With depressing predictability, in the run-up to Saturday’s strikes on Syria, newspapers and TV screens filled with the techno-graphics of bombs and missiles that accompany the tom-tom-beat build-up to war.
Armchair warriors, from retired generals to pipsqueak soldier-politicians, offered their ‘analysis’ of a terrible civil war in Syria into which major regional proxy conflicts are enfolded. Columnists rehearsed the pros and cons of armed humanitarian intervention, as they have done since the wars in former Yugoslavia. Even as the hour of decision dawned, there was talk of “World War III”, though the reality was merely a double dose of what Trump essayed last April. This is the herd mentality in action.
Events in Syria cannot be detached from the general degeneration not just of the media, but of entire political cultures. In the US a word once used by a cleric 374 years ago during the English Civil War has been revived – by former CIA chief John Brennan – to describe this: ‘kakistocracy’ meaning ‘rule by the worst’.
In order to make sense of contemporary events, we often seize upon concepts as well as individual words. Several of the protagonists in this conflict over – rather than about Syria – are having their respective ‘Wag the Dog’ moment, though American pundits only focus on Trump’s one. The conceit refers to the 1997 movie in which a cynical White House spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer fabricate a war, in Albania, to distract from a sex scandal plaguing the US president. Like most wars, even faked ones do not go according to plan.
The film was released shortly before Bill Clinton was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Some believe he launched missile strikes at an al-Qaeda ‘nerve agent’ plant in Sudan, which turned out to be a harmless pharmaceutical factory, so as to distract from his domestic tribulations.
Historians call this mechanism ‘social imperialism’, originally meaning not so much wars of distraction, but ones engineered to artificially unite countries otherwise divided by class and confessional conflict. Following Lenin, distinguished leftist historians employed it to describe Imperial Germany’s acquisition of colonies in the 1880s, and go to war in both 1914 and1939. In the last case, exhausted German workers became restive because of the burdens of the arms build-up and Hitler decided to conquer a land empire to reward them with the furniture and fur coats of dead Jews.1
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe