Tag: Agent Orange

Fighting to the death…of children

Posted on by kathiemm

One of the greatest tolls of war is the cost to our future incurred by killing and maiming babies, small children, and youth. They are not just collateral damage.

Among the thousands of civilians who have been killed or maimed in the Afghanistan war, children are the most innocent. Apart from death and injury, though, here are some additional ways that children are impacted, as described in a United Nations report:

  • Taliban and other factions have recruited children for military training, to conduct suicide attacks, transport weapons and plant explosives.
  • National Security Forces have detained children for alleged national security crimes
  • Afghan National Police have used children as drivers, messengers, and at checkpoints
  • Schools and medical facilities have been damaged, causing disproportional impacts on children

Tragically, the devastating effects of war on children do not end when a ceasefire begins or a treaty is signed. Think of how your sons and daughters would be affected if they were forced to be soldiers, forced to kill, forced into prostitution, forced to wait and see where the next bomb would fall.

Think about your children growing up in a country in which there are thousands of unexploded landmines and other explosive devices, a country in which you or they could be killed or maimed for one wrong step. Imagine your children growing up with birth defects and widespread pollution from Agent Orange.

Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

What are some things that YOU can do to help prevent wars and protect those children who are victims of the ravages of war?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology, and Pat Daniel, Managing Editor of Engaging Peace

Misrepresenting or minimizing consequences (Moral disengagement, part 6)

Posted on by kathiemm

Misrepresenting or minimizing consequences is another moral disengagement mechanism.

Psychologist Albert Bandura notes that when people commit atrocities for personal gain or as a response to social pressure, one way to offset shame and guilt is to minimize or distort the ill-effects of their behavior.

During contemporary warfare by the developed nations, this process is facilitated by modern technology, which allows maiming and killing from high in the air–thus avoiding the sight of blood, guts, and dismembered bodies; the screams of pain, pleas for help; and victims begging for an end to their ordeal.

It has been noted that the Pulitzer-prize winning photograph of the naked Vietnamese girl running from her napalmed village played a pivotal role in turning the American public against the Vietnam War.

To avoid a repetition of that kind of public disavowal of their political and military aims, more recent governments have exercised extreme control over media portrayals of wartime events.

Misrepresenting and minimizing consequences is rampant in relation to the environmental consequences of war. Among the long-lasting effects of war that are minimized right out of people’s consciousness are:

  • Sunken ships that continue to pollute the oceans
  • Landmines that continue to maim and kill
  • Hazardous waste from the manufacturing of weapons
  • Destruction and pollution of wildlife and human habitat through use of herbicidal weapons such as Agent Orange
  • Environmental degradation from the thousands of refugees fleeing the armed conflict.

(For more about environmental consequences of war, see the report of the Environmental Literacy Council.)

In reaction to the minimizing, misrepresenting, and denial of the environmental effects of war, the United Nations, in 2001, declared November 6 to be  International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.

Advantageous comparison (Moral disengagement, part 4)

Posted on by kathiemm

Advantageous comparison is another form of moral disengagement described byUp and down arrows psychologist Albert Bandura. This mechanism is a way of trying to make one behavior look good by comparing it with a more frightful alternative.

For example, during the Vietnam War, massive destruction of the Vietnamese countryside by means of Agent Orange was portrayed as being a lot better for the Vietnamese people than being enslaved by the Communists.

One of the most familiar forms of advantageous comparison used to justify war and torture is “sacrificing a few to save thousands.” Undoubtedly, many people still believe that the dropping of atomic bombs on citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved thousands of American lives—an assumption with no real support.

Advantageous comparison became integral to “24,” a popular American television show. The program routinely justified the use of torture as essential to avoiding the greater disasters that could (ostensibly) hurt the innocent if torture had not been used.

The TV series was particularly popular among conservatives, many of whom apparently accepted the program’s message that not only is torture necessary to safeguard “national security” but also that it works.

This belief in the justifiability of a practice banned in international law flies in the face of warnings by experts on torture, including senior military and FBI officials.  These and other experts criticized “24” for misrepresenting the effectiveness of torture and contributing to the misbelief that torture is justifiable.

Kathie-Malley Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.