Conventional Lies: 2

By “conventional lies” I mean simply commonplace expressions in the media that follow manipulative political discourse uncritically and thereby pollute the field of public discourse.

1. There is a “war” in Iraq.

No, there isn’t a war in Iraq, at least not so far as the U.S. is concerned. Just look around you–where’s the war? Look at the daily newspapers–where’s the war? Take a look, say, at The New York Times for April 15, 1943; or April 15, 1951; or even April 15, 1967. There were wars on! You could follow them day by day, what ground was taken, lost, what were the casualties on each side, not to mention what was being done or not done to pay for the wars. What we have in Iraq, quite contrastingly, is an occupation. To say that the US is at war in Iraq in 2007 is like saying that Germany was at war in Denmark in 1943. Of course the Iraqi resistance is better armed than the Danish resistance was, so there are casualties among the occupying forces. Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. But that’s still not “war.” So everything that follows from the constant public lies about being “at war” is itself a lie. Call it “withholding funds from the occupation” and everything changes. Or try “losing the occupation is not an acceptable alternative.” What?

2. Afghanistan is a front in the “war on terror.”

No, actually Afghanistan is a “front,” the only front, in the war! The US is at war in Afghanistan, though nobody in public office or the media seems to notice this, and it’s not a “war on terror,” whatever that chimerical beast would be like. There’s a civil war in Afghanistan and the US is deeply involved in it–well, we started it when you come right down to it–as one of several contending parties. We are making war on the Taliban, and several tribal warlords and god knows who else, and in the usual way of modern warfare, especially anti-guerrilla warfare, we kill civilians right and left. What else is new?

What you might say is that the United States invaded two countries with which it was not at war, and one of the invasions turned into an occupation, and the other turned into...a war. And neither one is discussed, debated, funded, or whatever, as what it is. The Ministry of Truth is well at work. It’s true that Bonaparte managed to eke out only 51% of his referendum in his last election. But he still holds on to about 90% of the mass media, which are happy to allow their coverage of “debate” to proceed entirely on Bonaparte’s terms. That the people have turned against the murderous charade is a testament to our mass disgust with such obvious and expensively fruitless lie-telling, not to any general public understanding of the issues. Still, any port in a storm. But if we don’t wonder about the supposed foundations of “democracy” in free public discourse, we aren’t wondering about anything.