WB: Dude, Here’s Your Civil War +

Back to Main

August 2, 2006

Billmon:

II. Day Dream Believer

—

I. Dude, Here’s Your Civil War

Posted by b on August 2, 2006 at 20:35 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Well fuck that, I am losing track of Billmon’s disproponate blogging these days…………credit to you b, but do you want a paypal link for all this bandwidth?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Aug 2 2006 22:10 utc | 1

George W. Bush agreed to send more U.S. troops into Baghdad to curb the sectarian violence there
What evidence exists that this is what they are doing? Are they interposing themselves between both sides? Are they mediating conflicts? Of course not.
What they are doing is supervising the US trained “El Salvador” option death squads. They are leading them on raids and making sure that none suddenly grow a conscience and turn weak in the knees as the blood mounts.
In other words, American troops are supervising the greatest incidence of ethnic cleansing since WWII, in an attempt to crush out any national spirit left to Iraq, with the determined jackboot of American benevolence, so that they may then divide the country into three powerless and dependent duchies — Multi-ethnic and resource poor Baghdad having always been the one sticky problem in this case of “cutting the cat.”
What we have is US murder-gone-mad, and it’s sold to us as “curb(ing) the sectarian violence there! Talk about hijacking a narrative! Or creating one out of thin air, without any evidence, then repeating it ad infinitum, in small innocuous dependent clauses such as this, in order to slip past the workings of our critical mind.
This is where the corporate press is so dangerous — even worse that lying about the number of dead, or refusing to print photos of dead bodies. A fictional narrative is created, and then the narrative is inserted into each and every event, in order to embue that event with a fictional meaning. Through constant repetition, like this, of endless facets of the narrative, in endless permutations, the narrative takes on a life of its own. This is far more subtle than “catapulting the propaganda,” (that would be akin to lying about the order of events: who bombed who first, or the number of civians killed), far more subtle, this is what they actually mean when they talk about creating their own reality.
This reality then functions much like viral thought control, because, once the narrative is adapted, it instantly spreads everywhere, often in components so small that you don’t notice them. The virus then effects all discourse, continually reinforcing its message in a “virtuous viral circle.” In other words, like a virus, it self-replicates.
So, let’s review:
Fact: More troops are being brought to Baghdad. (This could also be a lie, but that would then be of the larger, less lethal “Catapulting the Propaganda” type.)
Narrative: The troops are there to curb the sectarian violence. Note that no evidence of this is presented. And, by not presenting any evidence, the truth of this assertion becomes self-evident — a perfect tautology, like an immaculate little perfect crime. The truth of the assertion appears so obvious, that something must be wrong with YOU, if it is not immeadiately apparent.
Each narrative is part of one, or many, larger narratives, all of which are, generally speaking, lies, or at least gross over-simplifications, designed to purchase the consent of an ignorant and story-obsessed public in the violent theft of others soverignity and resources — actions which an informed public would never approve of.
The success of each narrative banks upon the fact that the vast majority of people consider themselves to be honest and moral. Therefore, they implicitly assume that their leaders to be so too, unless proven otherwise. (As I have noted elsewhere, terms like “public servant” reinforce this societal narrative.) The greater phenomenon is called the fundamental attribution error, in which the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior. In other words, people tend to have a default assumption that what a person does is based more on what “kind” of person he or she is, rather than the social and environmental forces at work on that person. Naturally, we trust the type of people who are most like us. (This is why it is so important for a juvenile, spiteful, angry, and despotic personality, like Bush’s, to be agressively marketed as an ordinary guy, the kinda guy we would wanna have a beer with.)
Let’s see how this works:
Meta-Narrative:US troops are in Iraq to help Iraqis
Meta-Meta-Narrative:US troops protect others.
Meta-Meta-Narrative:US troops are a force for good in the world.
Meta-Meta-Meta-Narrative:The US is a force for good in the world. We are a benevolent empire.
We can have one, or many, threads of meta-narratives arising from the original premise, which we have termed, “the narrative.”
For example:
Meta-Narrative:US troops are against sectarian conflict
Meta-Meta-Narrative:Americans are against sectarian conflict
Meta-Meta-Meta-Narrative:Americans are more accepting of religious differences than others.
As I said earlier, some of these assertions may be partially true, but are then gross over-simplifications, used for the propaganda pupose of stealing from others. This theft is most easily achieved if the belief can be implanted that we are better, in some way, than others: more benevolent, more functional, more accepting, etc.
Since we all want to believe so strongly in our essential goodness, both individually, and, by extension, collectively, little evidence is ever required by us to support these beliefs. (Try coming home to your wife late and drunk one night, with lipstick smeared all over your shirt, and you will find that the threshhold of evidence required to support the same essential belief has been dramatically increased!) In other words, evidence is generally only required, as incriminating confirmation, after the belief has been called into question by an extreme circumstance or blatant contradiction which forces us to confront our basic beliefs. These situations are never pleasant, and so are avoided by the psyche at all costs. Confronting extreme condradictions in the myths we live by, will cause extreme distress in most individuals, as the truth of those long-accepted myths are called into question.
Conversely, all evidence, no matter how fragmentary or suspect, which can support the notions of our essential goodness, and moralness, are rapidly accepted and incorporated into our own personal narratives as corroborating and reinforcing this belief. This is why the first step of many religions is accepting that you are a sinner. In other words, fracturing the essential narcissism underlying this whole process which I am explicating.
And that is the psychologiacl crux of the matter, this collection of myths — personal and collective — as well as the fundamental attribution error itself, are simply cases of extreme narricissism, continually and collectively reinforced. This is how subjective reality is created.
But, as we have learned, these collective myths, while assuaging our doubts, can have immense, untold destructive effects upon others. They are simply more dangerous than the most dangerous weapons man has created. And so, they must be continually deconstructed into hierarchies, and explicated to understand how they appeal to us, how they capture us, in order to defuse them of their destructive force.
Then others must be taught this process: Taught to look into their souls in order to perceive their own narcissism, taught to recognize the basic collection of personal and collective myths, and how they can be twisted to damaging effect, taught to read, watch, listen and converse critically, with an ear out to catch these myths, and, finally, taught to catch these myths and destroy them whenever we come into contact with them.
Only in this way, by arming ourselves and others, can this virus — which so ruthlessly spreads violence, death and destruction in its wake, while protected by the innoccuous shell of affirming our belief in our own essential goodness and moralness — be eradicated.
P.S. If anybody does have some hard evidence that the vast body of American troops are acting in sensible and effective ways to curb this violence, then I would love to hear of it. Otherwise, it might be wiser to assume the opposite to be the case.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 2 2006 23:14 utc | 2

malooga
i’m a little worried about the meta meta meta meta narrative about why there is a regroupement of american soldiers in turkey as noted the other day

Posted by: r’giap | Aug 2 2006 23:50 utc | 3

I’m sure there was a better way of expressing it, it flows quite rapidly from the top of my head.
Perhaps it’s because I never met a Meta I didn’t like! Ta dum!
Didn’t know about US troops in Turkey, but several days ago, I predicted here that if they were to go against Syria, they would employ a four way pincer movement. Troops from Lebanon (check), troops from the sea from Cyprus (check), troops from Turkey (check), and troops from Iraq (is there massing in the Tal Afar area, anyone?). This is very very ominous. They are proceding apace. Anyone with money, gas will go up instantly if they invade. Jesus saves, but Moses invests.
We keep hearing that they don’t have enough troops, and yet they keep finding more troops. Where are they all coming from?

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 0:08 utc | 4

Might be good for the world if Lt. Col. Peters travelled about a bit more.
What a jerkoff!

Posted by: Ms. Manners | Aug 3 2006 0:24 utc | 5

malooga
i wasn’t having a dig at you but i am genuinely worried about that pincer movement
i think it waas cloned or uncle that had the source about american army troops regrouping in turkey – it was from a turkish newspaper – if i remember
this absolute refusal to speak with syria & the movements of idf (even if they are a form of showboating) towards the syrian border in the last few days
i know these brute want an easy victory & they think that is possible with syria & it would concretely isolate iran without having to hit it & would be in their minds a way to stop supplies going into iraq
tonight they are busy bombing beirut – so ‘m sure andersoncooper&coleagues will all have a hardon

Posted by: r’giap | Aug 3 2006 0:35 utc | 6

I’ll have some of what Malooga’s been drinkin. Really helps (me) to see it all laid out as specific example, so much appreciated.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 3 2006 1:24 utc | 7

@ Anna Missed:
Many of us are slow.
I would have appreciated a precis (in Re: Malooga) of about 200 well-chosen words. Then I could have chosen freely whether I really cared to read the magnum opus.
Otherwise, I really don’t have the time.
I simply scrolled over it.

Posted by: Ms. Manners | Aug 3 2006 1:41 utc | 8

LOL! That was predictable, Ms Manners.
Malooga, as always, impressive. Much Thanks.

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 3 2006 2:05 utc | 9

Malooga:

In other words, American troops are supervising the greatest incidence of ethnic cleansing since WWII, in an attempt to crush out any national spirit left to Iraq, with the determined jackboot of American benevolence, so that they may then divide the country into three powerless and dependent duchies — Multi-ethnic and resource poor Baghdad having always been the one sticky problem in this case of “cutting the cat.”

Poetic, but I think the technical term for what they are doing is retreating.

Posted by: citizen k | Aug 3 2006 2:53 utc | 10

citizen k:
Ah… But that is the diffence between what they are actually achieving and what they are attempting to achieve.
Anyway, I write quickly. Not everything is perfect. What did you think about the rest of the piece?

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 4:03 utc | 11

giap –
this absolute refusal to speak with syria & the movements of idf (even if they are a form of showboating) towards the syrian border in the last few days
Today I noticed that the EC was bringing in Syria to the negotiating table. It seems to me the Israelis are so desperate for a solution (an international presence) that the EC is now in enough of a bargaining position to bring Syria into the negotiations, even tangentially.
BTW – notice how Olmert claimed a kind of victory when the Hezbollah barely threw anything across the border on the two days of “ceasefire?” I wished they would have resisted responding, but I suppose Olmert got his response today. (What was it, 180 missiles?) At any rate, it’s a disaster for Israel and I think just about everybody knows it.
And there is no way Rice et al want to go to Syria, IMO. The destruction of moderate, democratic Lebanon (in so many dimensions) is enough of a disaster for the US.
Check out this Financial Times article/interview with Walid Jumblatt
Fighting ‘has sunk hope of a free Lebanon’
Good Lord, I’m watching CNN and I don’t believe it — Sen. Joe Biden just said it would be good to talk to Syria!!! Whoah, can there be any doubt how bad this is?
Biden’s saying that Bush’s midease policy is an absolute failure. (On the Larry King show)

Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Aug 3 2006 4:06 utc | 12

France is in a bargaining position because Israel & the US are asking it to lead an international presence — so now they are the ones saying to talk to Syria and bring them into some role in negotiating…

Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Aug 3 2006 4:15 utc | 13

Miss Manners: 153 words, I think:
American troops are not really “curbing sectarian violence” in Iraq. You can’t believe everything you read. Words create stories. Stories are not always true; sometimes they are propaganda. But we believe them because they appeal to our sense of honesty and morality. These stories link together to form larger stories, which describe how we think of ourselves as a people. We naturally like stories that tell us we are good, even if it is not true, so we don’t demand evidence. Believing we are good leads us to feel we are better than others. This is a form of narcissism, which is bad because we use it to justify violence against others. If we learn to understand the stories that tell us we are good, and learn to see how they are really lies or exagerations, then we can understand the forces that lead us towards violence, teach others, and better prevent it.
As they say, the rest is commentary.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 4:22 utc | 14

@anna missed:
The interesting thing is that, if you read a front page Washington Post or New York Times story, you encounter this type of phenomenon in almost every single sentence. It is subtle, but because it is so constant, the repitition makes it extraordinarily effective.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 4:26 utc | 15

Malooga, I love your #14.
If only you read the Orthodox monastics on prayer, you would understand that you have put into a nutshell what individuals need to do to achieve humility, so one can be better aware of Reality (with a capital R). This is what the desert saints meant by fighting demons. “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.” It might not make sense to you, but you just might know what I’m talking about.
Never mind me. I’m just an old contemplative type.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 3 2006 4:33 utc | 16

@Malooga:
Thank you for the last.
Agree 100%.

Posted by: Ms. Manners | Aug 3 2006 4:39 utc | 17

Malooga, damn great thinking. I fear you are gonna burn out though ‘care wid that axe eugene’…lol

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 3 2006 4:41 utc | 18

Well, your talking to an old ex-Zen Buddhist monk 😉
Anyway, heard Kissenger on Charlie Rose tonight. reading between the lines. Said Israel lacked a strategy going into this. He didn’t imply that it would go further. Seems to think it is posturing for coming Aug. negotiations with Iran. Scowcroft said this allows us to solve israel/palestine. Kissenger sd. no, take care of Iran first. He said that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes, otherwise things will get very dangerous and we must confront them. Very non-committal on Iraq.
Then, historian Barbara Elkins said that Iraq was the beginning of the end for American empire.
You gotta be cold as ice and not care a whit about life, human or otherwise, to be kissenger. it’s all just an abstract chessgame, played on two levels, power and perception. Completely pathological. If I was his son I would be even a bigger failure then I am now….

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 4:43 utc | 19

Yeah, I was avoiding reality today.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 4:45 utc | 20

Well, your talking to an old ex-Zen Buddhist monk 😉
Ah, that explains it!
You gotta be cold as ice and not care a whit about life, human or otherwise, to be kissenger. it’s all just an abstract chessgame, played on two levels, power and perception. Completely pathological.
I agree completely. Talk about enveloped in narcissistic self-construction. Perhaps only Edward Teller was creepier.
If I was his son I would be even a bigger failure then I am now….
What are you talking about? In Kissinger’s eyes, maybe. Not in ours. I’m happy to call you one of my own. (You old contemplative, you)

Posted by: 2nd anonymous | Aug 3 2006 4:49 utc | 21

I loves me some meta. Also, I was not implying you had an axe to grind malooga, hope you didn’t take it that way. I meant to convey, if you clearcut the idea-scape, in my selfishness is in fear that, you’ll burn out and drop out again. I love your wholistic systems thinking. I thrive in that relm, however I have a hard time articulating the process, I understand it more than most people I know, but explaining it is complicated for me.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 3 2006 4:59 utc | 22

Oh my, it is old home week around the TV networks tonight.
Alexander Haig is on Fox talking about the need for a ceasefire.

Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Aug 3 2006 5:06 utc | 23

Malooga wrote:
This is where the corporate press is so dangerous — even worse that lying about the number of dead, or refusing to print photos of dead bodies. A fictional narrative is created, and then the narrative is inserted into each and every event, in order to embue that event with a fictional meaning. Through constant repetition, like this, of endless facets of the narrative, in endless permutations, the narrative takes on a life of its own. This is far more subtle than “catapulting the propaganda,” (that would be akin to lying about the order of events: who bombed who first, or the number of civians killed), far more subtle, this is what they actually mean when they talk about creating their own reality.
This reality then functions much like viral thought control, because, once the narrative is adapted, it instantly spreads everywhere, often in components so small that you don’t notice them. The virus then effects all discourse, continually reinforcing its message in a “virtuous viral circle.” In other words, like a virus, it self-replicates.
To tell you the truth, Malooga, it is this aspect of the Israel/Palestine/US/the rest of the Middle East stuff that gets to me.
It’s this idea that we can spin our way out of anything.
If something is a failure, we will just PR our way through history. (Think about the creating myths about the Palestinians.)
It is not just the arrogance that gets to me.
Once upon a time, Karl Jung predicted the fall of the Nazi regime because he said they were misusing archetypes. In other words, every time they stole some Myth or archetype to use for their own purposes (like, say, Apollo as a symbol for ancient Athens) and stuck a swastika on it (another stolen symbol) to claim the proto-democracy as something of their own – he said they were doomed to failure because their symbols were self-contradicting. (I’m thinking that might only make sense to you, at this point, if at all.)
There is this desperate injustice in the assumption that we can create a false mythology to cover up everything, to justify everything. And the mind that actually believes the lies becomes what? Sooner or later it will catch up.
Right now, seeing this parade of old conservatives saying we need a ceasefire, and Joe Biden! calling the Bush policy a failure… I’m just wondering if the Israelis haven’t done us all a great big favor by bursting their own mythology for the world to see?

Posted by: 2nd anonymous poster | Aug 3 2006 5:32 utc | 24

oops, sorry about the formatting. Darn.

Posted by: 2nd anonymous | Aug 3 2006 5:33 utc | 25

@2nd:
Must be getting really dire somewhere, to trot out “In Control” Alex.

Posted by: Ms. Manners | Aug 3 2006 5:47 utc | 26

Speaking of PR, professional spin, etc. (as has this topic gone over several threads, I think), somebody sent me this link today. It’s a film, 1 hr. & 20 min. I think, so sort of longish, but worth watching in terms of its PR deconstruction. It’s about Palestine/Israel, Occupation and media coverage (esp. in the US), made before the current disaster I suppose. Anyway, it’s pertinent, gives one some tools to think with about media control & PR. It plays with Google player. I’m sure some of you have already seen this but it was new to me.
Here’s the link:
Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 3 2006 7:07 utc | 27

I wouldn’t put all my faith in this, but if this unit is returned to base in Germany from Cyprus by the end of this week, then maybe Bush is not getting ready to send troops to Syria. I would think a medical unit would be kept in place if that was the case. This is from “Stars & Stripes.”
A Germany-based Air Force medical team continues to treat American evacuees from Lebanon on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, but the group hopes to return home within the week, the unit’s commander said Monday…
…It’s unclear when the airmen will begin flying home, but Col. Vermillion said they hoped to be back as early as the end of this week.
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=39065
But then again, when did Bush/Cheney/Rumsie ever do anything logical. It’s just a straw to grasp onto.

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 3 2006 13:59 utc | 28

Iraq civil war warning for Blair

Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain’s outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo.
William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines.
He did also say that “the position is not hopeless” – but said it would be “messy” for five to 10 years.
…
Mr Patey wrote: “The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.
“Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq – a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror – must remain in doubt.”
Talking about the Shia militias blamed for many killings, Mr Patey added: “If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army) from developing into a state within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority.”
…
The cable says that “the next six months are crucial” – an assessment which is shared by the coalition’s military commanders.
Senior military sources told the BBC it was “make or break” time in Iraq.

Mr Petey did read his Friedman …

Posted by: b | Aug 3 2006 14:40 utc | 29

it was “make or break” time
That should be about 26 Olmerts, or one Friedman.
Of course, now the emphasis is on the “break.”

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 14:54 utc | 30

r’giap @ 6
It was a Turkish newspaper, but the report was from Cyprus .
If they attack Syria, the geopolitical horror aside, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe. Syria is chockful of refugees right now. They already had upto 800.000 Iraqi refugees, now joined by as many as 300.000 from Lebanon. All with very little international help, in a country of very modest means and less than 20 million population of its own.
Even small scale, harassment-like incursions could send the situtation into a disaster.

Posted by: Alamet | Aug 3 2006 23:24 utc | 31

Malooga @ 2
What they are doing is supervising the US trained “El Salvador” option death squads. They are leading them on raids and making sure that none suddenly grow a conscience and turn weak in the knees as the blood mounts.
In support, Max Fuller who writes some of the best researched material on death squads:

US Collusion with Iraqi Death Squads
…
If we want to make sense of what is happening in Iraq we need to recognize that words like SCIRI, Badr and Mahdi, together with phrases like civil war, sectarian violence, revenge killings and tit-for-tat murders all serve to deemphasize the centrality of the occupation and mystify what is a very real and deadly counterinsurgency war.
From an external perspective, it is extremely difficult to discern whether the Resistance has seized control of Diyala or whether a genuine civil war along sectarian lines has broken out. What we must suspect, though, based on concrete reasoning, is that the security forces trained, armed and guided by the British and Americans will be committing terrible crimes against humanity in their role as attack dogs for the occupation.
…