Purewar---Virilio-Paul.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SEMIOTEXT(E) FOREIGN AGENTS SERIES Copyright © 1983 Semiotext(e) Copyright © 2008 Semiotext(e) All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo copying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Published by Semiotext(e) 2007 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 427, Los Angeles, CA 90057 www.semiotexte.com The Index was prepared by Andrew Lopez. Special thanks to Nicholas Zurko, Annie O'Malley, Gilda Lavalle, Etienne Li, Mark Polizzotti, Brian O'Keeffe, Olivier Jacquemond, and Manon Plante. Cover Illustration by Marc Alary Back Cover Photography by Sylvere Lotringer Design by Hedi El Kholti ISBN-13: 978-1-58435-059-0 Distributed by The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. and London, England Printed in the United States of America PURE AR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER Paul Virilio I Sylvere Lotringer Translated by Mark Polizzotti Postscript 1997 translated by Brian O'Keeffe Postscript 2007 translated by Philip Beitchman <e> Contents Introduction: Impure War by Paul Virilio 7 PURE WAR 15 1. The Space of War 17 2. The Time of War 27 3. Technology and Trans-politics 37 4. Fragmentation and Technology 45 5. Speed and the Military 57 6. Deterrence and Freedom of Movement 67 7. The Colonization of Time 81 8. Cinema and Resistance 91 9. Endo-colonization and the State-as-Destiny 103 10. The Production of Destruction 115 11. The War-Machine and Death 129 12. Pacifism and the Regression of Politics 145 13. The North-South Inversion 155 14. The Fatal Couple and the Supreme Idol 169 Postscript, 1997: INFOWAR 183 Postscript, 2007: WAR ON THE CITIES 207 1. The New Bunkers 209 2. A Finite World 221 Notes 237 Index 241 Paul Virilio Impure War introduction to the new edition The arm race of"Pure "War"has exhausted not only the USSR, which imploded, but also classical "Great "War," in favor of Terror and the terrorist imbalancethat we are now experiencing. Nuclear Proliferation has been unleashed again, taking a turn towards Fractalization. "War is dead, but Terror has replaced it. Therefore: After the classical and political "Great "War," we now have the Asymmetrical and Trans-political "War ofgroupuscules, groups, and other "paramilitaries." The aims ofthe Anti-City Strategy shiftedfrom the Balance of Terror to Hyper-Terrorism (2001). The external "Theater ofOperatiom" is no more: Metro-political Concentration has won out over Territorial Geostrategy. Geopolitics has faded in favor ofMetropolitics. The Principle ofIndetermination now reigns. Is Globalization Total "War? With Pure war, deterrence was military. One practiced reciprocal deterrence fo r the sake of the balance of terror. Twenty-five years later, we're fo rced to admit that things have changed: the arms race 7 not only exhausted the USSR, which imploded, but also ended traditional war-political war a Ia Clausewitz, with its prolongation of war by other means; and all fo r what? The winners have been terror and the terrorist disequilibrium we've got today, along with a bonus of nuclear proliferation; from which you have this geo strategic delirium, a madness that effectively arises from globalization. It's being embodied as well by the American global anti-missile cover, an umbrella George W. Bush offered to shelter everyone under. Vladimir Putin's response, in my opinion, was quite extraordinary-it hasn't been noticed enough. He made Bush an offer to install the radar of this global protection ...in Russia, in Azerbaijan. It's crystal clear that after the Great Wa r, which was classical and political, we are dealing now with asymmetrical and trans-political war. The first time I used this word was in Berlin, some thirty-fiveyears ago. I was in the company of Jean Baudrillard at the time, and I ventured the idea that we were in danger of drifting toward transpolitics. Well, here we are. When you've called a war asymmetrical and transpolitical, it means that there's a total imbalance between national armies, inter national armies, world-war armies, and militias of all sorts that practice asymmetrical war. These could be little groups, neighbor hood or city gangs, or "paramilitaries," as they're called; Mafiosoof all types, without mentioning AI Qaeda terrorists, or others. This is what happened in Africa, with countries that have fallen apart; and it's happening right now in Latin America, in Colombia, fo r example, where the national army is powerless against the prolifer ation of gangs, mafias, paramilitaries, or guerrillas. In my opinion all of this is contrary to the concept of Pure War. Today we need to think rather in terms of Impure Wtzr-I'm not sure it's being called that, surely not-but really the whole 8 I Pure War question of deterrence has changed in nature. Deterrence is no longer aimed only at the military sector, but essentially at the civilian population; from which we get The Patriot Act, Guan tanamo. We can cite similar phenomena in other countries; and, of course, the terrorist disequilibrium. The deterrence of Impure War aims at resisting this disequilibrium; however, reestablishing a balance has become impossible with the proliferation of asymmetri cal enemies. There is, in my opinion, an enormous threat to democracy in every single country; not only in totalitarian countries, of the East, South, North, or elsewhere, but also in democratic countries, in Europe as well as The United States. With this civil ian deterrence-The Patriot Act is a sign, but there are others, fo r instance certain laws are being considered in Europe governing immigration, etc.-the situation is far more uncertain since we're now resisting disequilibrium. This is called reestablishing order, and reestablishing order in civil society means opening the gates to chaos, an absolute threat to democracy of any kind, representative, direct, or participative, as it's called now; and it's clear what this delirium amounts to-a displacement of the anti-city strategy. Let me remind you that the anti-city strategy began with the Second Wo rld War, with the bombardments of Guernica, Oradour, Rotterdam, Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. The anti-city strategy was one of the strategies invented during the Second World War. It established the balance of terror, since nuclear mis siles, East and West, were targeted on cities. To day, what we're witnessing is a displacement of this anti-city strategy: from the balance of terror to hyper-terrorism. It's especially interesting because hyper-terrorism only knows one battlefield: the city. Whether Madrid, New Yo rk, or London, the battlefield is the city. Why? That's where you find a maximum of population and a Introduction: Impure War I 9 maximum of damage can be done with a minimum of weaponry, of whatever kind. No need for panzers, giant aircraft carriers, super submarines, and the like. Asymmetrical war, the terrorist disequi librium has erased the theatre of external operations (battlefields used to be called "theatres of external operations")-in favor of metropolitan concentrations. The battlefieldhas clearly become the city, the field of the city of men and women. Urban concentration has won out over territorial geostrategy, over front lines, ramparts, Maginot Lines, Atlantic Walls, etc. For a recent example of the failure of classical war, we need think, not only, of course, of Iraq, but also of the war in Lebanon. The failure ofTsahal in Lebanon is truly extraordinary. The Tsahal is one of the great armies of the Middle East, one of the best equipped, motivated, and supported, yet this army was "trashed," so to speak, in an asymmetrical war against the Hezbollah. Someone called it, furthermore, "a failed war," a stunning nomenclature. Before, wars were won and were lost, now there are fa iled wars and successful ones; that we're calling defeat failure and victory success is truly astounding. In my opinion this war revealed the weakness, the uncertainty principle of a normal army, with its tanks, missiles, superbombers, up against a makeshiftfo rce. I remember an extraor dinary little caricature in a French newspaper; I really should have cut it out: it depicted the Tsahal tanks stopped in the middle of a city in ruins and a sign with a city map, with an arrow indicating "You are here." The tank commander had stepped down to see where he was. I fo und that an extraordinary illustration of the madness of the day, I'd call it, of a powerful army, flush with its victory in the Six Day War. The Six Day Wa r was still classical war. It still was geopolitics. Geopolitics meant battlefields, Ve rdun, Stalingrad, the Nor mandy Landings. To day geopolitics is fa ding in favor of what I've 10 I Pure War called metropolitics, insofar as it concerns the city-or rather the metropolis, since London, Madrid, and New Yo rk are quasi capitals, not to mention Paris, where attacks against the Eiffe l Tower were brewing. After the crisis of geopolitics in favor of terrorist metro politics, it's now the turn of geostrategy; and Vladimir Putin's reply to George W Bush, "Plant your missiles and radar on our side" highlights the uncertainty about the adversary. There's something humorous about his suggestion, but behind this humor, admittedly absurd, also something true. One may wonder who you're defending yourself against. Putting missiles at the countries' borders, as Bush intends to do, amounts to threatening them even if the missiles are aimed elsewhere. Even if they are aimed at threatening countries like Iran and North Korea, it isn't countries anymore that are at war: the true threat is deterritorialized, or rather delocalized.