LENIN'S TOMB

 

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

How to sanctify mass murder. posted by Richard Seymour


Now, look at this. When you've bombed hospitals, destroyed cities, attacked the civilian infrastructure, shot people up in their houses and cars, shot at ambulances, fried people alive with white phosphorus, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured and raped prisoners to death, and pounded housing estates with bullets and shells, you're probably running out of possibilities for barbarity and savagery. Time for a school run. Seven kids killed, three wounded, and the contemptible excuse offered that they were only trying to kill the bad guys, who are so wicked and evil that they hide themselves among the civilian population, even tricking good American boys into believing that they may be secreted in the clothing of small children in a school. They forced the yanqui liberators to fire on those poor kids, and so it's their fault.

Let's deal with this bullshit once and for all, because I'm sick of hearing every time American military forces blow up a wedding ceremony, or a refugee convoy, or family home, that it's all the fault of the bad guys. If you choose war, you choose its consequences. If you choose the tactic of urban warfare and sectarian death squads, you are responsible for what takes place. If you choose to pound a school with shells, even if - and I want to be absolutely clear about this - even if you are under the impression that there might be nefarious folks hanging around in the vicinity, then the deaths are your fault. It doesn't matter if you think the military are bullshitting on this or not: there is a whole ideology involved here, which is inherently exculpatory and in many of its manifestations deeply racist.

This is the ideology of the 'western way of war', in which it is claimed that western states uniquely refuse to target civilians (see Martin Shaw's The New Western Way of War for an explication and qualified apologia). Isn't this always the claim? When Bush senior explained that he had no beef with ordinary Iraqis in 1991, indeed prayed for their safety as his army was incinerating, shredding and burying alive Iraqi conscripts and civilians hiding in bomb shelters, he explicated an obnoxious and supremacist mythology. For while it is true that Western states engaged in military conquest have not on the whole sought to commit widespread massacres against civilians, the very innocence of the distinction between combatants and civilians is deeply suspect. To begin with, because it implicitly denies any legitimacy to opposing combatants, it licences a wide variety of industrialised slaughter techniques that can be used against them: even where they are not the initiators of the conflict. This has permitted not only the use of indefinite and secret imprisonment and torture against suspected combatants, but also the preference at every stage for intensified aggression with predictably high rates of death and destruction, rather than serious consideration of demands or claims made by oppositional groups. Secondly, the category of civilians appears to be suffused with racist sentimentality - the implicit claim is that any right they have to be exempted from high-tech slaughter is a sort of reward for passivity and acceptance of conquest. Even that right is imperiled if they manage to give the impression of being potential combatants, or protecting or otherwise aiding them, or even being in close proximity to them. One's rights as a civilian are so precarious that a bunch of enraged or deranged occupying troops can take them away with little prospect of discovery and a great effort at cover-up if someone does find out. This is an elemental condition of war and occupation. Indeed, it is a highly unsatisfactory right, since one is supposed to passively accept not only exposure to "collateral damage" - the inevitably widespread civilian deaths that occur from military strategies designed to wipe out the enemy ruthlessly, efficiently, and from a great cocooned distance - and not only the destruction of the infrastructure that enables life, and not only the constant disruption and fear: one is also expected to accept the political priorities of the aggressors, whatever they happen to be. Somehow, the slim chance that you will be among those given two grand by the occupiers for having had a family member certifiably killed by US troops, isn't adequate compensation.

Before, I had thought that the problem was the inevitability that the distinction between combatant and civilian would be eroded or erased once it became clear that the combatants had a community of support and a mandate to wage war with the resources of that community. I had thought, in other words, that the problem was in the degenerate tendencies of especially longer wars. This is partially the case: it is no mere accident, but systematic. And in fact, not only does war possess those inherently degenerative tendencies ranging from massacre to genocide, but the relationship between war and genocide manifests itself in other ways: curiously, it was pro-war commentator William Shawcross who outlined this some decades ago, in his book Sideshow, in which it is described how the Khmer Rouge were "born out of the inferno" of the American bombing of Cambodia. It is well within the range of possibilities that a post-occupation Iraq will succumb to similar forces. Yet, that only gets one so far - and at any rate, the Pentagon et al prefer short wars with comparatively few (and discreet, or unnoticed) casualties. No, the problem is deeper, because we're talking about an analytical frame within which war is perceived, and not simply a paradigm within which it is fought: the problem resides in the way the civilian/combatant distinction is made, and the way that it legitimises great harm to the communities under attack, always displacing the blame onto the opposing combatants (and eventually, onto the civilians too, since they have failed to live up to expectations). If they didn't fight, they would be civilians, thus protected: that is, if everyone does as they're told, no one will get hurt. This is the ethics of the bank robbery or the ransom note.

The racism of this ideology couldn't be clearer: only Americans are entitled to self-defense (and even, tacitly, a great deal of vengeful excess) if their citizens, territory or even claimed interests are attacked. Everyone else has to suck it up. And of course, the military supremacy comes with an added dimension of ideological supremacism. The very fact that military aggression is presented as, variously, emergency management, democratisation and security - all tapping into universalist claims with axiomatic appeal among the target audience (the population of the warmaking states), means that any opponent is automatically disqualified from the normal range of human consideration because by simple virtue of resisting, They're Opposed To Democracy. And if they're opposed to that, ironically enough, they are not entitled to self-determination (catch 22: if they're not opposed to it, then they aren't entitled to self-determination either, because the United States claims to be delivering democracy).

I raise all this as the White House predicts without the slightest hint of shame, that it's coming wave of attacks in Iraq will produce massive casualties. Tony Snow, the spokesperson, explains that in a bid to crush the resistance, they are going to press into the "tougher neighbourhoods". He says, as if to disarm critics, that: "We've known that, been saying it all along. We're getting into some of the grittiest security operations". It doesn't need saying, because it goes without saying, that massive organised carnage and the hacking and tearing and burning of individuals to death through long-range weaponry, is legitimate if directed principally against armed opponents of the occupation. At worst it is too risky, or bad for American troops, or making a crisis worse, perpetuating an unwinnable war, but the basic legitimacy of such choices is never challenged. Similarly, the US apologises for civilian murders in Afghanistan, after considerable reluctance to accept responsibility it has to be said, but does so in a way that clearly places the larger part of the blame on 'Taliban' while reducing their repeated (usually disavowed or concealed) massacres to a series of unfortunate accidents.

Labels: 'war on terror', iraq, iraqi resistance, massacre, US imperialism, us troops

10:24:00 am | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus