<underfire> chaos and illusions

[Loretta Napoleoni]

I agree with Linda's parallel of Lenin and communist cells. The fall of the Taliban regime destryed al Qaeda the transnational armed organization. The Invation of Iraq turned its ashes into al Qaedism, a new anti imperialist ideology. Under such umbrella the Madrid bombing and the London Bombing have taken place.

I woud add that the polariziation between 'Democracy and Freedom" and 'Jihadists and terrorism' resembles the dychotomy of the Cold War.

I am convinced America has been lost since the fall of the Berlin Wall, hence the search for a new mega enemy.

Loretta
------------------
Sent withInstant Email from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Robertson, Linda" <robertson at hws.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:48:43 
To:<underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org>, <underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org>
Subject: Re: <underfire> chaos and illusions

I, too, am jumping in with two observations.

First: In re the idea that better coverage of the devastation of warfare would, in fact, constitute a deterrence to the devastation of cities in the manner of World War II:    Fallujah was leveled. The American public are unaware of this.  The reliable estimates that 400,000 Iraqis have lost their lives as a direct result of the invasion seems not to have phased anyone in a leadership position.  So the "novelty" of the information age should, perhaps, be reexamined.

Second, the idea that the existence of "networks" presents a confusing dilemma to modern nation states--as discussed in an earlier posting-- is belied by the reality that the organization by networks was, of course, the organization of choice for Lenin and for communist cells.  The reality is that the Cold War mentality is in fact reinvoked rather than obviated by the advent of the Al Queda form of loose organization..  

Linda Robertson



-----Original Message-----
From: underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org on behalf of Allan Siegel
Sent: Tue 10/31/2006 1:29 PM
To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
Subject: <underfire> chaos and illusions
 
There is so many useful important threads to follow here and I kept  
wondering where to start or jump-in. So...

Michael Goldhaber has stated the following:

"We see and are directly affected by suffering because it is so much  
more central our own humanity than killing is.  Statesmen only barely  
are beginning to understand this. One thing the Internet has already  
done is enlarge this contact with "the other side." I don't see any  
easy way for this trend to stop. Nor do I believe that anywhere in  
the world where such images are available they will not have effect.

This new form of war is entirely opposite of that that prevailed in  
WWII, where entire cities were demolished to make a point. There was  
not good war reporting in Japan, for instance, so the allies felt  
justified in fire-bombing Tokyo, heavily bombing other cities, and  
then using A-bombs against Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki,  
just to make a point that might affect the Japanese war cabinet.  
Today such destruction would be seen immediately throughout the  
world, and the onus of evil would fall on the bombers, at least mostly."

I am not so sure that today's new form of war is so different than  
the past. The technology has changed (its glamour increased?), the  
destructiveness more targeted or contained but, "when push comes to  
shove" the number of recent examples of rampant destructiveness  
employed simply "to make a point" are quite plentiful.

Furthermore, I am not so sure that statesmen today have evolved from  
where they were 50 years ago or a hundred. Statesmen both in the past  
and in the present have shown themselves to be quite capable of  
obfuscating the truth when it suits their 'higher calling' of needing  
to achieve goals not easily grasped by the 'common folk.' And, what  
we can easily see is the consistent lack of transparency by statesmen  
when it comes to articulating clear political objectives. Truth is  
not even on the table.

The abundance of information (and disinformation) on television and  
the internet about the bombing of Lebanon did little to deter an  
institutionally organized act of terror. In fact the  
"representational fog" that now engulfs 'the other/s" has tipped the  
discursive balance of power towards those most able to render 'the  
enemy' as: at best invisible, certainly ignominious and hopefully  
evil incarnate.

There has been a consistency of this kind of dualistic rhetoric since  
the advent of the Cold War. The 'us' and 'them' kind of mentality  
that so easily seeps through the American political landscape. And,  
sorry to say, this kind of binary attitude is just as prevalent on  
the Left (side A) as on the Right (side B). It is not so much that  
this descriptive language tarnishes but rather that - in its own  
depressing way - it renders discourse ineffectual, impotent. How sad  
(even with all those blogs out there) and how symptomatic of the  
devolution of the journalistic public sphere that in the U.S. so many  
people still think (somewhat desperately) of the NY Times as the  
singular focal point for 'informed' news and information.

So, jumping ahead here, the language which we utilize (draw upon) to  
comprehend 'this violence' or 'these conflicts' is very much shaped  
(and distorted) by individual and institutional (corporate, religious  
or governmental) biases that are very much rooted in OUR vision of  
the world and OUR priorities etc.. These different groupings  
represent what Edward Said called communities of interpretation.

One approach (obviously widespread in many corners of the globe) is  
simply that evil (in whatever form) must be vanquished. This is  
simplistic but attractive to many. Another approach is cloaked in the  
'higher values' of the Enlightenment which, with diminished traction,  
somehow manages to persevere. (One of the primary illusions of  
liberalism is that it promotes as false sense of engagement with  
'important issues' yet relies on political mechanisms gilded with a  
moral self-righteousness). More realistically, to approach events or  
people outside ideological frameworks that are slowly imploding is  
quite difficult. Perhaps, from wherever our vantage point, this is  
because we are struggling to find a new vocabulary and forms of  
action (activity). The tentativeness of this process is compounded by  
what seems to be both an abundance of information and, as Loretta has  
stated, an equal surplus of illusions.

At times it feels as if I am stuck within one of those conundrums of  
post-modernity where the past is suspect, the future uncertain and  
the present damn uncomfortable. The steps to extricate oneself from  
this predicament are awkward (maybe ineffectual) but necessary. They  
arise from evolving paradigms that are both descriptively and  
theoretically innovative.

Allan Siegel


_______________________________________________
Under Fire  http://underfire.eyebeam.org
16 October - 10 December 2006
International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville 
all writings copyright individual authors
no commercial use without permission
to post a message, send an email to:
underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
to unsubscribe, send an email to:
underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org