A rchive Date
[ 11-01-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/berton.html
Truth hard to find in rhetoric surrounding Iraq
By Paul Berton -- Free Press Editor-in-Chief
January 11, 2003
They say that in war, the first casualty is truth. It certainly seems that way in the debate over a potential attack by the United States on Iraq. The U.S. has not even decided officially if it will attack Iraq yet, and truth seems to have been left dying on the road several hundred kilometres back.
Facts are highly guarded secrets during war. Much of the time, there is good reason for that. You can't have your supposed enemies reading too much about your plans or thoughts in the newspapers. Some of the time, it's just the military culture to be secretive even if it's not necessary. That's also difficult to change.
But you would think that before a war is declared, we'd want something more than just heated rhetoric before we invade a country and kill innocent people.
What do we know about the potential danger of Iraq? Its leader is dangerous. That much is clear. But so are the leaders of other nations. They have tried to develop weapons of mass destruction, and they have used chemical weapons on their own people. That, too, is not unique to Iraq.
Do they have weapons of mass destruction? We don't know. Do they have chemical weapons? We don't know. Do they have plans to share this material with terrorists? We don't know. Do they plan to attack Kuwait or Israel or anybody else in the region or beyond? We have no idea.
This is what we do know. The U.S. has been involved in wars before under vague pretences, and the outcomes have been less than encouraging.
Meanwhile, we know U.S. presidents lie to the American people and to the world. Johnson and Nixon lied about Vietnam. Nixon lied about Watergate. Reagan lied about Iran Contra. Bush senior lied when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Clinton lied about Monica. When someone is caught in a lie once, you wonder how many other times they haven't been caught, and how many times their colleagues and predecessors and successors lied.
It's not a surprise that politicians lie, of course. Most elections are an orgy of empty promises. But an attack on Iraq is a serious business. At the very least, we are talking about sending people to their deaths and destabilizing a country and perhaps an entire region.
Meanwhile, there is the potential to change, for better or for worse, the course of world history. So to say we need as much information as we can get from the greatest number of sources is an understatement. We haven't yet exhausted that well of information.
Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix reported this week that there is "no smoking gun." Weapons inspectors in Iraq have found no evidence that Iraq is engaged in the kind of activity that would persuade us all, in Southwestern Ontario or in Washington D.C., that we must attack or face the consequences.
Yet Ottawa won't rule out supporting the U.S. regardless of United Nations support.
Meanwhile, as much as the drums of war are beating, there seems to be momentum on the part of the peace movement. There will be a peace rally, for example, in London Jan. 18 at the John Labatt Centre downtown. It's only one of many. So who do we listen to?
The answer, as usual, is both. This newspaper will continue to write about all sides of the issue. In many cases, the media will be pawns, willing or unwilling, of whatever side makes the best case. Sometimes, in the case of the electronic media, they will be pawns of the side that makes the case fastest and soonest or has the best visuals.
The truth might be in there somewhere, or it may not yet have revealed itself, or it may never reveal itself. We can only keep reading, and keep watching, and decide for ourselves.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|