Episode 56: How The Media Learned to Worry About War Without Ever Opposing It
\u201cBush didn\u2019t send enough Troops.\u201d
\u201cTrump needs authorization from Congress before launching a war.\u201d
\u201cIsraeli settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories are not helpful.\u201d
We hear these liberal objections to war and occupation all the time. On the surface, they sound opposed to injustice\u2014and maybe sometimes are\u2014but what if, more often than not, they nitpick process, protocol, and procedure without ever offering substantive, existential critiques of American war-making and military destruction. Their function, primarily, is to give the appearance of dissent where none really exists.
In spycraft, the term \u201climited hangout\u201d is defined as a \u201cpublic relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.\u201d Just the same, this limited opposition to war, or pseudo-opposition, serves as a way of superficially opposing war or imperialism or military occupation without the mess of actually taking a stand against it.
From the invasion of Iraq to the Israeli occupation of Palestine to the boundary-less and boundless perma-war on terror, this pseudo-opposition has taken many forms over the years. In this episode, we discuss the sophisticated nature of this technique, how one can differentiate between good faith nuance and concern-trolling, and how discrediting pseudo-opposition can open space for real conversations about the true consequences of empire.
We are joined by Nora Barrows-Friedman, associate editor at The Electronic Intifada.