June 12, 2006
Since
the 'death’ of 'al-Zarqawi’ reams have been written from both a 'left’
and right perspective on the significance of his death or even, as I
along with other writers have asserted, whether the damn fellow existed
in the first place, at least as he has been portrayed.
Regardless,
the one thing that seems to be missing from all the 'analysis’ (whether
he existed or not is not really relevant), and that is the role of
these 'personalities’ in the scheme of things, or rather their use in
mystifying events and their causes.*
The
BBC produced an extremely hurried so-called documentary the other night
on the 'life and death’ of the man, that regurgitated every piece of US
propaganda without criticism including the seminal Colin Powell speech
at the UN in early 2003.
The
gist of the piece was that 'al-Zarqawi’ was pivotal to the so-called
insurgency and that with his death, things could only get better.
Central to the propaganda piece was the notion that behind the
'insurgency’ is 'al-Qu’eda’, Iraq branch. 'al-Zarqawi’ then is the
'match that ignited the fire’.
All
notions that the 'insurgency’ is not only home-grown but a direct
response to the invasion and occupation has to be expunged from the
public consciousness. Equally as important is linking the 'insurgency’
to an 'international conspiracy’, from which springs the 'war on
terror’.
There
are several observations to make on this scenario the first of which is
that by introducing these 'foreign actors’ it reduces the Iraqi people
to mere puppets, victims if you like, who have no will of their own. It
parallels the role of the Soviet Union and China in the US invasion and
occupation of Vietnam, only instead of 'terrorists’ it was the 'Reds’,
an 'alien’ force who used Vietnam to further their nefarious aim of
destroying Western 'civilisation’.
Aside
from the inherently racist nature of this view (contrast it with the
view presented of the British people’s reaction to 7/7, who united in
their horror of the events, 'pulled together’ etc. etc.), the idea that
the Iraqi people might likewise be united by the even greater horror of
watching their country systematically destroyed and hundreds of
thousands killed and maimed, must not, under any circumstances, be
allowed to penetrate the public’s consciousness.
Equally
important from the perspective of the role given to 'al-Zarqawi’ by
Western propaganda is the removal of any reference to causes and
relationship between causes and events. Thus 'al-Zarqawi’ serves
firstly to divorce USUK involvement from what is happening in Iraq and
secondly, 'al-Zarqawi’ ties very neatly into the conception of history
being made allegedly by pivotal individuals.
And
given the nature of 'news’ reporting these days—which by the way is no
mere result of technology, that is, 24-hour 'rolling news’ etc—but a
reflection of the ideology of the state which would have us believe
that we are all at the mercy of forces over which we have no control.
At
best we respond to them but an 'al-Zarqawi’ character is to all intents
and purposes a 'lose cannon’; a "psychopath" as the BBC described him,
a force that acts outside of history. This is precisely why the BBC
uses the word to describe him, as a psychopath is not susceptible to
logic, nor does a psychopath have a conscience.
This
is also why without a hint of irony, the media has 'al-Zarqawi' flying
all over the place and indeed often in different places at the same
time! A 'Will-O-the-Wisp’, who can transport himself to any convenient
location that suits the script writers. 'al-Zarqawi’ is, in every sense
of the word, an invention, whether he exists or not as a 'real person’
just as a well known actor becomes the part he or she plays to the
degree that the public can no longer distinguish between the two.
In
this regard, it is important that he not actually appear 'in person’,
only via anonymous videos, audio tapes or written statements, else he
ceases to be a character and instead becomes a 'real’ person. Kept at a
distance he can made into anything the media/state want him to be.
This
can only happen because 'al-Zarqawi’ operates as a 'celebrity’, a
cypher, a symbol for all that ails Capitalism. He has no real history
anymore than Saddam Hussein does except the one invented for him at any
given time and supplied to the public. There is nothing paradoxical
about Saddam the 'ally’ and Saddam the 'devil’, as the nature of the
way the 'news’ works never makes the connection between the different
'Saddams’. 'Saddam’ exists outside of history in just the same way
'al-Zarqawi’ does.
Yet
no one, least of all the media of course, is struck by how ludicrous
this all is because time and space is rendered fluid, operating
according to its own, mad 'logic’ by the nature of the way the 'news’
is structured; as disconnected bits, events, 'news bites’.
These
'characters’, for that is what they are, spring up unbidden like
mushrooms after the rain. Once past their usefullness they are
discarded ('killed off’ or their roles re-written) and new 'characters’
are written into the script just as the 'replacement’ for 'al-Zarqawi’
was named (sort of, just in case the replacement is miscast, or perhaps
not up to the task?) by the US shortly after the 'death’ of
'al-Zarqawi’.
The
upshot of this process is entirely predictable; a public that sees
every event in much the same way it views a 'reality show’, that is as
hermetic, sealed into its 'time slot’. Belief in a coherent, if totally
insane, external reality is suspended and thus the outrageous
activities of 'our’ governments can be tolerated, accepted as 'real’
just as the characters in the aptly named 'Big Brother’ are accepted as
'real’.
Where
it really becomes insidious is when we compare 'al-Zarqawi’s’ script to
the one supplied to Tony Blair for example, whose speeches are
structured in exactly the same way; aphorisms, theatrical and medical
phrases; talk of "viruses" and "innoculations", "dark forces", of a "a
dark curtain descending". The one thing none of Blair’s speeches
contain is any reference to the real world, all is vague and impossible
to pin down in any real sense.
"…a new and deadly virus has emerged.
"The
virus is terrorism, whose intent to inflict destruction is
unconstrained by human feeling; and whose capacity to inflict it is
enlarged by technology. This is a battle that can’t be fought or won
only by armies. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns but our beliefs.
"Here
it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is
able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people,
the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel; and to
translate this into a battle between East and West; Muslim, Jew and
Christian"
Tony Blair’s speech to the joint session of Congress, 18 July 2003
(See also 'Hail Caesar’ for other examples)
What
is important is that Blair’s speeches 'dovetail’ with how the world is
presented to us by the media. The line between fiction and reality is
obliterated completely, a process that is the bread and butter of
television and its hand-maidens, advertising and PR. Just look at the
backgrounds of Blair’s closest 'advisors’ and you see that the space
between the political and economic classes has disappeared completely.
Past
expressions of the ruling economic class were almost entirely
represented by what we like to call the 'Establishment’, that is the
upper echelons of the civil service, the judiciary, the police, the
armed forces the education establishment, and of course the media as it
then was, and the political class that led them, the government and its
revolving door parties, the Tories and the Labour Party.
That
this has changed is evidenced by the occasional public clash between
Blair’s 'advisors’ and the traditional civil service, the 'Whitehall
Mandarins’ with their innocuous-sounding names, permanent secretary or
permanent under-secretary to this or that minister or committee who
resent the 'upstarts’ usurping their positions. This is Mussolini’s
Corporatisation of the State, the merging of big business and
government, or Fascism to use its vox pop name.
In
the US it’s revealed by the changing balance of forces between the
State Department and the Department of Defense, with the DoD
representing the increasingly (open) militarisation of the state. The
DoD was one of the first arms of the government to employ PR companies
and advertising agencies to sell its wars, initiated under Reagan with
the invasion of Grenada. And with good reason, the experience of
Vietnam had taught the ruling elite a painful lesson, one that it
wasn’t going to allow to happen again, not if it could help it. This is
where 'al-Zarqawi' was born, in the 'baby incubators' of Kuwait City.
Some
commentators have ascribed this shift to a battle between the 'old’
Eastern Establishment and the 'new’ Southern 'aristocracy’ based in
Texas, whereas I contend that it reflects the shifting centre of
economic power which now resides in energy, media and information
technology (and of course, weapons) which are now owned almost entirely
by vast banking, investment and insurance corporations.
Ultimately,
it represents the failure of Capitalism as a system to rule by
'consent’ or to use another misnomer, 'democracy’ which in turn masks
an even deeper contradiction, that of the over-accumulation of capital
and the fact that in order to maintain the rule of capital (and its
profitability) it has had to return to its old tried and trusted
methods—brute force but do so with relatively well-heeled populations
who have for the past fifty-plus years been told that once the former
'enemy of democracy’ was dispensed with, Communism, all would be well
with the world. In that former world, the world of the invasion of
Vietnam, people could be trusted to back the old patriotic line and of
course, the fear of Communism, which at least actually existed. How
untrue the new paradigm has turned out to be is revealed by the return
of the poor and dispossessed to their tried and trusted
methods—resistance, for we once more see the 'spectre of Communism'
raising its fearsome head, only now it's 'down South, Mexico way'.
* For a different take on Zarqawi, see 'Zarqawi: Western fearmongering made flesh’
by Brendan O’Neill. Tuesday 13 June 2006. It’s not a view I subscribe
to, considering it just a mite to naive and one-dimensional about the
role of 'Zarqawi’ in the machinations of the Capitalists and ignoring
the history of comparable figures throughout the 20th century and even
earlier. O’Neill’s article is based almost exclusively on the work of
Loretta Napoliani, author of 'Insurgent Iraq: Al-Zarqawi and the New
Generation, on how a nobody became the most notorious terrorist in the
world.’