Americans think war is a game

[Don]

I was on a thread over Romance of the Three Kingdoms in Gamefaqs, and at first I thought it was just Gamefaqs being dumb when people equate the war period of that time with what they experienced in the game. But after sitting down and think about it, I come to realize that it's not just Gamefaqs. Most Americans do think war is a game. When I saw the Iraq war coverage, it looks like what one would look like a national livecast version of Starcraft. It's like here we go with the Reaver Drop, and send in the Carriers, and then rush them with Siege Tanks! Mission completed, go on to next mission! Congratulations, you have captured Baghbad! You win!

In fact I'm sure if you make a wargame on invading Iraq, it'd have to be harder than the real thing because you wouldn't be able to sell a game where you just bomb everything to oblivion and roll over with tanks. I think Americans lost less people in the war part of Iraq (not the occupation, since a democracy like America can't just throw everyone into concentration camps and not worry about insurgents so this part has to be harder) than I have lost on wargames using the magic of save/load. I had a friend who was playing Starcraft with the goal of not losing any unit, and that's pretty close to the efficiency Americans have in war. Whenever one person gets killed, it is national news even though the enemy is dying at 100X the rate.

That is not to say Americans are incompetent at fighting war. But I find it really hard to discuss anything war-related with Americans because whether they're for it or against it, they seem to view war at the level of a game. To be sure, Americans possess the military/technology might to turn war into a game, but ultimately a war is still a war. I don't know if it's a healthy attitude that whenever you talk to people about war they think something is wrong is the other side has a reasonable chance to kill you, though.

[Tessian]

EDIT-- took out my post as I was mistaken in my interpretation of Don's post. If you really wanna read it I whited it out below, but instead I corrected myself further down.

don't even know where to begin on how misguided this post is..

Let me get this straight-- you talked to a few jerkoffs online about a game, watched news coverage of the Iraq war, and now you've decided that US military strategy is as base and simple as a game?

what part of your ass did you pull this out of? First off, I'll just ignore that first part about talking to people in a forum because that's just stupid...so a few random idiots playing a game wanted to compare it to history, big deal.

Second, you figured this all out about US military strategy how, from watching CNN coverage? Because I bet that CNN got copies of the tactics, battleplan, etc from the military...it's not like they were given a very general overview of the plan from PR in the army and then regurgitated that on the airwaves along with some video they also got? Of course not... and wtf news have you been watching that showed more than a 10 second clip of a battle?

Forget whether or not you agree with the war, which you didn't bring up gladly and I won't throw in, but I'm just appalled that you would watch a 24 hour news network for a period of time and then decide that you know how the war was planned and carried out by military staff and say "oh yeah, this is just like starcraft"

Please tell me you're trolling...because otherwise I'm going to have to question your intelligence and reasoning skills...

[Kupek]

Read his post again. Don was not talking about the strategies themselves, but how the public perceives these strategies playing out.

[Don]

I'm sure whoever is actually running the war command is quite capable. That doesn't have any bearing to how war gets turned into games with the way the media covers it. During the war it was like 'OMG we stop everything we were doing to bring you the news that one of our guys died!' and then after the occupation you get suicide bombs that kill 100 people that may or may not even make the front page, and certainly not worthy to interrupt whatever news was currently going on to let people know.

Of course America should not be faulted for having a military that can arguably fight the entire world. But I'm getting the feeling that Americans approach war, certainly the media does, as if the other side is not supposed to or even allowed to fight back. If you've a war where the other side can't even fight back, it's not a war. It's either a game or a slaughter, I'm not sure which, but it is not a war.

[Tessian]

I misinterpreted what you said then, I apologize.

I'm not disagreeing with you in that case, but 2 comments:

1) People don't perceive this as a war because the administration refuses to admit it's a war still (remember "Mission Accomplished" banner?). This is worse than Vietnam in terms of how diluted those in power are to what's actually going on there.

2) I'm far from the only one around here that's getting fucking sick of the media lately...cause you're right: why are we almost totaly ignoring the war in Iraq...yet Anna Nicole's death/baby and Imus get 24x7 coverage for weeks? Those were both NON EVENTS yet the media ran with them as if they were the most important thing to happen in the world in years. I'm sick of it and I can't even watch News anymore because of it. News channels are based on ratings and shock values-- air whatever will get more people to watch and to hell with what's actually important to report on.

So I think your problem is more with the media's coverage of continued operations in Iraq rather than that the american people view it as a game, and I agree.

[Don]

Well the media certainly portrays the war like a game, and I'm thinking this attitude is seeping into general population. I started thinking about this because on the message board I started getting the feeling that most people do not understand what it's like to discuss a hypothetical war where you're disadvantaged in every way. That is it seemed like Americans can't even imagine what happens if you're fighting a war that you can't win, which after thinking about it makes sense because Americans pretty much have never lost any war.

Even stuff like Vietnam is more of a political defeat, not an actual one. If Americans are willing to throw people into concentration camps and just shoot anyone who looks suspicious, they would have been fine in Vietnam or Iraq. Now this won't win you any friends so this is why it isn't done, but this appears to be more of a political issue than an actual military one. There's no doubt that ifAmericans are only interested in conquering/subjugating the opposition, they would never had a problem. Maybe it is hard for a society that has never lost a war to appreciate what it is like to be on the losing end of a war.

[Nev]

Neither Anna Nicole's death nor Don Imus' ouster count as "non-issues" in our country, to me.

But as far as Americans' detachment from the true horrors of war goes...I dunno what to tell you, Don. Though I don't necessarily disagree, I dunno if there's a good solution for it right now, other than just speaking the truth of war, instead of the idealized reality, as you see it.

[Don]

Well I'm not suggesting America need to get invaded and lose a million people to get how bad war is. I heard the military is developing technology like remote-controlled robots that do the fighting, so it seems like the best counterstrike/half life/whatever player will someday be gunning enemy down in front of a computer. Again this is not a knock on the technology. If you got to kill the other side of course you want the safest/most efficient method to do so. But it really bothers me when you see the public and certainly the media discuss a war with terms you might expect to find in a 7 on 1 rush the computer Starcraft game. Actually I am sure on a relative scale, you'd expect more casualities from 7 pickup guys rushing 1 computer, then the Americans lost in the whole invasion of Iraq (the occupation is a whole different issue).

I remember during the invasion it seemd like more people were dying to friendly fire or equipment malfunction than actually being killed by the enemy. You can't even make a game like that and expect people to play it because it'd be too lopsided, and yet that is reality. Instead of being thankful that America seems to be the only country in the world that can wage a war without losing anybody (in signficiant numbers), it seems like people now take this for granted.

[Julius Seeker]

Haha, if you think the Americans see war badly now, you should read some pre-World War 1, and early world war 1 accounts =P

I've only read the British side in detail, but they had NO idea what was ahead for the continent.

[Tessian]

Neither Anna Nicole's death nor Don Imus' ouster count as "non-issues" in our country, to me.

How was either NOT a non-issue? Anna Nicole deserved 1, maybe 2 days of coverage...not week's worth. And the whole baby debacle was an issue for the courts and those involved, not a national news item. This stuff should have been off the front page after a day or two, not after 2-3 weeks.

As for Imus-- definitely an issue that should have been a one day thing and then moved on, but the media saw a ratings booster (controversy sells) even though it was a non-issue. He said something stupid, has been for years...he should have been suspended for a few weeks and everyone can move on with their lives...but nooo...it had to turn into a week long circus.

My point is that the media doesn't care about what should be reported to the people, they just care about what will boost ratings. If the media doesn't make a big deal about soldiers being killed everyday then the public won't either.

soldiers dying in a costly war we're about to lose because it's being grossly mishandled = not news

old fart no one listens to anymore makes an insensitive comment in bad taste = OMG MEDIA FRENZY CALL BLACK PRESIDENT SHARPTON!

sigh...

[Tessian]

Well I'm not suggesting America need to get invaded and lose a million people to get how bad war is.

Unfortunately this is the only way a country can really understand the hell of war. Definitely not saying China should start invading, but it's a reason why most people don't understand it.

[Nev]

Well I'm not suggesting America need to get invaded and lose a million people to get how bad war is.

Unfortunately this is the only way a country can really understand the hell of war. Definitely not saying China should start invading, but it's a reason why most people don't understand it.

QFT.

I still think Anna Nicole and Don Imus were quite newsworthy, but as far as our attitude towards war goes...QFT.