|
CounterPunch
January
30, 2003
Lost in a Fuzzy
Political Discourse
War: It's Already
Started
by PAUL de ROOIJ
Many words in political discourse are used unquestioningly,
as if they represented a black or white situation, e.g., war
or no war. However, in many instances fuzzy political notions,
like war and gradations of war, are often more appropriate and
revealing.
Last year at a social event in London,
an American diplomat answered a question about the war on Iraq
with a sneering "the war in Iraq already started" [1].
It was impossible to get this gentleman to clarify his remark,
but it does suggest that some concepts used in everyday discourse
may be misleading if used as black or white concepts instead
of fuzzy ones. The US and UK, have continually bombed Iraq for
the past ten years, imposed devastating sanctions under a UN
guise, and so on. In ordinary discourse, it is generally understood
that war in Iraq hasn't broken out yet, but this is clearly deceptive.
A more useful interpretation is to utilize a fuzzy war classification
of the intensity of war on Iraq; during the past decade, it may
be described as a "low intensity" war, and maybe ratcheting
up to a "medium intensity" war in recent months. The
importance of this distinction is that a low-level conflict may
not register on the political or media radar screen in the US,
but it certainly has devastating consequences in Iraq. For this
very reason activists may not react as quickly as the situation
merits to reduce the civilian suffering.
Another reason to utilize a fuzzy concept
for war is that policymakers themselves have moved in this direction.
As an example, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
and some other well-known figures are known to be admirers of
von Clausewitz, the pseudo-scientific Prussian war strategist,
and are perhaps better known as neo-Clausewitzians. She once
stated: "We are talking about using military force, but
we are not talking about a war... I think that this is an important
distinction" [2]-she has made war into a fuzzy concept.
Neo-Clausewitzians view wars in utilitarian terms, and understand
that there are gradations of war that are dependent on technology
and the possibilities to intimidate an opponent. It is perfectly
accepted within such circles to think of war, or just enough
war, to reach their aims. The Reaganites' affinity in the 1980s
for the "low-intensity conflict" concept comes to mind.
If policymakers think in these fuzzy terms, then it behooves
the activist community to think in similar terms.
The means for war also have become fuzzy.
While in the past sword or cannon defined the implements of war,
now other implements are wielded that fit in to the more complex
nature of modern warfare. Some measures may not constitute weapons
of war in and of themselves, but they also have devastating effects.
IMF, World Bank or WTO policies are some of the more obscure
formal instruments that cause capital flight, serious currency
devaluations, and even famines--countries can be brought to their
knees without a shot being fired. The armory of the Albrights
or Rumsfelds of this world is varied, containing what erstwhile
may have been considered innocuous implements.
The fact that the US Congress voted to
remove itself from having a final say in the declaration of war
on Iraq is also insignificant if war is a fuzzy concept. War
is already being waged under the radar screen. Either its current
intensity is very low, or its means are not conventional, so
that to wait until Congress gives a green light for the real
fireworks to begin is immaterial--most of the casualties will
die beforehand in any case. The only way Congress could have
a meaningful role in controlling the warmongers is if it intervened
much earlier--when not even a shot had been fired. However,
it is difficult to countenance such intervention. Military strategists
talk in terms of "ladders of escalation", and Congress
may step in just at the last step on the ladder.
Just as war should be viewed as a fuzzy
concept, we should view peace, the opposite side of this coin,
as fuzzy too. If the intensity of war is "medium",
then one cannot expect peace to be more than at the same level.
It is simply erroneous to think that if a few conditions change,
then true "peace" will break out. If we admit to using
a fuzzy term for peace, then there is an obvious follow up question:
what type of peace?
A clear example of the importance of
fuzzy political discourse can be found in Israel/Palestine today.
Three Israel political parties have already openly called for
the implementation of "transfer", i.e., the obscene
euphemism for the mass expulsion or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Unofficially, many more Israeli politicians approve of this,
e.g., by attending seminars, etc., on this issue. An Israeli
academic, Prof. Illan Pappe, has stated recently that the policy
of transfer is a centrist political position in Israel today.
Activists may be lulled into downplaying the possibility of an
expulsion, i.e., a "Nakba II", perhaps because the
horror of the situation makes us want to think that it is highly
improbable. This happens to be Amnesty International's position
on this issue, and thus it doesn't seem to think that a statement
or position on this issue is necessary [3].
However, the fuzzy version of "transfer"
is far more useful in assessing what is going on. Every day houses
are destroyed, neighborhoods bulldozed, people killed, and so
on. Armed with a fuzzy interpretation, one can only conclude
the policy of "transfer" has already begun. It may
not be at the "high" levels as encountered in Kosovo,
or Palestine itself in 1948, but one could perhaps rank the current
ethnic cleansing as "low to medium" intensity. Once
again, this does not register in the political discourse in the
US, and the US media will not recognize it as a major event;
but for the Palestinian population that has endured massive repression
for decades, only to see it intensified in the past two years,
this is an ongoing disaster. On January 16th the village of Al-Daba
in the Qalqilya district will be flattened by the 60-ton American-made
armored Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers [4]. The inhabitants of the
town will have to endure the bitter cold in tents--if they are
allowed in. This is ethnic cleansing in slow motion, a ratcheting
up of ethnic cleansing to a "medium" level. How else
can one categorize such actions?
There are also some nontrivial implications
of the fuzzy terminology on the political discourse within Palestine.
It is convenient to use shorthand terms to describe the situation;
sometimes this is helpful, but in the current situation in Palestine,
it is counterproductive. The Palestinians have borrowed terms
coined during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
One often hears references to "Israeli apartheid" measures
implemented against Palestinians. For some time Israeli planners
actually toyed with apartheid policies, but that has given way
to the ethnic cleansers. It is clear that the intent by Israelis
is to create conditions that will facilitate the mass expulsion
of the population. On the other hand, apartheid implied a separation
of people, a dependent black economy, and that there is a certain
acceptance of a demarcation line between two societies--the Bantustans
were supposed to have boundaries. The term apartheid may be too
static for a historical condition that wasn't as acute and serious
as the situation in Palestine today. In the current context,
the borders are being constantly redrawn by settlers and the
army, and it is perhaps better to jettison the apartheid concept
altogether in the Palestinian context--it is long overdue. In
its place, there is a need to coin a new Palestinian-specific
term like "genocide in slow motion". Whatever new term
is used, it needs to be understood as a fuzzy concept.
War crimes and crimes against humanity
are concepts that also would benefit if interpreted in a fuzzy
context. The risk with waiting for crimes to occur on a massive
scale is that nothing may be done to stop horrendous acts when
done on a lower scale in the meantime. War crimes are in fact
being committed in Israel/Palestine today--the distinction, is
that they may be conducted at a "medium" level. Policymakers
are acutely aware of a threshold they can get away with without
significant international scrutiny or pressure. Likewise, the
newly instituted International Criminal Court will not institute
an investigative team in this matter because there are legal
reasons why the ICC may not have jurisdiction; it may also be
because the crimes aren't thought to exceed an unspoken threshold.
There is no official UN body collecting data on Israeli war crimes
today!
The danger with viewing crimes against
Palestinians and the war in Iraq as on or off conditions is that
activists will wait too long before acting on the severity of
the situation. This is perhaps an intended reason behind the
slow escalation of the measures taken against the Palestinians.
By staying below a given threshold, which itself may be increasing,
the sordid nature of the actions taken remains outside the common
political discourse or the media. Certainly, the US regime couldn't
get away with attacking Iraq a year ago, but it has carried out
low-level operations, like throwing a 500kg concrete-filled bomb
into a school.
The emergence of Fuzzy Logic as a mathematical
concept has itself had an impact on philosophy and engineering
in recent times. Control engineering was revolutionized by looking
at the world in overlapping shades of gray. On the political
front, the most important implication for us today is that fuzzy
concepts of aggression require gradual but pervasive action when
facing changes in the underlying state of the world. The alternative
is to view the world as black and white, with the consequence
that action often comes too late and is ineffective. In other
words, it is necessary to act based on a perceived level of violence
today instead of delaying action to the point where the threat
of all-out war or genocide may render late responses meaningless.
Paul de Rooij
is an economist living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com.
Notes:
[1] Private communication; the US diplomat
wishes to remain anonymous. He also insisted on retrieving his
business card after I asked him if I could quote him!
[2] Andrew J. Bacevich, "Policing
Utopia, The Military Imperatives of Globalization," The
National Interest 56 (summer 1999) 7. There is another useful
treatise about this concept: BM Blechman and SS Kaplan: "Force
Without War: US Armed Forces as a Political Instrument";
Washington 1978.
[3] Discussion conducted with Donatella
Rovera in Oct. 2002, where she was asked if AI would issue a
statement about the impending threat of "transfer".
On January 16, 2003 she stated: "In October 2002 AI did
not feel there was an imminent risk of mass expulsion/forcible
transfer. We continue to monitor the situation and, needless
to say, our assessment is subject to change depending on developments."
There hasn't been a statement yet.
For more information on AI check out:
www.counterpunch.org/rooij1031.html.
[4] Dr. Robert Younes, Washington Report
on Middle East Affairs, Press release, Jan. 14, 2003.
Yesterday's
Features
Sheldon Hull
An Extended
Promo with No Payoff
Notes on the State of George W. Bush
Emily Zitter-Smith
Watching
TV in Cairo
Linda Heard
Showdown
at the Crawford Corale
Mike James
Smear Pete Townshend, Cover Up Blair's Cabinet:
Alleged Pedophiles in Britain's War Room
Kathryn Casa
The Other
State of the Union
Brian Cloughley
WMD:
Okay, Where Are They?
Gloria Bergen
Work
That Kills
Mark Weisbrot
Another
World is Possible
Alexander Cockburn
Yes, That Was the President
Philip Farruggio
My Flag Held Hostage
Adam Engel
Domicide
Website of the Day
Code
Pink: Women for Peace
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
January 25
/ 26, 2003
Ron Jacobs
Iraq
War as Football Game
Bill and Kathy
Christison
Too Many Smoking Guns: Israel, American Jews and the War on Iraq
Chris Clarke
Collateral Damage: Draft Resistance and the Peace Mvt.
Bruce Jackson
Killing an Oak Tree: a Gratuitous Death
Jennifer Berkshire
Porto Allegre Diary II: Building the Party, Lula Style
Forrest Hylton
Left Turns in South America
Edward Said
When Will Arabs Resist?
William A.
Cook
Israeli
Democracy: Fact or Fiction?
Anthony Gancarski
America Never Was America to Me
Subcomandante
Marcos
Zaps to Basques: Lighten Up!
Ellen Cantarow
Music Lives in Palestine
Marta Russell
Extinguishing Frida Kahlo
Adam Engel
Man in the Black Suit: a novelini
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|