Dr. Frank's What's-it

War aims, anti-war aims Steven

War aims, anti-war aims

Steven Chapman comments on the latest from Brendan O'Neill and Mick Hume, and I think he really has them pegged:

Reading through these pieces, as well as all the rest of Spiked's war output, I get the impression that for them war is not a matter of results, but more of style. And they definitely, definitely, do not like the style of this war. Too much showing of force, not enough 'projecting' of force. Too many special effects, not enough actual effects. Too much winning, not enough fighting.

Let me just shout this out loud so that it can be heard even in the cheap seats right at the back: the aim of warfare is to defeat the enemy. Yes, that's right, to defeat the enemy. Not to fight him, or kill him, or humiliate him, or dance on his grave, or laugh derisively in his face as he fumbles with the trigger of his RPG, or make rude hand-gestures at his elderly female relatives, or rout him in style, or anything else. This is an elementary fact about warfare that has not changed in 3,000 years. The means by which it is accomplished change over time and in different places, but the primary objective remains the same. Had the actions of the coalition forces suggested that they were uncertain about this objective then I'd give Hume and O'Neill's comments some credence, but as it is they come across as significantly detached from reality. What is most ironic, however, is that in focussing on the ways in which they don't like the way the war 'looks' they risk being suckered in by the very superficiality they are out to eschew.

This, it seems to me, is quite an accurate assessment of the deficiencies of the sp!ked approach to current affairs and military matters (which are in some ways the same as its strengths when it comes to cultural matters.) To critique snidely and wittily this or that cultural trend or phenomenon, lampooning what the conventional wisdom appears to be in your own corner of the world and the hapless naifs who have believed it, playing the voice of reason and impeccable taste in the midst of all the unstylish dullards who don't happen to write for spiked-- that can work really well in areas where aesthetics matters more than anything else. And in cultural, rather than strictly current, affairs, even when it comes to the war, it can yield some useful critiques. (See Jennie Bristow's pieces on the failings of the anti-war movement, for example. Even Brendan O'Neill's periodic "count me out of the count me out movement" columns can hit some ringing chords, as they treat of a subject where gestures, attitudes, and image are key.)

But a highly developed skill in Image Criticism doesn't necessarily mean that you're well-equipped to analyze military tactics and strategy. And when it comes to war, substituting an aesthetic critique for a practical, strategic or political one, especially when the critic doesn't seem to realize that he is doing so, is often a quick route to inanity. "Lacking any substance," writes Mick Hume, "this war has been all about image." Well, if "image" is all you're able to recognize, that's all you'll see, I suppose. But it takes a determined, willfully dense aesthete (a Bunthorne, perhaps) to witness the dramatic events in Iraq and to write of the "hollow victory in a war that never was." Oh hollow, hollow, hollow! Hollowness is perhaps subjective. One man can describe as "hollow" something that to another may be pregnant with possibility. But as to the war: it was, and is.

Spiked's political section is certainly not the only milieu in this vapid culture of ours where aesthetics have been substituted for politics. Indeed, it's something of a mass-cultural affliction. The Peace Movement that their columnists have criticized so trenchantly and effectively has foundered because of it. (Ironically, this observation is a feature of the typical Spiked war-critic critique.) As for the Movement, the most interesting criticism always comes from within. Here's what I'd call a pretty accurate assessment, from a post by Nathan Newman on the LBO mailing list site (via Steven Rubio):

[The anti-war movement] started with two-thirds of the public polling as opposed to going to war without UN approval. That's a strong place to start and they lost 40% of the population initially opposed to unilateral war to now supporting Bush's war. So what's the achievement? Tactical successes such as a few big rallies? Rallies are means, not achievements. Why should we praise tactics that coincided with AN INCREASE in support for uniltateral war? ... The idea that the left will inevitably lose just gives license to this kind of justification for failed tactics and a refusal to do analysis on how to win. I do political work to win, not because I think it's some kind of moral witness to inevitable failure."

There's a kind of consonance between the attitudes against which Newman is arguing and the view of Hume and O'Neill. For aesthetic, symbolic or therapeutic reasons, some find triumph in objective failure; as for aesthetic, symbolic, and just plain "hip" reasons, some find hollowness, defeat, and disaster in a clear, remarkable, success.

The real war draws to a close. But I imagine the Aesthetic War will continue for some time.

Posted by Dr. Frank at April 10, 2003 09:19 AM | TrackBack