Now is the time in the game of war when we dehumanize our enemies.
They are utterly incomprehensible, their acts unimaginable, their
motivations senseless. They are "madmen" and their states are "rogue."
Now is not the time for more understanding--just better intelligence.
These are the rules of the war game.
Feeling people will no doubt object to this characterization: War
is not a game. It is real lives ripped in half; it is lost sons,
daughters, mothers and fathers, each with a dignified story. This
act of terror was reality of the harshest kind, an act that makes
all other acts seem suddenly frivolous, game-like.
It's true: War is most emphatically not a game. And perhaps it
will never again be treated as one. Perhaps September 11, 2001 will
mark the end of the shameful era of the video game war. Watching
the coverage on Tuesday was a stark contrast to the last time I
sat glued to a television set watching a real-time war on CNN. The
Space Invader battlefield of the Gulf War had almost nothing in
common with what we have seen this week. Back then, instead of real
buildings exploding over and over again, we saw only sterile bomb's-eye
views of concrete targets--there and then gone. Who was in these
abstract polygons? We never found out.
Since the Gulf War, American foreign policy has been based on a
single brutal fiction: that the U.S. military can intervene in conflicts
around the world--in Iraq, Kosovo, Israel--without suffering any
U.S. casualties. This is a country that has come to believe in the
ultimate oxymoron: a safe war.
The safe war logic is, of course, based on the technological ability
to wage a war exclusively from the air. But it also relies on the
deep conviction that no one would dare mess with the United States--the
one remaining superpower--on its own soil.
This conviction has, until Tuesday, allowed Americans to remain
blithely unaffected by--even uninterested in--international conflicts
in which they are key protagonists. Americans don't get daily coverage
on CNN of the ongoing bombings in Iraq, nor are they treated to
human-interest stories on the devastating effects of economic sanctions
on that country's children. After the 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical
factory in Sudan (mistaken for a chemical weapons facility), there
weren't too many follow-up reports about what the loss of vaccine
manufacturing did to disease prevention in the region.
And when NATO bombed civilian targets in Kosovo--including markets,
hospitals, refugee convoys, passenger trains and a TV station--NBC
didn't do "streeter" interviews with survivors about how shocked
they were by the indiscriminate destruction.
The United States has become expert in the art of sanitizing and
dehumanizing acts of war committed elsewhere. Domestically, war
is no longer a national obsession, it's a business that is now largely
outsourced to experts. This is one of the country's many paradoxes:
though the engine of globalization around the world, the nation
has never been more inward looking, less worldly.
No wonder Tuesday's attack, in addition to being horrifying beyond
description, has the added horror of seeming, to many Americans,
to have arrived entirely out of the blue. Wars rarely come as a
complete shock to the country under attack, but it's fair to say
that this one did. On CNN, USA Today reporter Mike Walter was asked
to sum up the reaction on the street. What he said was: "Oh my god,
oh my god, oh my god, I just can't believe it."
The idea that one could ever be prepared for such inhuman terror
is absurd. However, viewed through the U.S. television networks,
Tuesday's attack seemed to come less from another country than another
planet. The events were reported not so much by journalists as by
the new breed of brand-name celebrity anchors who have made countless
cameos in Time Warner movies about apocalyptic terrorist attacks
on the United States--now, incongruously reporting on the real thing.
And for a bizarre split second on Tuesday night, CNN's logo "America
Under Attack" disappeared and in its place flashed a logo that said
"Fighting Fat"--an eerie ghost graphic that the day before had passed
The United States is a country that believed itself not just at
peace but war-proof, a self-perception that would come as quite
a surprise to most Iraqis, Palestinians and Colombians. Like an
amnesiac, the United States has woken up in the middle of a war,
only to find out the war has been going on for years.
Did the United States deserve to be attacked? Of course not. That
suggestion is ugly and dangerous. But here's a different question
that must be asked: Did U.S. foreign policy create the conditions
in which such twisted logic could flourish, a war not so much on
U.S. imperialism but on perceived U.S. imperviousness?
The era of the video game war in which the U.S. is always at the
controls has produced a blinding rage in many parts of the world,
a rage at the persistent asymmetry of suffering. This is the context
in which twisted revenge-seekers make no other demand than that
American citizens share their pain.
Since the attack, U.S. politicians and commentators have repeated
the mantra that the country will go on with business as usual. The
American way of life, they insist, will not be interrupted. It seems
an odd claim to make when all evidence points to the contrary. War,
to butcher a phrase from the old Gulf War days, is the mother of
all interruptions. As well it should be. The illusion of war without
casualties has been forever shattered.
A blinking message is up on our collective video game console: