solidarity, national discussions have nominated some individuals as heroes, which must be understood as a result of a complex process that involves the characteristics of the individuals, the situations in which putative heroes found themselves, and the characteristics of the individuals who attribute heroism (see Gibson, Hogan, Stahura, and Jackson). A mirror process involves the construction of the enemy. This type of process has been described in detail for Japan and the US during WWII (e.g. Dower 1986), and we see today (Steuter and Wills) how the process has played out during what has become known as the global war on terror. In the last part of the volume we turn to the American home front, specifically army

families, military children, and college students. In many respects the war has not directly affected the lives of most US citizens. There have been no calls for general war-related sacrifices; there have been no bond drives to pay for the wars; with much smaller, all-volunteer militaries, civilians are less likely to know individuals in the military, and as a result much less likely to know someone killed or injured in the wars. For US Army

families the situation is different; the impact of the wars has been magnified by the ease of communication provided by cell phones, the internet, and live television concomitantly placing the war electronically in the home and the home front in the war front (see Ender, Campbell, Davis, and Michaelis); the multiple deployments required by small militaries to fight wars that have now lasted longer than WWII have also taken a toll on the children in military families, although these children also show surprising resilience (see Lipari, Winters, Matos, Smith, and Rock). Attitudes of young people toward the wars (see Ender, Rohall, and Matthews) have changed over the course of these conflicts, and have been importantly shaped by political affiliation, with significant differences between students at military academies and those in other universities. As we close this introduction in early 2010, the outcome of these wars is uncertain.

The US military is withdrawing troops (i.e. Marines) after an apparently successful new strategy for involving Sunni Muslims (the so-called Anbar Awakening) coupled with a troop surge that took place between January 2007 and the middle of 2008. The newly elected Iraqi government is not fully institutionalized and serious disagreements over political representation and the disposition of national resources continue among representatives of the Sunni Muslims, Shi’a Muslims, and ethnic Kurds. In Afghanistan, the Taliban appears resurgent and the US military is preparing to

increase its presence there by 30,000 additional troops. Many members of Al Qaeda appear to have moved to areas of Pakistan that border Afghanistan. The US has used drones to strike Al Qaeda in Pakistani territory and the Pakistani military, apparently under significant pressure from the US as well as its own people, has begun operations designed to undermine insurgents in the border areas. Military strikes by the Pakistani Army appear to be increasingly motivated by bombings that have struck very close to key military centers in Pakistan. The outcome of the two conflicts is not clear; our chapters provide important perspectives on these wars – perspectives we expect will be modified and extended in the future.