I am not quite sure how I went from Pearl Jam's "Life Wasted" to Baudrillard's simulacra to metapress. (which has nothing to do with this post, but John started thinking about it on the KaBLOW!space. Yes, I am a dirty commie.) But here is my question:
Because when you come to think of it, it doesn't really feel like we are in a state of war. Okay. Scratch that. In a true Baudrillard fashion:
Someone probably has thought of it before, although I don't think I've seen it on leftist blogs or in essays (Baudrillard! Where are you?) or books. I guess I made some strange connections between Pearl Jam releasing their latest video through Creative Commons, thus renouncin ownership but not authorship (name and image commodity) and John McCain speech at Liberty University and at the New School referring to the occupation of Iraq as "the War in Iraq" instead, well, the "Global War On Terrorism." We are constantly bombarded by images and narratives of a "Global War On Terrorism" through the television, the newspapers and the internet, but where is this "war"?
I am not denying that soldiers are being maimed, that civilians were being massacred by troops at Haghiba and that insurgents (resistants) are fighting against the occupying forces. Because, indeed, soldiers are being maimed, civilians are being massacred by troops and insurgents, and other atrocities are occuring. But this is more reminiscent of an occupation than a war. Like Germany occupying France during World War II. I mean, can we compare Abu Ghraib to the Natzweiler-Struthof camp?
When we think of war, we think of unified powers fighting against each other. The "enemy" is structured and super-competent (how else did they attack us on our own soil?) straight out of shows like "24" or "Alias," or straight out of the pages of Captain America. Basically, Al Qaeda and Hamas are seen like this:
When what we really have is this:
Sure, they look like thugs. But they're just that: thugs, not super evil geniuses like this:
And seriously, don't you think the guy on the right of the second photo seems like he has a beer belly?
So what is really the "Global War On Terrorism," if not a glittery package to sell us conveniently a bunch of atrocities? So next time a fatass-racist-nazi-bastard-who-enjoys-wrestling confronts you with nonsense about the "Global War On Terrorism," just tell him there is no such thing as the "Global War On Terrorism."
Is there such a thing as the "Global War On Terrorism"?
Because when you come to think of it, it doesn't really feel like we are in a state of war. Okay. Scratch that. In a true Baudrillard fashion:
The "Global War On Terrorism" is not happening.
Someone probably has thought of it before, although I don't think I've seen it on leftist blogs or in essays (Baudrillard! Where are you?) or books. I guess I made some strange connections between Pearl Jam releasing their latest video through Creative Commons, thus renouncin ownership but not authorship (name and image commodity) and John McCain speech at Liberty University and at the New School referring to the occupation of Iraq as "the War in Iraq" instead, well, the "Global War On Terrorism." We are constantly bombarded by images and narratives of a "Global War On Terrorism" through the television, the newspapers and the internet, but where is this "war"?
I am not denying that soldiers are being maimed, that civilians were being massacred by troops at Haghiba and that insurgents (resistants) are fighting against the occupying forces. Because, indeed, soldiers are being maimed, civilians are being massacred by troops and insurgents, and other atrocities are occuring. But this is more reminiscent of an occupation than a war. Like Germany occupying France during World War II. I mean, can we compare Abu Ghraib to the Natzweiler-Struthof camp?
When we think of war, we think of unified powers fighting against each other. The "enemy" is structured and super-competent (how else did they attack us on our own soil?) straight out of shows like "24" or "Alias," or straight out of the pages of Captain America. Basically, Al Qaeda and Hamas are seen like this:
When what we really have is this:
Sure, they look like thugs. But they're just that: thugs, not super evil geniuses like this:
And seriously, don't you think the guy on the right of the second photo seems like he has a beer belly?
So what is really the "Global War On Terrorism," if not a glittery package to sell us conveniently a bunch of atrocities? So next time a fatass-racist-nazi-bastard-who-enjoys-wrestling confronts you with nonsense about the "Global War On Terrorism," just tell him there is no such thing as the "Global War On Terrorism."
Comments
Did someone say 'war on drugs'?
picked up 'a nomad poetics'...
clay: do you have a copy to the Brzezinski argument? or a link?
john: i think i am more interested (right now) about how the notion of war is distributed as a commodity, but to do what exactly, i am not sure. i think the article ekrem points at it. but what you are pointing at is a consequence of this distribution of "the state of war" in a perverse national "hipness." it's kinda like when we were kids. have a gi joe(or cobra) toys, you're cool (or patriotic). if not, you're a dumbass ... (full disclosure: i was more into the transformers as a kid)
i was a gi joe guy as a kid
iraq has the gas prices...