Propaganda and the Simulacrum of War

Glenn Greewald on a rhetorical shift in the War in Iraq. This time the propaganda is for real:

All of this seems based upon the premise that for the last four years, we have had a strategy of simply leaving "Al Qaeda" in peace, just letting them be. But now, we have a new Commander, Gen. David G. Petraeus, who has dramatically embraced a bold, innovative, new strategy: "Let's get Al Qaeda." That, in turn, is what accounts for the rhetorical shift.

But that explanation is just ridiculous on its face, particularly in light of how many times we have heard in the past that we have Al Qaeda on the run in Iraq, that we have disrupted it ability to operate, that we have decapitated its leadership, through all of our highly successful offensive Iraqi actions against them. And that is to say nothing of the truly laughable notion that we are able to identify dead bodies as belonging to "Al Qaeda members" ("68 Al Qaeda militants killed!").

More importantly, all of this depends upon an underhanded and deceitful conflation of (a) the Iraqi Sunnis who decided to call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" as they battled against the U.S. occupation of their country, and (b) the "Al Qaeda" led by Osama bin Laden which flew planes into U.S. buildings on 9/11. In every way that matters, those two entities are universes apart. But for obvious reasons, the political consequences of equating them are enormous. To conflate them is, as I said on Saturday, misleading and propagandistic in the extreme. For one article after the next to bolster that conflation is so journalistically irresponsible that it is hard to put into words.

But let us focus on the underlying and most significant point of all of this. This sudden shift in describing the "enemy" in Iraq as "Al Qaeda" is the by-product of a very familiar information-producing system: namely, the administration formulates narratives, the President announces them, his top officials and military commanders recite them endlessly, and then establishment "journalists" not only write them down, but rely exclusively -- and uncritically -- on those narratives to report events. As I noted on Saturday, particularly in the Update citing the work of other bloggers who have been tracking this rhetorical shift for several months, this is exactly how the transformation of the "War in Iraq" into the newly unveiled "U.S. War Against Al Qeada" was manufactured and disseminated.

Whatever else is true, all of these new reports about the glorious victories we are achieving against "Qaeda fighters" in Iraq are the by-product of this exact system. These reports rely exclusively, or overwhelmingly, on the claims of military commanders selected by the Bush administration to communicate "information" to the media.

The longer the war goes on, the more postmodern it becomes, and the more simulated and Baudrillardian the reality of the war becomes for the consumers of these narratives: the American people. Whatever the reality is for the Iraqis and the soldiers, we are being distanced from it, removed from it. The rhetorical shift is cynical, and conservapedia-esque in its hostility toward fact.

As Baudrillard wrote after the first Gulf War:

The question is not whether one is for or against the war, but whether one is for or against the reality of war. Analysis must not be sacrificed to the expression of anger. It must be directed against reality, against manifestness -- here against the manifest reality of this war.

Like the WMDs before them, this new enemy does not exist. If the administration and the complicit media continue down this path, the war itself will cease to exist. It will all be an illusion. The war is no longer about fighting and defeating an enemy. It is about manipulating the perception of a war to deter us from understanding what is happening on the ground in Iraq and in the administration (which may or may not be a war as we understood earlier conflicts). The fictionalized narrative which says that we are fighting a war against Al Qaeda is an attempt to lobotomize the people while deferring the unpleasantness of the manifest reality of the war. As long as the conflict is contained in this permanent state of suspension and ambiguity, the inevitability of total victory without cost remains the dominant and most pleasing narrative. No others need be entertained.

Alternate Star Wars

In honor of the 30th anniversary of the release of the original Star Wars, I would like to propose my alternate version of the Star Wars universe. I call it the "Vader lied" alternative.

This idea actually comes from James Earle Jones, the voice of Darth Vader himself. In one of the "making-of" documentaries for the Star Wars saga, Jones says that on originally receiving the line "Luke, I am your father," he thought it was trick. He thought Vader was lying to young Luke in order to confuse and manipulate him. This would have highlighted the sinister nature of the dark side, and foreshadowed the possibility that Luke would be betrayed and murdered by Vader just as his father had been. Brilliant!

So let's think about how things would have changed had Jones been right:

• There would have been no need to change the title of the third movie from Revenge of the Jedi. Luke would have clearly been seeking revenge.
  
• Darth Vader would actually be evil.
  
• Luke and Leia would not have been brother and sister and therefore their kiss would not be icky.
• They would not have had to retrofit Ben's dialog from Star Wars so that it was only true from a "certain point of view".
• ROTJ could have focused more on the actual return of the Jedi and not on redeeming Anakin Skywalker.
• No Ewoks?
• No need to rebrand Star Wars as Episode IV: A New Hope (bleech!)?
  
• Opportunity to go back and repair the whole "rescue of Han Solo" set piece. Why does Jabba live on Tatooine? Why is there a song and dance number? Why does Boba Fett have to die so stupidly?
  
• There is no need for a prequel trilogy about the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker.
• But if you want to do one anyway, you would see the story of how Anakin was actually betrayed by a young hotshot called Darth Vader.
• The contentious relationship between Uncle Owen and Anakin could be better explained.
• There would have been more time to see General Kenobi fighting along side Leia's father in the Clone Wars.
• We would see that Anakin was indeed the best pilot in the galaxy (and not just an annoyingly mopey teenager).
• Padme is a much cooler character for Natalie Portman to play if she's not burdened with the whole "I love an evil Jedi" storyline.
  
• Darth Vader would not be confusingly from the same planet where the droids escape to (Tatooine).
• C-3p0 would not be confusingly from the same planet where he escaped to (Tatooine).
• C-3po would not be coincidentally from the very house and the very owners where he escaped to (The Lars Homestead -- even though he doesn't recognize Owen, and Owen doesn't recognize him).
  
• Nor would he have been the invention of the villain of the story (The Maker!?!).
  
• No Jar Jar?
• No trade disputes?
• No midi-chlorians?
  

Ultimately what the Alternate Star Wars does is clear away all of the inconsistencies and coincidences of the four movies released after The Empire Strikes Back, restores the original back story of Ben, Anakin, and Darth Vader, and returns us to the original excitement and amazement of the Star Wars I remember from my childhood.

Happy Anniversary Star Wars! You godawful screwed up masterpiece, you. Now let's watch Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back and pretend like the rest of it was all a horrible mistake.