A question about being right and wrong with respect to political argument?

I remember reading an essay in highschool that was entitled as, "Faces of the Enemy". It outlined that the notion of "enemy", if not politically cosntructed, is also psychologically constructed. That is, the idea of "enemy" across all nations and groups is universal in the sense that he/she is depicted as a violators of universal human attributes: a murderer, a rapist, a violent criminal, a sadistic freak, a torturer, morally corrupted, subhuman, etc. The linkage of these characteristics towards an "enemy" incites m hatred towards the enemy and turns normal moral human beingsinto killers. The fighters against this enemy fight with the idea in mind that they are morally justified champions of justice, truth and humanity, and that they are the good ones against the "bad guys. In this sense, they would think in their minds that they have some sort of inherent political, ideological, moral, ethnic or racial superiority superior over their enemy, which causes them to indiscrminately kill and maim to preserve thier morale. Hence, the idea of "enemy" can be a psychologically constructed image created by political leaders, thoiugh its image if universal in all cultures. I am not sayign that there are no such things as a real enemies, but would you agree or disagree with what this essay is saying? Would you not agree, that there is indeed, a side to a conflict that is morally superior, which the fighers are often true fighters for good? Would you agree that the "enemy" is not a psychologically constructed propaganda image, but rather a truth? For instance, would you agree that your enemies would be devoid of moral justice, or empathy? And would you agree that these enemies are violators of human rights?