A collection of diary entries on 911, Risk and general rages against the machine…..
17/09/01 – An article written for the Prague Post
A VOICE OF CAUTION
In the wake of the global tragedy that took place on September 11th, it’s perfectly understandable that there should be a temporary amnesia of just about every other issue that faces us in the Western world today. Instead, thousands of column inches have been filled with details and analysis of an event, which we are told has changed everything. However, as the world stands on the brink of a possible third war and might even have stepped over the precipice by the time you read this, it is now more important than ever to regain our memories. Failure to do so could lead to an even greater tragedy that some of us, at least, may very well come to regret.
One thing is clear from the outset: the nihilism that increasingly characterizes the spirit of the age can only be exasperated by this shattering event. How can we have faith in the meaning of anything when such a seemingly “mindless” act can happen in the world today? In an effort to explain, what to many appears unexplainable, some commentators have described the actions of the terrorists as nihilistic. This is confusing. In one sense it is nothing of the sort if you see it from the perspective of the terrorists. There is complete meaning to their actions. They did it for a very defined purpose and their actions are based on a belief in the certainty of their cause: the destruction of the “evil” American empire. But from our perspective one can see perhaps what they mean by this. It does seem to be an utterly meaningless thing to do simply because we in the west can’t believe that any cause, any truth, any meaning, can be enough to justify what they did. Consequently, to many of the generation reared on a diet of consumerism and coke, corporatism and (eye)candy, the sense of nihilism that such emblems of capitalism have engendered, appears to be compounded even more by the actions of the terrorists on September 11th. Nothing makes sense now. What meaning can there be in the world, what truth can there be that makes sense of what has happened?
To carry this further, what is interesting to observe is that the western world, in the form of its’ political leaders, have sought to answer this question by invoking the two words freedom and democracy. This is going to be a military operation to defend these two pillars of capitalist society, apparently. And there is no doubt that Bush and Blair, the two who have used them the most, sincerely believe in what they are saying. However, there is an irony here, because what do these words mean to a lot of disillusioned young westerners? Freedom to do what? Freedom to pursue the two principles enshrined in capitalism. The first is personal security: to protect what is mine from the threat of others. This places an emphasis on the individuals needs at the expense of the wider community. Remember, that it was Thatcher, the most ardent fan of capitalism, who famously said that there is no such thing as society anymore. The second is affluence: the accruement of wealth as an end in itself. Yet, these are the very same values that more and more people are questioning in the form of the rise of the anti-globalisation/anti-capitalism movement that is spreading ever-increasingly across the western world. Not only is this movement a primeval reaction against the seemingly unfettered hegemony of what is, in its purist form a truly nihilist ideology, but it is also a cry from the disenfranchised about the increasing sham that is democracy. Surely, if it is anything, it is a reaction to our leaders being out of touch and detached from a growing number of the people they are supposed to represent. Politics, on a local, national and international level, is basically now all about protecting the rights of Middle England, Middle America etc. to follow the two underlying principles outlined above as “freely” as possible. In this sense, they serve each other. That is why we have seen a move towards the “middle” ground in British and American politics, in particular, and in Europe too. We have also seen an increase in the extremes of politics through the rise of the extreme right - a logical anti-reaction, if you will, to the anti-globalisation movement. It is also the reason why there has been a rise in apathy towards the political process as a whole, manifested in the startlingly low turnouts witnessed throughout the West in recent years. The point, I think, is proved with yet more irony in the fact that less than 50% of the American population bothered to vote at all in last year’s election and only half of these voted for Bush. That means he actually only has the support of, or speaks for, one in four Americans. In Britain, using the same calculations, it is one in five. That is the reality of democracy in capitalist society today - unrepresentative and dedicated to protecting the very “freedoms” that more and more people seem to be questioning. And it is for these that we are about to go to war for?
Now, this might all seem indelicate at best, downright distasteful at worse to bring all this up. However, at a time when all context seems to be lost, replaced by a call for unquestioning devotion to such nebulous principles, now has to be the moment for placing this terrible event into the wider picture. What has happened is in some ways beyond analysis and no one can blame the Americans for wanting to retaliate. In fact, not to would clearly go against the majority of feeling amongst the American people and would arguably send the wrong message entirely to the terrorists. Of course, Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, since retaliation will quite possibly only prolong the conflict into a blur of indefiniteness. But that is unfortunately the Catch-22 that the American nation tragically faces. So, America will doubtless act. That is not the issue here. However, creating an alliance of partners to aid them under the banner of freedom and democracy is an hypocrisy which shouldn’t go unnoticed. It stands in contradiction to a rising tide of opinion across Europe and America. Bush and Blair seem to be plunging us head long over the abyss, riding on a wave of pro-American sympathy, with what appears to be little debate as to the validity of such a massive commitment. This commitment is one of war and it will be a war that will effect everybody, either directly or indirectly. Surely, then, there has never been a more pertinent time for each of us to reflect on our own worldview. Is it one that we can justify such a unanimous show of support to defend?
23/09/01
…….It may well be that America never does fully recover from this attack, in the same way that Vietnam, for example, or Watergate, are still ingrained in the American consciousness. Will it force them to question their beliefs and values or will it make them all the more resolute to stick by the principles of “freedom”, “democracy” and the American way? This is a golden opportunity for the States to really exam themselves – what is it that we do that makes people hate us this much? However, equally, it could lead to a heightened sense of rightness in these very same things. Apparently the highest selling goods at the moment in the States are the American flag. Hmm. It will be interesting to see. On that point, it did occur to me that if any conflict does go on for a while, it’s inevitable that some sort of anti-war movement in both the States and Britain will sprout up. And this could very well build on the momentum created by the anti-globalisation movement, for it is a good bet that those who believe in the first cause probably have sympathies with the second. That could be interesting as well…..
…..these are uncertain times and they could get even more uncertain if this does develop into a full-on war. I know everyone is talking about that but no one knows what war means in the 21st century - if you think about it, it seems to be a typically postmodern situation. There is an “enemy”, but it’s not a black and white, clearly defined enemy, with a state, borders, populace etc. The Americans are trying to make it one through their demonising of Afghanistan, but the truth is that may very well backfire on them. Al-Qaeda are a postmodern enemy - indistinct, undefined. Everything about them is blurred – they’re not even using weapons in a traditional sense (they have invented a new weapon, for crying out loud, the suicide plane). In other words, where, in the age of the cold war there was the certainty of who the enemy was, there is now considerable doubt as to what or who exactly that is. And of course there is, because this is the age of doubt. There are no truths anymore, everything and I mean everything is open to question now.
14/10/01
Of course, the war that we are now in has brought the whole issue of what I’ve been writing about and searching for, to a head. In a nutshell: 1) an analysis of the west from a philosophical point of view 2) an explanation for the growing disillusionment from an increasing minority within it 3) a general mooch on why, as a system, capitalism is failing us. Now, I notice rather smugly, this is all the rage as commentators are seeking to answer the question “why do people hate the western world, symbolized and personified by the US, so much that they would wage war against it”. It’s quite baffling sometimes, because before all this happened there was a growing anti-American feeling and the anti-cap/glob movement was essentially pointing out the reasons why, but it wasn’t listened to at all. What is also baffling, but perhaps logical, is that western leaders like Bush and Blair don’t seem to be acknowledging that they may be partly responsible, or indeed wholly responsible for the enmity that they have inspired. One of the key arguments Bin Laden used in his speech the other day was the hypocrisy and injustice the US had shown in its handling of the Isreal/Palenstine conflict and Iraq. It is this very same sense of hypocrisy and injustice that helped inspired 150, 000 people to demonstrate in Genoa, I would argue. Even today I read in the Guardian that Bush said in a press statement yesterday “Like most Americans, I just can’t believe it because I know how good we are”. That says it all really. Because, as I’ve said before, there are two ways this whole thing could go, it seems to me. Either this is a golden opportunity for everybody, and that means everybody, to reflect on why America and the west has caused such hatred, or it goes the other way, and we all become more precious, more entrenched in the belief that our way is the best. There is no doubt, as a lot of people are pointing out, that this is essentially what this war is coming down to: the ideals, the values, the beliefs of the west Vs fundamental Islam. Course, it is now, ‘cos all the west has united around the States. Is this really Britain’s war? NO! it was the twin towers in America that Bin laden hit. And looking at his recent speech he ain’t having ago at Europe. He’s having a go at the States. However, that's all a bit irrelevant now, 'cos that’s not how our leaders are selling it to us, hence all the talk of “western ideals” being threatened. Blair has made it our war. That is why, perhaps, the reaction of the wider Islamic world is very important. Bin Laden wants this war to escalate along these divisive polars in order to legitimise his cause. Here’s another quote from his speech “I say these events have split the whole world into two camps: the camp of belief and the disbelief.” Obviously, Bush and Blair do not. At this stage it’s kind of up for grabs, because of the likes of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia and even Iran etc. either staying neutral or very loosely being part of the alliance coalition. However, a wrong turn anywhere could push these “swing” nations towards Bin Laden’s way of thinking. These are delicate times, for sure, because if that happens or, say, the majority of the Middle East begins to get really pissed with the States, then it could all get way out of hand. Terrorists could start popping up everywhere…..
We’re at war. The world at war. The third world war. War at one. Mad. I knew the world was mad; that’s what I’ve been trying to write about. But the world has, it would appear, rather demonstrated that point admirably well of late. Shit. This is definitely not helping. Or maybe it is. I can’t really tell anymore.
6/11/01
Ever played risk? Pacts and deals, of course. World domination or missions. The former is more time consuming but is for purists. Missions requires a different approach, arguably more luck, but has its merits. What’s going on at the moment is a serious game of risk. It started off as missions - to “defeat terrorism”, by wiping out the Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan and the Taliban regime, who support them, and get Bin Laden. But it could develop into world dom. I’ve seen some games go that way if it drags on a while. People get fed up and it just turns into kill all your opponents. America is definitely the one with the mission card, but it has Britain as it’s number one partner. It has a pact (defined as a long-term partnership) with NATO as well, which it has called on. It has made deals (which are more short term affairs i.e. you does for me I does for you) with Pakistan, Russia and China, who all are important in some way in winning the game - God knows exactly what has been promised to these countries but we will find out at some stage. It has tried to make a pact/deal with other Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Egypt and most importantly Saudi Arabia, but it seems that every time it tries to get closer to achieving its mission, it pisses off its potential partners more and more e.g. Blair’s recent hit and miss middle east shuttle diplomacy trip. A classic dilemma this, in risk. Saudi Arabia, in particular, seems to be more lukewarm than ever about a pact, or even a deal (in this case let us use your air-bases and we’ll do something for you). As for Israel, well that was a pact made before the game started and one which, in effect, limits America. However, its also part of the reason why America had to play the game in the first place. I’ve seen all types of games in my time, of course. With missions, some prefer a more cautious approach, whilst others will go for the jugular at the first opportunity. And as for world dom, well I’ve heard talk around the campfire of 96 hour marathons, though personally I don’t have the stamina for that level. It’s only a game after all.
29/11/01
The Americans are making noises about extending the war to having a go at Iraq. The French and particularly the Germans have said “whoa, no one said anything about that”. The Ruskis are not too happy either. You don’t get a new mission card in risk. You just decide to play world dom or not. Some players I know have a perverse delight in wiping out all their opponents just because they can, even though they are supposed to be playing missions. I hate those types of players. Their moves don’t make any sense. They’re just showing off. Say no more. All is not quiet on the western front. If the Americans do attack Iraq that would be significant move because of the amount of nations that is going to piss off. It might have profound effects on the pacts and deals so far, not to mention the vacuum that could be created in Iraq by getting rid of Saddam. We shall see. You’d think that the Yanks would have the sense to see this. But there is nothing more dangerous or blinding than self-righteousness. It takes one to know one, as they say.
05/12/01
1) The term globalisation has only really come into it’s own since 1989 and the collapse of communism. Now we hear it all the time. In some form or other, it is the buzzword. Journalists are the worst for it, closely followed by politicians. But it’s really only over the last 13 years that there has been an opportunity for globalising capitalism (as the term has now come to be defined), in terms of attempting to unite the world under a banner of shared principles, worldviews, beliefs, economics, political systems etc. Prior to 1989, communism was there, which acted as some kind of checking system. It stood in the way. It was a war of ideologies, in this sense. Both had pretensions for globalisation. Before September 11th, the term was primarily used in connection with trade of some kind or another and the process of widening potential (free)markets - the anti-glob protests took place at conferences held by organisations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Union (EU), and of course the G8. But there were also mass protests at NATO and L’OTAN, which are really cross-nation defence organisations. Personal security and affluence on an international level, then. As for the British version, the May Day anti-capitalist demos, no one particular thing drew people to London, where they took place. There wasn’t a conference, unlike most, if not all of the other anti-globalisation protests (although, that said, arguably the first anti-globalisation protest that was identified with that word took place in Birmingham, when the G8 conference was held there in 1998. It took the form of a giant street party for three days. Now, that’s a good way to protest! Within a year, though, things had kicked off in Seattle and the term became inextricably synonymous with violence). It was more disparate; more nebulous. That’s why the ideology itself seems appropriate in the title, I think. Because it’s the ideology as opposed to the process that was being questioned here. However, the two serve one another and are therefore two peas from the same pod, to use a bad metaphor. Capitalism (implemented through a liberal democracy) is the ideology that has won the dialectic battle of systems and is the ruling idea, as Fukayama, for example, is essentially saying in his End of History argument. Globalisation is the process by which it is being spread across the globe. And as the last stumbling block to its hegemony has now been dis-credited as an unworkable system to be globalised, not withstanding China’s powerful yet isolationist place in the scheme of things and their own idiosyncratic synthesis of free-market economics with state control, capitalism and globalisation have become unfettered. There is now little to stop them, in terms of a viable alternative. In that sense, this war IS about defending these pillars of western civilization. Our freedom, our democracy, our jobs, our livelihoods, our values, our beliefs, both religious and secular, “everything that we hold dear”, “civilized society”, these words have all been used by either Bush or Blair, since the war started, as reasons for action. If you look at their speeches, they have been peppered with these references to what are fundamentally personal security and affluence, the two underpinning principles of capitalism. So, to me, this certainly is one aspect of the war: defending the ideology against a threat - Islamic fundamentalism - a religious threat, for sure, but still a material one, at heart.
11/12/01
Three months to the day. Tora Bora is about to full, and a lot of Al-Qaeda muchos are being rounded up. No Bin Laden, granted, but other than that phase one is nearly over then, but Rumsfeld said today “the war on terrorism is far from over”. Oh dear. Searching for definitives in this world is possibly the most futile exercise there is. When do you say it’s over? Until all terrorists are defeated? Yeah, right. I see trouble ahead here. Bush has even laid more groundwork for having ago at Iraq by saying any state or group with weapons of destruction are “terrorists” and a legitimate target. A self-righteous west raging war on any group or nation related to terrorism is not a mouth-watering prospect. Defence, revenge even, ok, but easy tiger. Vietnam was, after all, a disaster because it was a war, in the end, that couldn’t be won. It just took a long time for the States to realise that. And it, too, was a war fought in the name of ideology. That fat lady someone saw mooching about near the microphone, well, it turns out she just owns the van. Can’t sing for toffee (whatever the hell that means - no one gets paid in toffee do they? unless of course they’re fat, that might explain things........whatever)
…..Bush was almost triumphilistic in his speech yesterday. And along with that came the hint of self-righteousness that you know was a distinct possibility. It’s there in Bush beginning to extend the enemy to the “axis of evil “ of North Korea, Iran and Iraq. There was even mention of “the Great Satan”. In doing this, he has, by extension, called these countries enemies of the coalition, without too much consultation with his partners, I notice…….
02/02/02
These are dramatic times we’re living in - history doesn’t hang about for anybody, and things are unfolding which no one can really predict. It’s all still up for grabs. And any number of factors could have big repercussions. What America does next is probably the biggest one, as I write. I tell you what, this risk game is quite a game. There are a couple of real mavericks playing. And as for the States, well they’re winning by a country mile, made some major gains of late, but that world dom switch may well work against them. In fact, I do detect an opportunity to begin to really do something about things. But enough people have to want it badly enough. I reckon that time is coming too. Particularly if they keep having reminders of the consequences of not doing anything, which there seems to be more and more of. I don’t know. We’ll see.
05/02/02
Check this out from the Guardian yesterday. Under the banner “US Prepared to go it alone, allies warned”, a “senior Republican foreign policy adviser told the conference (the NATO thing in Munich)
.....NEVER HAS THE UNITED STATES BEEN MORE UNIFIED, NEVER HAS IT BEEN MORE PURPOSEFUL, NEVER HAS IT BEEN MORE WILLING, IF NECESSARY TO ACT ALONE. If we have to choose between protecting ourselves against terrorism and a long list of friends and allies, we will protect ourselves against terrorism”.
Shit………..
28/02/02
One thing before I start. Spike Milligan died today. Here’s a quote from him, which kinda' sums up lot of things really:
“I was trying to shake the BBC out of its apathy. I had to fight like mad and people didn’t like me for it. I had to bang and rage and crash. I got it right in the end, and it paid off, but it drove me mad in the process.......I’m unbalanced. I’m not a normal person, and that’s a very hard thing to have placed upon your life”.
Respect to the man. May God rest his soul.
12/03/02
Back to the game:
Now various players aren’t happy about all this talk of extending the game. The EU has already expressed concern over the US’s increasing drift towards unilateralism, loosely translated as “alright, I’ll play on my own if all you lot are farting off to bed”. Here’s a quote from a senior EU official, as it appeared in the Guardian today
“A US attack on Iraq will be an enormous disruption of solidarity and a terrible setback for Europe if we can’t find common ground,” says one senior EU official.
France, in particular, has never been any real pal of the US and has strongly opposed any plan to attack Iraq. China, Russia and Iran want “high-level clarification” (world service) on some rumours about the US having a big set ready to cash in next round (after each completed move a player gets a card with a horse, canon or soldier on it – when a player has three of any of these, or better still, one of each, they have a “set” and can collect extra troops to put where they want), with nukes being mooted to be under consideration. The Middle Eastern players are beginning to be pushed into keeping or breaking pacts and deals with each other and the US. And then there’s those crazy b***ards Israel and Palestine. As ever, they hold the key to just about everything in the game, one way or another and are still playing kamikaze with each other. As for the US, well, those troop movements, the breaking of pacts and deals and changing/extending the game into world dom have caused some watching to call them ruthless motherf***ers with a high opinion of themselves. Others are saying “they do own the game; let them do what they want. They’ll only get arsey”. Take your pick. But the US is going to lobby for support, neigh, expect support from its team/partners. GB’s on board still, but as for the others, there could be a lot less of them than in Afghanistan. I got to tell you, though, that I don’t like playing with folks like the States - party poopers - not really playing in the spirit of things.
So the game gets interesting. The States have taken a gamble by going for world dom. (the switch from revenge to protection is the switch from defence into attack, not the other way round). But the more they go for this, the more they RISK losing the other players on the team. People are getting itchy feet. Some want to leave - there’s a good film on the box. But the States want a marathon match. Not everybody’s up for that, as I’ve said before. However, it’s familiar to seasoned pros. The longer the game, only the hardcore players stay. The teams get smaller, and smaller until the game is won or lost. The States have already said they’re playing till the end. Is all this going to be a bridge too far for some?
And what about Blair? He has basically linked his own career with Bush’s. Certainly a RISK. This Bush administration seems increasingly isolationist in fewer disguises. I can’t see them being stopped by a little thing like the fate of a British Prime Minister.
No, this thing is going to run for a lot more (haven’t I said that before somewhere - smartarse no. 34.....etc.), and it’s going at the US’s speed, for sure. But stirrings of dissent both amongst coalition nations and within them, and perhaps more than anything else - the Israel and Palestine situation, are all interesting external factors.
Looks like the stakes are being raised with stage two. This is Risk, for sure. Game on, ladies and gentlemen.
19/03/02
Just heard this on the world service – this is a transcript of it:
“.....we interrupt this week’s farm fun to bring you an update from Risk. It’s been a day of action by all accounts. So, lets join Alan again. Live from the Game”.
“Hello Dave”.
“Hello Alan. What’s going on?”
“Well, Dave, it’s all hotting up, for sure. There have been some moves by several players. But there’s one thing that’s on the tip of everyone’s lips: what are the US going to do about Iraq?”
“Absolutely Alan. What effect is that having on the players?”
“Well, we’ve got several of the Middle Eastern contingent beginning to come out and play. There’s certainly a little fronting going on and some serious pacts and deals being discussed. And just about anybody who’s anybody has got lobbying pants on at the moment. Iraq has been telling everyone that they are friends and brothers of the Middle East. The US in return have replied by saying that Iraq deserve everything they might very well end up getting”.
“Ah. Is this another example of the States using the infamous bejesus technique, Alan?”
“Indeed it is, Dave. Demonise the enemy. Get out the brush that paints in black and white. In short, put the bejesus up everybody”.
“There’s a terrorist under that rock. Quick junior, go get the gun, type thing?”
“(laughing) Along those lines, yes. They’ve certainly kept the fear of another possible Al-Qaeda attack on everyone’s minds back home, and they’ve begun to talk of possible links between them and Iraq. It’s a tactic that’s worked well for them throughout the game. I can’t see them dropping it now”.
“Hmm. Tell us more about the lobbying, Alan”.
“Well, Bush has already said that partners would be assembled for the next stage, and that’s what your seeing at the moment. Pacts and deals, Dave. Pacts and deals. A lot of the Middle Eastern players are saying to the States, for example, “what are you going to do about Israel, then? U’ve got to have a peck at least”.
“A peck? That’s a technical term you’re using. Could you just explain that to our listeners”.
“A peck, Dave, is a mild attack on any other player, but usually only because of strategic reasons, in order to keep the status quo of any potential obstacles to one’s own mission”.
“Right, and do you think a peck at Israel will be enough to win them over?”
“Good question. I’m not sure. It might take several pecks and even then the Israelis might not take the hint. You know how notoriously…
“…..single-minded?”
“Er….single-minded, the Israelis can be, Dave”.
“Yes, I do, Alan. I guess it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, this type of game, but you have to admit pacts and deals brings a certain rumbustiousness to proceedings”.
“It’s a purist treat, Alan. Of course, the other factor is, you have to question the States appetite for a sustained pecking policy. Because the Israelis will doubtless demand that the States peck at Palestine as well, which could just annoy the Middle Eastern players even more. I can’t help but be reminded of the Beatles song Helter Skelter everytime I think of the Israeli/Palestine conflict: “When U get to the bottom U go back to the top of the slide, and U turn and U stop and U go for a ride……
“….then U get to the bottom, then U see me again”.
“Indeed”.
“Who’d be a co-alition partner at the moment, eh Alan?”
“Considerably fewer than earlier in the game, Dave, I know that much”.
“Rats leave sinking ships, don’t they say?”.
“And camels can go days without water”.
“(pause) Indeed”.
“Well, thanks for that Alan. Sounds like you’re going to be busy keeping up with the latest developments. Keep us posted”.
“Will do, Dave. Cau for now”.
Bias on the BBC? Get outta’ town.