In Defence Of Adam Curtis
In his BBC series, “The New Al-Qaeda”, Peter Taylor opens with a non-too-subtle dig at one of last year’s most controversial documentaries:
“Some people saw the idea of al-Qaeda as a nightmare drawn up by politicians to increase their power… it was not a view I shared”
It was a reference to the “The Power Of Nightmares”, a documentary put together last year by Adam Curtis, which –through a compelling mixture of interviews, archive footage and clever juxtapositions – offered an analysis of the roots of both Islamic fundamentalism and Western neo-conservatism. One of Curtis’ conclusions was that the threat posed by al-Qaeda is in fact hyped up beyond its realistic level, in order that the politicians with the “darkest nightmares”, as the filmmaker put it, can control and manipulate populations.
Evidently, in the light of the past four weeks in London alone, the threat exists, and – if we believe reports of previously foiled attacks – it has always existed. Several people have been quick to jump up and take a few potshots in Curtis’ direction, eviscerating him for what they see as an irresponsibly triumphalist attitude towards terrorism, accusing him of naiveté and claiming that his thesis was blown apart in the wreckage of the no. 30 bus and the dead bodies on the Underground.
Yet Curtis never suggested that the threat was non-existent. In fact, the contrary – he maintained that it was highly likely an attack would be mounted in Britain. Writing in the aftermath of Bali, Istanbul and Madrid, to have suggested otherwise would have been foolish. Rather, Curtis’ main conjecture is that – instead of al-Qaeda representing a mortal threat to civilisation as we know it, manifested through ‘sleeper cells’ that can be activated at a moment’s notice – the threat is from small-scale operations that have no tangible connection with an international terrorist organisation, other than sharing the desire to maim and injure as many as possible.
Despite the protestations of Ayman al-Zawahri, whose video message this week warned of new attacks, it is highly unlikely that the July 7th and 21st bombers had any collusion with the al-Qaeda leadership. It has become a predictable pattern: shortly after an attack, al-Qaeda releases a videotape claiming responsibility. Presumably, the two-or-three week gap is due to the difficulty of finding videotapes and camera equipment in the mountains of Waziristan, where Zawahri and bin Laden are thought to be hiding. In 2003 they even claimed responsibility for the blackout that affected the northeastern US and Canada.
Politicians seem to be caught in two minds over the seriousness of the threat. On the one hand, Tony Blair, Ken Livingstone, and others, have defiantly proclaimed that our way of life, our very “freedoms” (the things, we are told, that the terrorists despise) will not change. Simultaneously, however, the government is considering introducing a bespoke collection of new laws that will legislate and undoubtedly transform the lifestyles that we are all accustomed. Already an innocent man has been shot dead, although admittedly the shoot-to-kill policy that resulted in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was not a new one. Yet the police presence on our streets has been stepped up considerably, possibly for the foreseeable future; random searches are being introduced (and – despite protestations to the opposite – they will be racially biased and hence contribute to feelings of persecution already felt by Muslims); and the Met Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, reiterates daily his desire to hold suspects for up to three months without charging them.
Simon Jenkins, in an article in the Sunday Times, suggests that the constant elevating of the threat, the repeated proclamations that further attacks are ‘imminent’, the repetitive warnings that the police are stretched to their very limits – all of these actually help to lift terrorism, wrongly, onto the plateau of civilisation-threatening danger. Yet – to go back, finally, to Curtis – the British state itself is, quite simply, not at risk. The nightmares created by politicians seem to have taken root firmly in the minds of the populace, and it is time to snap out of it and recognise the lies and exaggerations for what they are.
“Some people saw the idea of al-Qaeda as a nightmare drawn up by politicians to increase their power… it was not a view I shared”
It was a reference to the “The Power Of Nightmares”, a documentary put together last year by Adam Curtis, which –through a compelling mixture of interviews, archive footage and clever juxtapositions – offered an analysis of the roots of both Islamic fundamentalism and Western neo-conservatism. One of Curtis’ conclusions was that the threat posed by al-Qaeda is in fact hyped up beyond its realistic level, in order that the politicians with the “darkest nightmares”, as the filmmaker put it, can control and manipulate populations.
Evidently, in the light of the past four weeks in London alone, the threat exists, and – if we believe reports of previously foiled attacks – it has always existed. Several people have been quick to jump up and take a few potshots in Curtis’ direction, eviscerating him for what they see as an irresponsibly triumphalist attitude towards terrorism, accusing him of naiveté and claiming that his thesis was blown apart in the wreckage of the no. 30 bus and the dead bodies on the Underground.
Yet Curtis never suggested that the threat was non-existent. In fact, the contrary – he maintained that it was highly likely an attack would be mounted in Britain. Writing in the aftermath of Bali, Istanbul and Madrid, to have suggested otherwise would have been foolish. Rather, Curtis’ main conjecture is that – instead of al-Qaeda representing a mortal threat to civilisation as we know it, manifested through ‘sleeper cells’ that can be activated at a moment’s notice – the threat is from small-scale operations that have no tangible connection with an international terrorist organisation, other than sharing the desire to maim and injure as many as possible.
Despite the protestations of Ayman al-Zawahri, whose video message this week warned of new attacks, it is highly unlikely that the July 7th and 21st bombers had any collusion with the al-Qaeda leadership. It has become a predictable pattern: shortly after an attack, al-Qaeda releases a videotape claiming responsibility. Presumably, the two-or-three week gap is due to the difficulty of finding videotapes and camera equipment in the mountains of Waziristan, where Zawahri and bin Laden are thought to be hiding. In 2003 they even claimed responsibility for the blackout that affected the northeastern US and Canada.
Politicians seem to be caught in two minds over the seriousness of the threat. On the one hand, Tony Blair, Ken Livingstone, and others, have defiantly proclaimed that our way of life, our very “freedoms” (the things, we are told, that the terrorists despise) will not change. Simultaneously, however, the government is considering introducing a bespoke collection of new laws that will legislate and undoubtedly transform the lifestyles that we are all accustomed. Already an innocent man has been shot dead, although admittedly the shoot-to-kill policy that resulted in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was not a new one. Yet the police presence on our streets has been stepped up considerably, possibly for the foreseeable future; random searches are being introduced (and – despite protestations to the opposite – they will be racially biased and hence contribute to feelings of persecution already felt by Muslims); and the Met Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, reiterates daily his desire to hold suspects for up to three months without charging them.
Simon Jenkins, in an article in the Sunday Times, suggests that the constant elevating of the threat, the repeated proclamations that further attacks are ‘imminent’, the repetitive warnings that the police are stretched to their very limits – all of these actually help to lift terrorism, wrongly, onto the plateau of civilisation-threatening danger. Yet – to go back, finally, to Curtis – the British state itself is, quite simply, not at risk. The nightmares created by politicians seem to have taken root firmly in the minds of the populace, and it is time to snap out of it and recognise the lies and exaggerations for what they are.
posted by DN at 7:45 PM
1 Comments:
I think The Power Of Nightmares was the kind of programme that should have been shown on US television, it may be a polemic but it had a lot of salient points. Of course, no broadcaster is going to commit commercial suicide by running a doc like that - the right has the media sewn up in that country.
Post a Comment
<< Home