War Marketing
Op-Ed: “The greater the crisis of legitimacy, the more intense the propaganda,” says Kurt Imhof, referring to the announced war in Iraq.
Guest commentary The greater the need for legitimacy, the more massive the propaganda, says Kurt Imhof with a view to the announced war in Iraq The greatest difficulty of war is its need for legitimacy. Anyone who wants to wage a war and forgets this cannot win it. The "arena of combat" is "only" the space of individual or, at best, collective death; the public arena, on the other hand, is the forum that ultimately decides on victory and defeat - even if the military winner has long since been determined. This is why every modern war begins with communication. And that is why beating the marketing drums is decisive for political survival afterwards. Although war marketing was massively intensified by the Bush administration and the British government on the first anniversary of "Nine-eleven", it was never possible to demonstrate a plausible link between a territory-free, globally operating and religiously radicalized terrorist organization and the secular nation state of Iraq. A militarily relevant relationship between two such disparate actors would also be highly surprising. Moreover, neither Bush nor Blair are in a position to substantiate their claims regarding the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. Finally, the inconsistency of US policy towards other countries in the region that systematically violate UN conventions makes it completely impossible to justify this campaign.
The result of the propaganda campaign running on all channels is therefore catastrophic: the pattern of interpretation that links this war directly to regional oil reserves is now gaining ground even in Western center countries. At the beginning of the 21st century, the justification for war of the late 19th century is once again taking effect: the economically motivated expansion of spheres of influence. The difference, of course, is that this antiquated legitimation strategy was then able to draw on the colonial states' race for the best "place in the sun". However, there is hardly any competition left for the last world power. This fact explains the astonishing negligence in the justification for the war. If it comes to a battle in the Gulf, a high price will have to be paid: Unjustifiable wars discredit the attackers and justify terror.
> Kurt Imhof is a professor of sociology and head of the research area
Public and Society at the University of Zurich.
The result of the propaganda campaign running on all channels is therefore catastrophic: the pattern of interpretation that links this war directly to regional oil reserves is now gaining ground even in Western center countries. At the beginning of the 21st century, the justification for war of the late 19th century is once again taking effect: the economically motivated expansion of spheres of influence. The difference, of course, is that this antiquated legitimation strategy was then able to draw on the colonial states' race for the best "place in the sun". However, there is hardly any competition left for the last world power. This fact explains the astonishing negligence in the justification for the war. If it comes to a battle in the Gulf, a high price will have to be paid: Unjustifiable wars discredit the attackers and justify terror.
> Kurt Imhof is a professor of sociology and head of the research area
Public and Society at the University of Zurich.
