Rationality and the 'War on Terror'

I was going to post some of this in response to Radar Anomalous's post on Badiou but it goes a little off topic and may be a little long so I thought I'd post it here (especially since I've not posted much of late). In any case, I have spent a very pleasan weekend reading Infinite Thought (Badiou, not Nina) and find that I am enjoying Badiou's line of thinking, especially his optimism in relation to the future of philosophy which is really a breath of fresh air compared to so many contemporary philosophers.

So anyway, the 'War on Terror' (quotation marks being entirely operative for how can their ever be a war on terror?). As Badiou points out, after the overwhelming affect of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent events there is a very real possibilty of rationality collapsing. This seems to have happened with the current world hegemony of America and it's allies. The use of the expression 'war on terror' directly implicates this loss of raionality. The word terrorism originaly designated a group that utilized terror in resistance to State control. The resistance in France during Nazi Occupation were known as 'terrorists,' 'terrorist' designates those freedom fighters in 1916 Ireland who fought against British Imperalism. Terrorist has now come to designate anyone who attacks America, hence it is an empty term one used by propagandaists and coupled with the predicative 'islamic' to ascribe it meaning. Terrorism becomes the word of propagandaists who use it to promote fear; a fear that is essentially irrational.

The use of the word 'war' and the justifications for war are themselves also compounded by irrationaity. The word 'war' tends to designate all out fighting between factions (arguably the Cold War did not include all out fighting between Russia and the US but th usage of the word 'Cold' allows it it's meaning). Badiou asserts that war is the means that the US uses to assert it's hegemony, evident in the consistent build up of military and the wars they have entangled themselves with since the genocide of the Native Americans. Their justifications for the 'war on terror' are themselves irrational. It would have been more rational to say that they wanted control of the Iraqi oilfields than to base their attacks on the fictitious existence of the infamous WMD. Even if the governments were rational in perpetrating the lie to justify their war, were the majority of the American public rational in believing such an obvious falsehood?

Since Badiou gave his paper in October 2001 the 'war on terror' has rapidly progressed, arguably irrational as opposed to rational. Who could say that the torture of prisoners is a rational act made by a rational mind? Is it rational that a weapons inspector should commit suicide due to media pressure? Where is the rationality in attacking a country that made no attack, and threatened no attack, on America and it's allies?

In the end it comes down to power and capital, both abstract enough in themselves to be an astounding reason for any sort of action. But then capitalism itself is so inherently irrational that such a state of affairs can not be so surprising.

There are of course all the arguments against rationalism (I've made them myself on a number of occasions) but if capitalism is irrational then sure we must use some form of rationality to resist it. Rationality allows us to carve out an argument against unreason and delerium, it gives us the tools for resistance and really, what use are all the flows of we aren't able to use some form of rationality to harness their creative potential?

|