Paradox and Paranoia in the War on Terror
"[Runciman] takes as his starting point the familiar phenomenon of a leader who rules by generating fear of the unknown, rooted in some iconic catastrophe to which such fear can be related. The 'war on terror' was ideal for this purpose, a war that had no enemy and could thus never be won, a war that need never end. As in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four, such a war empowers a leader to fight any battle he chooses, and to require any sacrifice, since he can declare the existence of the State to be at risk.
"The villain of Runciman’s piece is Tony Blair, Dick Cheney’s 'preacher on a tank'. The central thrust is that 9/11 did not represent a new pattern in world-historical affairs since, as many neocons had been asserting, a similar threat had been around for a decade. No new intent or strategy separated the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center from the 1993 one. The only difference was in technical competence."
Simon Jenkins provides a lucid account of Runciman’s powerful critique of Blair and his rhetorical techniques. For example, "What is near mesmerizing is Blair's ability to turn every criticism into a Manichaean dichotomy. When asked about civilian casualties or military atrocities, he explains that they are always the result of error. 'We regret them and take precautions to avoid them . . . . That is the difference between us and them.'"
"The essay resolves itself into a study in common sense. There is no war on terror. There is no enemy army and there can be no negotiation, no treaty and no peace. Terrorism is indeed a nuisance, a weapon of war, a technique of conflict as old as war itself. To demand its 'rooting out' is as ridiculous as rooting out bombs, or machetes, or revenge, or poverty, or fanaticism. This obsessive chapter in post-Cold War belligerence has reduced itself to no more than waiting for Osama bin Laden to do something next. It is the most nihilistic of narratives."
Read the review and consider buying the book.