Lack of Information
When we go to discuss situations like the current war in Iraq or any other political issue that involves the American military, I think it's very important for us to remember just how little we actually know. Americans live under the misconception that their media has good intelligence and "gets the scoop" more often than not. This might (and not probably) be the case when it comes to non-military domestic issues, but it is certainly not the case when it comes to the military. While occasional leaks, some of them intentional, perpetuate the myth that classified information on the purpose behind American military engagements is only a few weeks away from the actual events, it's simply not true. The American military is extemely good at keeping information secret.
Michael Yon, a freelance blogging journalist on the front lines in Iraq, has said much the same thing. Speaking about the recent discovery of an immensly important letter from Zarqawi, he has this to say:
"in the hands of a network that hasn't had a body in the field in Mosul long enough to get their bearings, the best the media could do is paraphrase the military press release. So what should have been a front page banner headline story ended up buried on page 6."
About classification, he has this to say:
" Just why the military considers some information "classified" while other information gets the "go ahead, write it" shrug, is not based on logic, science, or even one of those absurd but iron clad rules that codify so much of the military. Many explanations for the military's requests not to publish certain information, do not hold up well to scrutiny. "
I think this is the real issue. We can criticize this side of American politics and call on the President to give us more information when asking for our support -- that's perfectly reasonable -- but to make ridiculous statements about the war being a "failure" or a "disaster" when we really don't know the first thing about what's going on or why we're there is simply stupid. The problem with Iraq isn't that we're there, isn't that there are no WMD's, and isn't that the terrorists are winning. It's that our government either thinks it's too dangerous to release, that we're too stupid to understand the complicated truth of, or that we'd be appaled at why we're really there. Calling for more transparency and information makes sense - attempting to make critical judgements and pronounce conclusions on the basis of such little information is, well, exactly the sin most critics complain loudly that Bush is guilty of.
I think good things will come from the war in Iraq and I'm definitely upset that we haven't been given better justification for why it was started, but I don't think we're going to get much out of the mainstream media that will help us judge the situation very clearly.
posted by RJ @ 2:06 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
"I don't think we're going to get much out of the mainstream media that will help us judge the situation very clearly."
That's definitely true. =) The MSM is useless.
Here's how I see it. Because I pay the taxes that fund these wars, I'm like a shareholder in a corporation, and I'm owed a certain amount of information. If the Bush administration has some sort of complicated justification that they think validates the conflict in Iraq, then I'm owed it. I don't think they do--if they could conclusively tie this to terrorism somehow they would. They can't.
You certainly COULD be right about what you're saying, but history does not support you. Pretend we're having this conversation in 1970. You're telling me I should support the Vietnam war, saying there are reasons I don't know that validate that we're there. I tell you the Gulf of Tonkin incident was made up and that Lyndon Johnson has been lying all along. The debate seems intractable...until the Pentagon Papers are published in the New York Times and the Washingon Post.
"The document revealed, among other things, that the government had planned to go to Vietnam even when president Lyndon Johnson was promising not to, that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident had been largely fabricated to this end, and that there was no plan to end the war."
That proves me right. When you say that there are justifications for the war that I can't know about, you take the debate out of the realm of the human--you're telling me how many wings angels have and daring me to disagree with you. Why can't you identify criteria that would make me right that the war is wrong? Even if you disagree with my criteria, at least I have some.
redhurt, I think you have very clearly articulated the situation; I especially agree with your focus on more transparency. In fact, I think this is a problem in itself, apart from the war. How can a democratic republic run as such when the flow of information about those things that are most pressing is controlled by non-elected agents who have a great deal of stake in the outcome?
Regardless, though, I think there is a problem with your conclusion. If, as you said, “it's very important for us to remember just how little we actually know,” then it is for all of us, not just those who are critical of the war. And if that is the case, then those aspects of the debate that are merely speculation have no bearing thereon. So then, we are all left with what is a matter of record. When that is where the boundaries are set, I see no way that any reasonable person could be anything but critical of and against the war in Iraq. The President of the United States of America and the entirety of his administration told us and Congress that Iraqi President Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat the security of the United States and that the war was necessary to overthrow said regime and confiscate the weapons of mass destruction. So, as a matter of record that no one disagrees about, the war was because Iraq had WMDs. That turned out to be a false claim. So, when we are restricted to what is just a matter of record, then we are forced to admit that the war was not justified. I cannot think of a more clear-cut case to be made.
I am a citizen who votes for my government. They are directly accountable to me. If those who are directly accountable to me don’t tell me the truth, either out of decete or incompetence, I have a right to be angry about it. I have a right to demand that they rectify the situation. In fact, if they didn’t tell me the truth, I am exercising gross neglegence by not demanding that the situation be rectified. It is irresponsible to be anything but critical of the war if our discussion is limited to what is a matter of record.
Thanks virtutis. I appreciate what you said, but you managed to completely dodge my contention. You seem to be arguing that because things are turning out well, the war was justified. That has been the line from the “Conservatives” in this country since the war began. I don’t think you can justify the war post hoc when the initial reasoning for declaring war in the first place was not true. The matter of record is that we engaged Iraq because they had WMD’s not that “it might turn out well in a few years.” So, I appreciate what you are saying, but don’t dodge anymore (that is not just for you, but for everyone who is supporting the war). If you think I am wrong, prove it; don’t avoid it by telling me how great things really are going now.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.powell/index.html
ript.powell/index.html
J. Morgan, I think you're right, and I completely agree. The reasons we went to war, and by WE I mean the American people and congress, are highly suspect. The President ought not ever lead the country into war without giving ample and truthful justification for it. I think it's very reasonable and responsible for us to be critical of why we went to Iraq - I'm all for it.
The thing I'm not all for is calling the war a "failure". A failure to remove the threat of WMD's? As you've said, we haven't found reasonable evidence there were any, so it's a non-issue. What's it a failure to do then? A failure to keep our country safe? I believe the war was started for ends that have not been disclosed, and will have numerous benefits for both America and Iraq. The war is succeeding in some ways very, very well, and often in ways that are not readily disclosed to the MSM. That being the case, it DOES represent a huge failure in transparency and communication, and I'm all for being critical of that.
It is a catastrophic failure of America and of democracy – both of which I think are more important than any reason we could possible have to be fighting a war. If any readers disagree, feel free to object, but don't avoid my point.
Philosophically you're right, redhurt--since there were no WMDs, we won't be able to fail to remove them.
So in one sense it's OUR failure--as citizens of a democracy it's our responsibility to get in front of the war machine, the way the protesters in Tiananmen Square got in front of the tanks. Where was I in March of 2003? I know where the Democratic senators were--they voted for the war but hedged so they could have it both ways. Cowards.
Post a Comment
<< Home