RE: [A-List] Iraq: "we seem to be able to live with it"

["Stan Goff" <sherrynstan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You put your finger on a lot here Michael.  Just having re-read Lasch's
The Culture of Narcissism, it was then topical and has since become
prescient.

Your point about this being a fundamentally metropolitan phenomenon is
well taken... and extremely important.  One of the interesting things
about this increasingly shallow, image-managed, coliseum Darwinism that
has politically debilitated the metropolitan working class is that it
seems to have equally debilitated the metropolitan ruling class in its
ability to manage an empire.  They truly have come to believe a lot of
their own bullshit, "Bring 'em on" and such, because they no longer even
realize that many of their key actions, as Lasch put it, are "so
mediated by electronic images that [they] cannot help responding to
others as if their actions... were being recorded and simultaneously
transmitted to an unseen audience... The proliferation of recorded
images undermines [their] own sense of reality."  Suddenly a handful of
unmediated images penetrate the veil, a la Abu Ghraib, and an
uncontrollable political crisis threatens.

As Mark said, and I think as Mike Davis has implied in City of Quartz
and Ecology of Fear, if the left is to gauge these developments
accurately in order to "predicate our operations on good intelligence"
in the military idiom, it is urgent that we understand how the semiotics
of all this interfuses with demographics, oil, water, food, money, etc.
Both the history and the anthropology seem critical to this project.
Dealing seriously with the question of gender is also in the middle of
this.  I don't remember whether it was Polanyi or Gramsci who said that
Marxism can't march into the future facing backwards.

Stan

-----Original Message-----
From: a-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:a-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Keaney
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:32 AM
To: a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [A-List] Iraq: "we seem to be able to live with it"

McWhirter's dismay, otherwise very reasonable, ignores two related
factors.
One is that which we have been covering here on and off, thanks to Jim
Craven -- namely, the social structure of accumulation of the current
phase
of monopoly capitalism, in which the proliferation of social darwinism
as
entertainment serves to underline the fragmentation and atomisation of
society via the promotion of individualism, narcissism, selfishness,
materialism, short-termism, myopia, etc. Thus the swamping of British
news
media with stories about the Beckhams and other celebrities whose
glamorous
life serves to distract and occupy the attention of many. Meanwhile the
social-darwinism-as-entertainment rather blunts the impact of the
pictures
coming out of Iraq. Having myself sat in a cinema theatre and listened
to
the laughter occasioned by the infamous ear-slicing scene in "Reservoir
Dogs", it's not too difficult to imagine that so many could become
desensitised to such pictures. While racism may still be an important
factor
in the rationalisation of treatments meted out to Iraqis, Afghans and
other
"illegal non-combatants", perhaps the political correctness embodied in
the
likes of New Labour has bequeathed us a new form of "us versus them"
dehumanising otherness, in which the criterion of exclusion is not race,
ethnicity, gender, but instead the designation "loser". After all, we in
the
west now live in societies where we enjoy equality of opportunity, as
opposed to equality of outcome. That means we are all responsible for
our
outcomes, rather than the state. In Giddens-speak, this is where our
rights
are matched by our responsibilities. Therefore, it stands to reason that
if
we cannot achieve wealth or whatever is designated "success", it is our
fault. It's not a big distance from the logic of the meritocracy to the
passivity of the viewer, witnessing yet another humiliation of the
losers,
albeit this time not administered in the name of entertainment. But when
there is so much else to digest on the 95 other channels available, and
with
more immediate gratification likely via that route than by organising
some
kind of protest or resistance, bleak resignation is perhaps the nearest
to
opposition that can be hoped for.

Of course it's not quite that bad, at least not yet. But for those at
the
receiving end of imperialist abuse, it must be difficult to imagine
seething
discontent within the metropolis as a result of that same imperialist
abuse.
And if elections are so great, how come these war criminals get into
office?
And stay there??

-------

Smiling Face Of Evil That Shames Us
Iain Macwhirter says we must all take the blame for the inhuman scenes
from
the Middle East
The Sunday Herald, 23 May 2004

I don't often find myself using the word "evil". I've never even been
sure
quite what it means. But it is hard not to regard what is happening now
in
the Middle East as inhuman, bestial, degrading. There has been a
breakdown
of civilised values, of respect for life itself. And we are all
collectively
responsible for it.

The dead children were the worst. On Thursday we saw the bodies of 40
Iraqi
wedding guests, including women and children, killed, almost certainly,
by a
trigger-happy American helicopter crew near the Syrian border. There was
something unbearably tragic about the makeshift body bags, improvised
out of
carpets, curtains and sleeping bags. The mutilated and headless child
corpses - killed at what should have been a celebration of the family.

However, the Israeli massacre in Rafah was in some respects worse. At
least
the American pilot appeared to believe the Iraqi wedding party was being
held in a terrorist safe house. Rafah was an act of cold-blooded
barbarity.
The Israeli tanks fired directly into a crowd of Palestinian
demonstrators
protesting at the demolition of their homes.

In the end, even Tony Blair was forced to condemn the Israeli action as
"wrong and unacceptable". But the almost apologetic way in which he
delivered this censure, at Prime Minister's Question Time, undermined
any
impact it might have had. George W Bush initially applauded the Israeli
action in Rafah as a legitimate part of the "war on terror", but by the
end
of the week confessed to being "troubled".

As well he might be. Black Thursday also brought us more pictures of
atrocities in Abu Ghraib prison by American forces. Not as brutal
perhaps as
the picture of hooded prisoners with electrodes on their fingers; not as
weird as the turnip-faced Lynndie England getting them to masturbate.
But,
to me at least, far more serious.

One picture depicted a fresh-faced young American woman, with a
graduation
day smile, giving the thumbs up to a dead Iraqi prisoner wrapped in
plastic.
This is one of the most shocking pictures of war I think I have ever
seen.
Why? Because of what it betrays about the attitude of the occupying
forces
to the value of human life. The disregard for the dignity of this
person,
who had almost certainly lost his life through US action, was worse than
appalling - it was evil.

That anyone can smile in the face of death is disturbing, pathological
even.
But it is clear from the relaxed demeanour of the camp guard that what
we
were seeing was nothing out of the ordinary. She was saying, in effect:
"Hey
look, Mom. Another less Iraqi to worry about." The picture may even have
been taken, like the ones of sexual abuse, for interrogation purposes;
to
show other Iraqi detainees just how disposable they are.

We have been exposed to so much bestiality in Abu Ghraib that we are
losing
our capacity to be shocked. The latest atrocities included prisoners
being
paraded in excrement; being force-fed pork and alcohol against Muslim
beliefs; being beaten systematically by guards. But we are in danger of
becoming de-sensitised. I have even found myself saying that, in war,
these
things happen.

But do they? What kind of army behaves like this? Well, the answer is
that
our army behaves like this. I do not mean British soldiers individually
-
though it would be naive to think that "our boys" have not done some
"nasties" on Iraqi detainees. But even American forces are "our boys" in
the
sense that they are there with British support and cooperation. We have
legitimised this illegal war. Without Tony Blair, George W Bush would
have
been even more isolated from the international community than he now,
rightly, is.

We cannot just blame America. We are active collaborators in one of the
most
foul and degrading conflicts of modern times. Serbian military
commanders
are being hunted down even now for crimes not dissimilar to those we
know
have been committed by the coalition forces in Iraq.

And there is more to come. The Washington Post, which released the
latest
images, clearly has a whole library of video nasties under lock and key.
The
Red Cross is seeking access to the Guantanamo Bay interrogation centre
in
Cuba to investigate abuses there and in similar camps in Afghanistan and
Iraq. We shall be seeing more shame-faced four-star generals appearing
before Senate hearings.

Apologists for the war say that all this proves that we are in the
right,
even as we are so manifestly in the wrong. Would any of this torture
have
come to light in Iraq under Saddam? Would the torturers have been
brought to
justice? Would the press have been allowed to report it?

The answer is no. Under dictatorship crimes against humanity take place
in
secrecy, at least while the regime remains in power. However, this makes
the
Iraq abuse scandal even more shocking. How could this happen at all in a
democracy? We have persuaded ourselves that such behaviour is impossible
in
a free society because the people would never allow it. Well, here it is
happening under democratically-elected politicians who - like Donald
Rumsfeld - seem to suffer no obvious remorse.

Rumsfeld should have resigned long ago. George W Bush and even Tony
Blair
should be considering their positions. That may sound excessive,
unreasonable even. But imagine if this war had been launched, in
defiance of
the international community, by another Western power, such as Germany.
Would Gerhard Schroeder still be in office? The entire Dutch government
of
Wim Kok resigned in 2002 over the behaviour of Dutch armed forces in
Bosnia
in 1995. In Britain, Anthony Eden resigned over Suez without a murmur.

The really shocking thing about the Iraq disaster is that neither Bush
nor
Blair seem to think they should even be contemplating resignation. This
is,
I fear, because the British and American public opinion have not yet
reacted
with sufficient force. We seem to be able to live with it - abuse and
all.

Hopefully, George W Bush and his right-wing clique will be hurled from
office by the American people come November. They have shown themselves
unfit to govern a banana republic, let alone the most powerful nation in
history. But the defeat of the Republicans is by no means certain. It
would
be truly terrible if a government responsible for war crimes were to be
voted back into office - but that isn't impossible.

It is imperative that those democratic countries which have been party
to
the Iraq war now mount a searching self-examination. We cannot simply
carry
on as normal. Tony Blair's failure to condemn the actions of the
American
military has brought shame to this nation and to our own fighting
forces.

But the days when leaders fell because their peers withdrew respect are
gone. Anthony Eden went because the British establishment withdrew its
support. But we live now in an age of opinion poll democracy. We, the
people
must find some way of communicating our disgust and contempt for what
has
been allowed to happen in Iraq. Nowadays, for evil to triumph, it is
only
necessary that the people do nothing.