Hey, it's just a game: Virtual War, Violence, and Real War

Have you seen some of the new commercials for the US military, by chance? One thing that I have noticed with some of these is that they often look a lot like video games. Here's a slightly older ad that has the video game feel to it:

And here is an ad about a video game that the US Army supposedly developed (from 2007):

A new post by Max Forte over at Zero Anthropology got me thinking about all of this. Apparently, there was some controversy about a new video game that allowed users to play the part of the Taleban:

So what are these video games for? What purpose(s) can they serve, if any, besides entertainment? How seriously do users take them? How seriously should we think about these sorts of questions? For me this brings up questions about the relationship between violence, realistic video games like this, and desensitization. I was pretty young during Gulf War I, but one thing I remember clearly is how much the TV news coverage looked like a video game. It was all so detached, clean, and put together. But the video games today--like Electronic Arts' Medal of Honor--aren't exactly detached. These games are realistic, close-up, and bloody. Still, they generate detachment because they are "just games" and fall under the "entertainment" category. All of this makes me think of the Wikileaks release of footage from Iraq earlier this year, and how the soldiers sounded like they were just playing another game. Do video games cause violence? I doubt it. But can they help generate a kind of systematic, dehumanized detachment? Good question.

UPDATE 10/5: I found one of the new commercials that I talked about at the opening of this post. This one is a USAF commercial that looks a lot like a video game. Interesting to think about why they choose to present recruiting commercials in this way. Check it out:

Human Terrain on YouTube

This video was made by Harjant Gill of American University:

Human Terrain on Google Ads?

Well, this wasn't expected. So I was checking out an anthropology-related site a while ago, just to see what was going on around those parts. And I noticed an interesting ad in the Google sidebar (which is common on many blogs and others sites):


That's right, a "one-of-a-kind opportunity" to learn more about BAE Systems' HTS Program. I had no idea that Google was running these ads. The link leads to this website, which talks all about the exciting opportunities to "make a real world difference."

Has anyone else seen these?

*Update: According to the Google Adsense page: "AdSense gives you access to Google's vast network of advertisers, so you can show ads that are suited to your audience's interests." Is HTS really suited to an anthropological audience's interests? Not mine.

The Human Terrain Complex

Max Forte over at Zero Anthropology:

Any suggestion that HTS is not about supporting war, and separate from the military-industrial complex and corporate war-profiteering, is at the very least naïve or disingenuous. As soon as corporations become such a significant part of the picture, arguments about “saving lives,” “peace keeping,” and “cultural sensitivity” become, at the very best, secondary concerns. The main concern for any corporation is the accumulation of capital. The main concern for any war corporatist is the accumulation of capital derived from engagement in warfare – the main drive is to maintain the war that produces the contracts that generate revenue and growth.

So what exactly IS HTS all about? How is anthropology (and academia) being marshaled toward the war effort? What can (or should) be done about this? Where should anthropologists stand on this matter? What is the purpose of anthropology?

You see, this just makes me ask a lot of questions. I think I'm not asking ENOUGH.