We have entered an era in which warfare has departed from the conventional (Clausewitzian) concept of attaining clear objectives. Instead, modern armed conflict is characterized by limited and generally inconclusive military clashes motivated by factors disconnected from the practical concerns of the affected citizens. War has turned away from decisive conflict and embraced performative spectacle. This metamorphosis is a kind of reverse evolution in which modern nations are adopting the elements of primitive warfare, but amplifying them through global mass media. I will provide evidence for this argument and discuss the implications.
The Extinction of Total War
The memory of past world wars informs the public’s understanding of warfare, but WWII concluded with the invention of nuclear weapons, an epochal event. The subsequent accumulation of nuclear arsenals made all-out war intolerably destructive. All succeeding wars have been highly limited in their geographic scope, and none have resulted in casualties approaching the appalling 70-85 million killed in WWII (3% of the world’s population). Although an apocalyptic global nuclear war is a terrible lingering possibility, nuclear-armed nations have thus far avoided it.
What we have seen is a series of limited wars that have seldom resulted in clear-cut victories. For 80 years, nations have expended blood and treasure on armed conflicts with very little change in territorial boundaries. Why has the world settled into this pattern of incessant low-level warfare? I believe that the answer is the convergence of three factors: political manipulation, perverse economic incentives, and public appetite for military violence.
Heroes Without Victories
The U.S. war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan provides an example of how an unsuccessful limited war was sustained for many years at great expense for no practical purpose. Over 20 years, the U.S. spent approximately $2.3-$2.6 trillion attempting to defeat the Taliban. Despite the commitment of 100,000 troops, the U.S. was unable to achieve its objective of transforming Afghanistan into a democratic regional ally. When this project was abandoned in 2021, the main political consequence was public unhappiness with the disorderly troop withdrawal. There were no serious repercussions for the political and military leaders responsible for the war. Although a military failure, the war was successful in advancing political and military careers; it generated substantial revenue for military contractors; and it provided public entertainment.
Politicians touted the fighting in Afghanistan as a key element in the “War on Terror.” The Afghanistan War benefited many U.S. politicians by enhancing their patriotic image, increasing campaign funding from defense interests, expanding executive authority, and enabling them to project strength. Defense contractors reaped over $100 billion in revenue from this war. At the high point of hostilities, contractors outnumbered military personnel in Afghanistan 3:1. The public supported the war for most of its duration because of a steady stream of favorable media coverage of U.S. troops in combat. For example, the film Restrepo was an award-winning documentary that focused entirely on the sacrifice and heroism of soldiers in Afghanistan with no consideration of the larger issues of the war. For many Americans outside the war zone, the Afghanistan war was a satisfying form of entertainment. Although few people would admit to enjoying the spectacle of wartime death and destruction, how else can one explain the duration of the Afghanistan war and the almost complete absence of public anger at the wasted effort?
The public’s appetite for violence is nothing new. Deadly gladiatorial combat in the arena was a major form of entertainment in the Roman Empire, lasting for over 500 years, until it was banned in the fifth century AD. Modern politicians cultivate reputations for belligerence. In 2007, Donald Trump used the setting of a professional wrestling bout to establish his status as a brawler. Now that he has returned to the White House, he regularly threatens nations with punitive sanctions and military violence, much to the delight of his followers. The public clearly prefers spectacle to substance, and U.S. politicians strive to deliver it.
Israel has fought a series of limited wars against its neighbors in the Mideast since the founding of the state in 1947. Although each war resulted in a short-term victory, expanding Israel’s territory and military strength, there has been no lasting peace. Instead of turning away from war, Israelis have become increasingly bellicose. In the most recent fighting in Gaza, some Israelis gathered to enjoy observing the bombing of Palestinians.
Israeli citizens observing the bombing of Gaza
Israel’s adversaries are just as keen on enjoying their occasional military successes, as evidenced by videos of recent Iranian missile strikes on Tel Aviv set to music.
🚨⚡️ The song "Boom Boom Tel Aviv" just got nominated for a Grammy! 🤣🤣
Music hitting harder than missiles. 🎶💥 pic.twitter.com/AiFPGKmrmV
— RussiaNews 🇷🇺 (@mog_russEN) June 20, 2025
Limited War Resembles Primitive War
Many limited conflicts today share key characteristics with primitive ritual warfare—emphasizing spectacle, posturing, and political messaging over total victory. Nuclear deterrence, media saturation, and economic incentives all encourage this shift toward symbolic conflict. Here are some of the parallels:
- Symbolic Weapon Display and Posturing — The modern equivalents of brandishing spears are provocative military hardware displays, such as warships sailing through contested waters and ballistic missile testing.
- Exchange of Insults and Psychological Operations — Coded insults and social media campaigns are today’s methods for verbal assaults attacking adversary morale. No physical shouting is required.
- Avoidance of Serious Casualties — In Afghanistan, U.S. combat deaths averaged only about 100 per year over a 20 year period. U.S. reliance high-tech weaponry and proxy forces minimizes casualties.
- Theatrical and Cyclical Nature of Conflict — In the Mideast wars and the wars between India and Pakistan, there has been a similar repeating pattern of threats, fighting, and ceasefires, then a lull before the next round of hostilities. This resembles primitive tribal conflicts.
- Social and Political Utility of Controlled Violence — Military action rallies public opinion, distracts from domestic problems, and affirms leadership. It is politically useful even when tactically indecisive — the same as it ever was.
- Spectacle and Public Consumption — Televised airstrikes, real-time combat footage, and viral combat montages make the public emotionally invested in displays of dominance and proficiency. Today every display screen can be a theater of violence, and the audience is no longer limited to a gathering of tribes.
The Power of the Video Arena
As war has become performative, video has become its primary means of distribution. The torrent of video captured by body cams and cell phones is augmented by streams of fake or AI generated imagery, all aimed at arousing the emotions of spectators in a global video arena of war.
Conclusion
It is likely that the world will suffer from performative war for many more years, but I believe that technological advances will steadily increase conflict damage to the point that the costs will exceed the benefits. As weapons become smarter, cheaper, and more numerous, more combatants will gain access to them. Criminals, terrorists, revolutionaries, and political splinter sects will all have the ability to inflict devastating damage on their adversaries. The “leakage” of weaponry supplied to proxies in limited wars will become problematic as some of these weapons are turned against their suppliers. This will result in a return to diplomacy and application of international law for dispute resolution. Bloodthirsty media spectators will be satisfied by AI generated arena combat, and people will no longer die so that others can be motivated and entertained by the spectacle.
We’re lucky to have you, Haig. Brilliant piece that gives us a lot to think about. Your points about entertainment are horrifying but undeniable.
>Your points about entertainment are horrifying but undeniable.
Exactly, the picture above of people sitting on a couch and chairs is sad, disgusting, you name it. Kind of pisses me off but that’s the reality we live in.
What to do tonight? Hey, let’s watch some real time bombing, It’ll be fun!!
Not to wish destruction upon anyone but maybe the Karma wheel made a visit to those spectators with Iran giving them the Gaza experience..
I wonder how much those creeps enjoyed watching the Iranians do the same to them? Mike Liston
Yes, karma’s a b!tch…
In America’s Midwest tribe lands displays of courage were often viewed as more important than victory So a young brave would seek to approach an enemy with a “coup stick.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_coup
Later such feats would become part of oral history and the stuff of leadership. Cut to Trump and “obliterate.” That he is running a sophisticated 21st century nation in the manner of a hunter/gatherer tribe says it all.
The Israelis are all about PR as well of course and always have been. Instead of oral history we have Exodus by Otto Preminger. Same thing.
Of course if American pilots die or Israeli civilans die it’s in a different category than the coup stick although they may still pretend it’s all a “Blood Wedding” show. We are getting more sophisticated but not necessarily more rational.
Or a Blood Passover.
Yes, among non-industrial indigenous peoples around the world, performative war was more common than physical conflict. Losing warriors was extremely harmful to the entire village, so it was self-destructive to risk their strongest, most effective people in wars when they could be more useful in hunting and building.
As Kurt Vonnegut said, wisely, “And so it goes.”
Having stuff blow up on purpose in war is perhaps better eye candy than say an LA car chase in progress on the freeway with lots of weaving and evading despite 7 cop cars in pursuit along with a couple of helicopters overhead.
War is legitimized murder, and it used to be you could pull a Sergeant York or Audie Murphy out of the mix and make heroes of them, but its more machine oriented now-the rise of the drones.
Heroes are in short supply, and who can relate to a heroic machine?
The claim is something like 80% of GI’s in combat in WW2 never fired their weapons, with drones its always 100%.
I have a couple of knowledgable folks – ex-US Army officers, arm chair historians of tactics, empires, cultural and general history – with whom I discuss these matters. One point that spooks all of us has been the old debate – would our own soldiers fire on our own people?
Historically, it has happened quite often. In ancient times, Justinian brought in outsiders to slaughter 30,000 citizens in the Nika riots. In our modern era, the Ludlow massacre (100 or so union strikers killed by Colorado National Guard), the Bonus Army rout (6 citizens killed by cops/army, and Kent State (four dead in Ohio, indeed) show folks will “shoot their own.” But it has not been a “given.”
Until now. The drones will always do what they’re told, sigh.
When I was a kid, my dad explained to me that the main difference between a professional and a conscript army is that the latter never makes coups and rarely shoots at their own population – which to a young lad in the 70’s made a lot of sense.
There are two more differences:
1) You can’t fight large, peer ground wars with a volunteer army; and
2) Without conscription, no one has to choose among fleeing the country, going to jail or becoming a trained killer. (See today’s Ukraine for how lovely a draft becomes.)
Plus, the kids who shot the kids at Kent State were volunteers only in the sense that they volunteered to avoid being drafted into the regular Army and ‘Nam.
Well, there was the contrast between the French and Swiss Guards, so maybe some reason to hope.
Is it notable that no replies here have cited our Civil War? It’s the most synonymous, isn’t it, to our present predicament, and really a continuation of that war “by other means”?
As Julius Nyerere said in 1991: “Democracy is not a bottle of Coca-Cola which you can import. Democracy should develop according to that particular country”.
Either the eventual Taliban success is telling us that “democratic Afghanistan” and “US ally” are a contradiction in terms or maybe just that “democracy” means “government bought by US”.
“the U.S. was unable to achieve its objective of transforming Afghanistan into a democratic regional ally.”
Where is the evidence that democracy has ever been the U.S,’s objective in Afghanistan or anywhere else?
If you want to know the real objectives you would do better to look at the actual outcomes.
IMO, one of the problems with “exporting democracy” is that the exporters don’t really like democracy. So your final definition is the most accurate of what America is doing. They merely want a vassal state not a self governed state answerable to its populace.
We exported so much democracy we don’t have any left in the USA.
Probably if put to it, our “leaders” here in the U.S. would argue that Americans are naive; that we have no clue about the machinations necessary to maintain our “way of life”. Something like Afghanistan would be justified as part of a larger strategy, even if (say) it’s just showing the world that we’ll fight about anything for as long as it takes. Hard to see what we get out of all this otherwise.
We don’t get anything out of it at all. Cheap gas? Europe has had gas prices three times those of the US forever now, and yet they manage to muddle along.
I’ve long said the only exports the US has are dubious financial instruments and weapons of questionable efficacy. Going with the entertainment aspect, on top of providing people with something to gawk at, these limited conflicts are also a weapons showcase, much like those showcases at the end of older versions of Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right, where the contestants got to choose from a surfeit of prizes.
Like the way that drone turned the target to pink mist? One could be yours if your willing to take your chances and spin Uncle Sam’s Great Big Wheel of Devastation!
Does the Russia-Ukraine war qualify as a performative war? There’s a lot of interesting angles to explore there, for instance how a settlement isn’t truly deemed captured until there’s a geolocated clip of a guy waving a flag on Telegram and the “OSINT” guys change the color on their map. Seems odd to leave this conflict out.
I think Ukraine-Nato is performative and the Russians are fighting for reals.
The Russians are committing a lot of resources to the conflict in Ukraine, but have not made a declaration of war. It is still a “special military operation.” The Ukrainians are trying to score performative “successes,” like the Kursk offensive and the drone strike on bomber bases, so they fit the model more closely. Neither side has gone to a full mobilization. The odds favor the Russians, but it is not clear if they can or wish to occupy a defeated Ukraine, so the war is likely to end in a frozen conflict, like Korea.
Attrition warfare is not fought by the number of soldiers but by the industrial military capacity of the two sides. When one side runs out of weapons, its military ceases to function cohesively and its cities and leadership are wide open (and sign surrender at the point of a gun).
Russia may not want to own Ukraine, but they also will not allow NATO to rearm Ukraine and shoot Stormshadows and Taurus missiles into Russian cities to kill civilians – would your government stand for that?
My SWAG is a W. Ukraine puppet government with Ukrainians dying from NATO terrorism. Or Ukraine will be so exhausted from the loss of virtually all military-aged males that they will rat out their in-country NATO sponsors for terrorism trials in Moscow (or summary execution).
Arguably both sides (Russian Federation and US/NATO) started the conflict with well-defined and achievable goals. RF wanted to secure its Western border by rendering Ukraine permanently neutral and militarily/politically innocuous. US/NATO objective was to weaken RF internal political cohesion by inflicting a defeat on the Russian-speaking majority Donbas republics.
The US/NATO objective may have been achievable, had RF not pre-empted the Ukrainian reconquest of Donbas by launching the Special Military Operation.
Russian Federation objectives are achievable, though the cost may be much higher than originally intended (if, for example, a prolonged occupation/pacification of western Ukraine is required).
I think the SMO doesn’t belong in the “inconclusive” or “performative” categories.
Yes, Ukraine’s loss of population and military casualties are in the WWII category. It is not likely to recover economically or demographically for decades. What is amazing with the line-of-combat videos is that even with technology producing high accuracy armaments, taking land is done thru hand-to-hand combat.
Good comment but I believe that the US/NATO goal since 1991 has been to kick the Russians out of Sevastopol and Crimea.
The breakaway region of “Ukraine” never gelled as a nation-state with a national identity that might have the will to expel the near 250-year Russian military presence in Crimea. A continuous series of US/NATO fomented color revolutions intended to de-Russify “Ukraine” had the opposite effect, resulting in the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation and civil war in the eastern oblasts that caused 14,000 dead 2014-2022, mostly separatists.
It was believed that US/NATO sig-int and wunder-waffen would be all that was needed to suppress the separatists and starve the cowering Russians out of Crimea but the Russians had other plans.
While the initial SMO incursion was clearly a performative feint intended to bring about a negotiated settlement, it quickly became apparent that US/NATO neocons were intent on a return to the Russian post-Soviet collapse and that the war was existential for the Russian Federation and people.
This is now a Real War.
“Bloodthirsty media spectators will be satisfied by AI generated arena combat, and people will no longer die so that others can be motivated and entertained by the spectacle.”
Why hasn’t that been achieved through the continued development of combat video games?
I wonder how much those creeps enjoyed watching the Iranians do the same to them? Mike Liston
I think you’re missing a zero on the Chinese Civil War numbers.
Wikipedia says that there were three phases and gives estimates-
‘est. 7 million (first phase)
est. 2.5 million (second phase)
up to 6 million total (second phase)’
“…unsuccessful limited war was sustained for many years at great expense for no practical purpose. Over 20 years, the U.S. spent approximately $2.3-$2.6 trillion attempting to defeat the Taliban. … Although a military failure, the war was successful in advancing political and military careers; ***it generated substantial revenue for military contractors***; and it provided public entertainment.” (Asterisks added)
____________________________________
Thanks for this post. I’m not sure the media generated by wars is entertainment, I think it’s more for manufacturing conscent. Most of these usa fought and/or backed wars I believe were for resources and for the huge spending for contractors. Resources and access (oil pipelines, rail lines etc) is another objective. Just the Afghan military spending was was 2.3 trillion plus. That’s real money, and those that benefited we’re not shy about helping out politicians that supported their efforts. I don’t know how much they got in resources but they kept out Russia for 20 years for one thing.
When there is no war going a new one needs to be started quick, I don’t think for entertainment, but did the bottom line of the defense contractors (and this that own those companies). Once Ukraine got going, Afghanistan could be retired, and with Ukraine looking likely to end in the coming year or two, well, it appears the Middle East will be next. Unless Mexico gets invaded. Who knows where but the war spending must continue and will as long as the current duopoly is in power.
Julian Assange explains what Afghanistan was all about-
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1547752702511263745
But Afghanistan was shut down to make way for Project Ukraine which offered to be more lucrative which it has been. Well, maybe not for most Ukrainians, especially the million dead ones. I think that we are entering a new phase of warfare. For the past coupla decades the US invested in a different form of warfare with the thought that if you are in a fair fight, you are doing it wrong. Thus like in Iraq you would pound enemy formations with bombers and fighter bombers followed by long-range artillery. By the time the ground troops went in, it was just to sweep up the remnants. The British of the Old Empire called it n***** bashing. But when the invasion transitioned into an occupation the Iraqis fought back and the US found itself in a fair fight again causing casualties to mount.
A side effect of this warfare was that weapons became gold-plated and did not even have to really work. We see this with a whole series of ship classes in the US Navy like the LCS, the Zumwalt, the Ford and the Constellation. The US Army has the same problems but now these weapons were being used in real life in the Ukraine and their performance was to be seen by all. Instead of being the greatest weapons in the history of the world they were found to be at most OK. Some considered what would happen if the US military went up against the Russian military and the answers were not good. So now you have all these crack-pot schemes thought up by spooks to hit them using the Ukrainians as cut-outs. Good thing that there will never be blowback or the Russians doing the same to those scattered 800 bases around the world. Finally, because of how the west organized their fighting, other nations were able to use different fighting weapons like drone and missiles. Thus the US lost against Yemen – the mouse that roared – and Israel just had their clock cleaned in a major way in spite of how they were able to hit Iran back. So warfare has now changed and we are in a new world. But the basic facts of warfare – pain, death, suffering, PTSD – will continue.
In what ways have Hollywood movies shaped Americans’ views on war? For example, viewers of Top Gun: Maverick may not realize that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is illegal under international law.
>>>Israeli citizens observing the bombing of Gaza
Seeing those families (and the older man in the easy chair) enjoying their views of a genocide like it was a sporting event is all sorts of disturbing.
And the joy in Boom Boom Tel Aviv is somehow more darkly macabre with its apparent joy of civilians being bombed than the infectious excitement of 99 Luftballons or 99 Red Balloons with its accidental destruction of world civilization. But remembering the ghoulish humor that came with the First Cold War, and comparing it with the greater sadism of today’s Second Cold War, maybe it is apropos.
if there is a lesson to be learned from the Ukraine conflict it may be this: Clausewitz is back: the war of attrition for the purpose of compelling the enemy to do our will still has a significant role in the geopolitical sphere. it should also be noted that the apparently inconclusive wars fought by Israel are part of a decades long project to establish a Greater Israel. do not bury Clausewitz just yet.
Well done as always!!!!
Two bits:
1. It’s interesting how much a lot of bodycam resembles First Person Shooter video games. Real death and destruction is, I guess, far more thrilling. When experienced vicariously, of course.
2. War Before Civilization, by Lawrence Keely, generally agrees with a lot of the “performative” thoughts above. Not sure on link policy here, so just google the thing…