the Manhattan attack, which might be presented as quite a good illustration of chaos theory: an initial impact causing incalculable consequences; whereas the Americans’ massive deployment (‘Desert Storm’) achieved only derisory effects – the hurricane ending, so to speak, in the beating of a butterfly’s wing.
the death of the terrorist is an infinitesimal point, but one that creates a gigantic suction or void, an enormous convection. Around this tiny point the whole system of the real and of power [la puissance] gathers, transfixed; rallies briefly; then perishes by its own hyper efficiency. It is the tactic of the terrorist model to bring about an excess of reality and have the system collapse beneath the excess of reality. […] they have taken over the weapons of the dominant power. Money and stock market speculation, computer technology and aeronautics, spectacle and the media networks – they have assimilated everything of modernity and globalism, without changing their goal which is to destroy that power. They have even – and this is the height of cunning – used the banality of American everyday life as cover and camouflage. Sleeping in their suburbs, reading and studying with their families before activitating themselves suddenly like time bombs.
In this sense, we can speak of a world war – not the Third World War, but the Fourth, and the only really global one, since what is at stake is globalisation itself. The first two world wars corresponded to the classical image of war. The first ended the supremacy of Europe and the colonial era. The second put an end to Nazism. The third, which has indeed taken place, in the form of the Cold War and deterrence put an end to communism. With each iceding war, we have moved further towards a single world order. Today that order, which has virtually reached its culmination, finds itself grappling with the antagonistic forces scattered throughout the very heartlands of the global, in all the current convulsions. A fractal war of all cells, all singularities, revolting in the form of antibodies. A confrontation so impossible to pin down that the idea of war has to be rescued from time to time by spectacular set-pieces such as the Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan.
Apart from the pact that binds the terrorists together, there is also something of a dual pact with the adversary. This is, then, precisely the opposite of the cowardice which they stand accused, and it is precisely the opposite of what the Americans did in the Gulf War (and which they are currently beginning again in Afghanistan), where the target is invisible and is liquidated operationally. […] In all these vicissitudes, what stays with us, above all else, is the sight of the images. This impact of the images, and their fascination, are necessarily what we retain, since images are, whether we like it or not, our primal scene. And, at the same time as they have radicalised the world situation, the events in New York can also be said to have radicalised the relation of the image to reality. Whereas we were dealing before with an uninterrupted profusion of banal images and a seamless flow of sham events, the terrorist act in New York has resuscitated both images and events.
Among the other weapons of the system which they turned round against it, the terrorists exploited the ‘real time’ of images, their instantaneous worldwide transmission, just as they exploited stock market speculation, electronic information and air traffic. The role of images is highly ambiguous. For, at the same time as they exalt the event, they also take it hostage. They serve to multiply it to infinity and, at the same time, they are a diversion and a neutralisation (this was already the case with the events of 1968) The image consumes the event, in the sense that it absorbs it and offers it for consumption. Admittedly it gives it unprecedented impact, but impact as image-event. And in this singular event, in this Manhattan disaster movie, the twentieth century’s two elements of mass fascination are combined: the white magic of the cinema and the black magic of terrorism; the white light of the image and the black light of terrorism.
The is no possible distinction between the ‘crime’ and the crackdown. And it is in this uncontrollable unleashing of reversibility that is terrorism’s true victory. A victory that is visible in the subterranean ramifications and infiltrations of the event – not just in the direct economic, political, financial slump in the whole of the system – and the resulting moral and psychological downturn – but in the slump of the value-system, in the whole ideology of freedom, of free circulation, and so on, on which the Western world prided itself, and on which it drew to exert its hold over the rest of the world. […] To the point that the idea of freedom, a new and recent idea, is already fading from minds and mores, and liberal globalisation is coming about in precisely the opposite form – a police state globalisation, a total control, a terror based on ‘law-and-order’ measures. Deregulation ends up in a maximum of constraints and restrictions, akin to those of a fundamelist society.
A fall-off in production, consumption, speculation, and growth: it is as though the global system were making a strategic fallback, carrying out a painful revision of its values – in defensive reaction, as it would seem, to the impact of terrorism, but responding, deep down to its secret injunctions: enforced regulation as a product of absolute disorder, but a regulation it imposes on itself – internalising as it were its own defeat.
With all the panic consequences which ensure, the hysteria spreads spontaneously by instantaneous crystallisation, like a chemical solution at the mere contact of a molecule, this is because the whole system has reached a critical mass which makes it vulnerable to any aggression. There is no remedy for this extreme situation, and war is certainly not a solution, since it merely offers a rehash of the past, with the same deluge of military forces, bogus information, senseless bombardment, emotive and deceitful language, technological deployment and brainwashing. Like the Gulf War: a non-event, an event that does not really take place.
And this indeed is its raison d’être: to substitute, for a real and formidable, unique and unforeseeable event, a repetitive, rehashed pseudo-event. Their destruction itself respected the symmetry of the towers: a double attack, separated by a few minutes’ interval, with a sense of suspense between the two impacts. After the first, one could still believe it was an accident. Only the second impact confirmed the terrorist attack. And in the Queens air crash a month later, the TV stations waited, staying with the story (in France) for four hours, waiting to broadcast a possible second crash ‘live.’ … The collapse of the towers is the major symbolic event. Imagine they had not collapsed, or only one had collapsed: the effect would not have been the same at all. The fragility of global power would not have been so strikingly proven.
As if the power bearing these towers suddenly lost all energy, all resilience; as though that arrogant power suddenly gave way under the pressure of too intense an effort: the effort always to be the unique world model. The symbolic collapse came about, then, by a kind of unpredictable complicity – as though the entire system, by its internal fragility, joined in the game of its own liquidation, and hence joined in the game of terrorism.
Even in their failure, the terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest hopes: in bungling their attack on the White House (while succeeding far beyond their objectives on the towers), they demonstrated unintentionally that that was not the essential target, that political power no longer means much, and real power lies elsewhere. Although the two towers have disappeared, they have not been annihilated. Even in their pulverised state, they have left behind an intense awareness of their presence. No one who knew them can cease imagining them and the imprint they made on the skyline from all points of the city. Their end in material space has borne them off into a definitive imaginary space. Who is manipulating whom? Who is playing the other’s game? In this case, it is just as much the terrorists who profit by the advance of the system, in order themselves to gain power, in a race along parallel tracks in which the two opponents, contrary to what happened in class conflict and historical warfare, never actually meet. [Delillo’s astrological Libra conception of history – two parallel lines] Terrorism invents nothing, inaugurates nothing. It simply carries things to the extreme, to the point of paroxysm. It exacerbates a certain state of things, a certain logic of violence and uncertainty. […] so at Ground Zero, in the rubble of global power, we can only, despairingly, find our own image.