Blogging about war: year five.

When I started this particular blog in opposition to the then-imminent invasion of Iraq, I had no idea I was committing to a five year plus project.

As someone who had been an adult throughout the "first Gulf War," I remembered how simplistic and dumbed-down the news coverage was. The kids at my college who watched those reports with me, the ones who cheered bombings that were shown on television and made racist comments about Arabs with a new found freedom, probably don't recall how oddly censored and selective the news from that war seemed at the time. (There were many of us who were disgusted by their zeal for attacking a country that none of them new anything substantial about; they did not like to have this pointed out to them.)

This current war and occupation were handled quite differently, in a much more media-savvy way by the military, and yet in all of the information that has come out, there are still facts about the nature of war itself that seemed to seep through in a way that was not documented quite the same way previously. I decided I wanted to make a selective record of those facts and concepts, mostly of the reports that I believe will be glossed over when these events are over-simplified for the history books of the future.

I have only been somewhat successful. But this has been a worthwhile project for me. It has made me read news in a different sort of way: I scour for source material, and scrutinize the circumstances under which reporting was made in a different way.

It has been a remarkably sad form of education about the world.

*

There are many things I still do not comprehend about the nature of people's individual thinking about this war, and war in general.

I had a smart colleague at my old employer who, mysteriously, believed everything that the Bush Administration said in the run up to war. He believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; he believed that, although there had been no threats from Iraq at the time, that Iraq posed a great danger to Americans; he believed that the war would be over quickly. We even had a conversation at the time that Bush gave his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech in which he said that all of the partisans who had predicted a long, messy war had all, in that one moment, been proven wrong. I asked if he was certain, and he was.

This, to me, is nearly incomprehensible. He is one of the few people within my skeptical social circle who seemed to believe any of those claims. He used the same basic information to come to completely different conclusions, all of which have now been proven wrong. Where did that misguided certainty come from?

*

I've had some insights about this particular colleague, though I'm uncertain if these insights extend to others. [I will change some details to protect this colleague's identity, but it's light cover: anyone who knows us both will know of whom I'm writing.]

This colleague adopted a baby boy from an orphanage in a poor, Eastern European country. Shortly after this adoption, which involved his only trip to visit this nation, a human rights group issued reports on the horrific conditions of certain orphanages in that same country. This sort of report had come out before, and contained documented information: photos were available, death certificates were filed, interviews were recorded... Some of these orphanages were, in fact, very dangerous places for children to be.

My colleague, when this was brought up in casual conversation, announced with complete confidence that ALL of the orphanages over the entire country where he had adopted his son were SAFE and in good condition.

I looked at him, baffled. He had only spent a few days in this country; he had only visited one orphanage; he didn't speak the local language... He had no factual information about ANY of the other orphanages in the country aside from the one where he was connected to his son. Meanwhile, human rights groups had enormous files on the adverse conditions. Why was he making such a strange denial of something that was well documented?

After some time looking for a rational explanation, I developed a theory. My colleague loves his son more than anything in the world. The boy is his life. And he knows that there are other little boys, very much like his son, back in the orphanage system. He cannot bear to think of boys just like his young son suffering and dying in the sort of conditions that have been documented there. He also knows that he cannot adopt these boys and make them safe; and really, he just wants to lead his private life, which now includes his son. I think that, to keep from having to consider what may be happening elsewhere, and to keep from giving up his peaceful life to dedicate himself to child welfare issues, he has decided to deny any facts which might obligate him to act. By saying that everything is fine, he can go about his life: there is nothing that needs to be done.

*

This is not a scientific theory, and there are other explanations, but I do have other examples of the similar behavior from him. For example, on a very simple note, he remarked that (once it was clear that the war had not, in fact, ended) he could not attend any public demonstrations against the war, because the only persons who attended such events were "aging hippies," perhaps people in their 60s, and he was not like that. When I pointed out that _I_ attended such events, and that I had abundant photographic evidence that a wide range of young people from many ethnic backgrounds attended (and often organized) in addition to people his own age. Upon hearing this, appeared to struggle conceptually. He definitely didn't want to see the photos, but tried to argue that I was wrong... My photos and eyewitness information were depriving him of his excuse for not taking a stand or any other sort of action.

This is consistent with some of the strange denials that meet unfavorable information coming out of Iraq. Even if the soldiers themselves describe something as terrible, it is immediately re characterized by war supporters as something better, something more positive, something that allows things to continue on along the same path without any action on their part.

There are some theories in popular political writing which also attempt to explain how people discard information that doesn't support their position. I just fail to understand how people can be so successful at tricking themselves. I am confused by how people who can rail on against historical atrocities and the people who stood idly by and allowed them to occur, can, well, spend their time now standing idly by and claiming that they see no evil at all.

It is a creepy lesson, but one that I intend to study further.

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness (thenation.com, 07/09/2007). The Nation has consistently provided some remarkable reporting on the situation in Iraq. One of the best things about the Nation's coverage is that the magazine's reporters made some excellent characterizations about war generally, and the circumstances of this war in particular, which are very useful.

For example, the writers for this magazine early on characterized the U.S. occupation of Iraq as an "atrocity-producing situation." This seems obvious in many ways, but this is a useful framework for looking at many micro-situations within the war. For example, when you hear about a family being killed by U.S. soldiers because they failed to stop at an unmarked checkpoint at the middle of the night, and the newspaper notes that the situation was acceptable because the soldiers were following the "rules of engagement" that they created when they invaded, you can pause and say: actually, this was an atrocity-producing situation. The fact that the rules permit entire families to be killed at checkpoints means that the rules are inadequate. It offers a level of conceptual awareness that the "rules of engagement" announcements try to close out.

This approach is also an effective alternative to "one bad apple" theory, in which the Bush Administration blames individual soldiers put into atrocity-producing situations rather than the government and military that created that situation.

Along these lines, one of the best of many articles published by the Nation on the subject of Iraq in 2007 was this piece of investigative journalism.

Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

The article inspired quite a response, and was both applauded and criticized even by the soldiers who participated in the interviews. It is unflinching and informative.

It does leave people with those senseless "support our troops" magnets on their cars in an awkward position of having access to even more proof that some soldiers really object to the war. But that is their magnet/problem to manage.

Various of interest links from 2007

I collected quite a few links in early 2007, which I never commented on or posted. Here is a selection from January and February.

-Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is the law that sets up military tribunals - the sort of secret military courts the U.S. usually mocks other countries for having - and makes a strange, broad definition of who can be imprisoned without rights indefinitely (which can mean forever). This article quotes Senator Leahy:

Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse—is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do.

-Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq:
January 20-21, 2007
Tacoma, Washington, USA.

This was an interesting concept, akin to many traditional community meetings held around the world as a sort of community court.

The Citizens' Hearing will function as a tribunal to put the Iraq War on trial, in response to the Army putting Lt. Watada on trial as the first U.S. military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

The hearing will present the case that Lt. Watada would, if allowed, make at his court martial. His defense attorneys maintain that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Further, Lt. Watada's defense argues that the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations require soldiers to follow only 'lawful orders.' In Lt. Watada's view, deployment to Iraq would have made him party to the crimes that permeate the structure and conduct of military operations there.

-BBC NEWS | In Pictures | In pictures: Guantanamo protests (news.bbc.co.uk, 01/11/2007). Photographs of protests from around the world against the U.S.' prison for alleged terrorists, for which no adequate judicial or review system is in place.

-BBC NEWS | Americas | Mass US protest against Iraq war (news.bbc.co.uk, 01/27/2007):

The Democrats took control of both Houses in November's mid-term election, sparking Mr Bush's decision to form a new strategy for Iraq.

But our correspondent says Congress has so far balked at using the power of funding and only a handful of staunch anti-war Congressmen were present at the rally.

Although nearly all Democrats and a growing numbers of Republicans oppose the president's plans, he says, senators have not been able to agree yet on a single non-binding resolution expressing their concerns.

-BBC NEWS | Middle East | Quick guide: Violence in Iraq (this is an older report, from 11/23/06):

An estimate by US scientists in October 2006 suggested that about 655,000 civilians had been killed since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Western human rights campaigners give much lower figures - between 42,000 and 47,000 civilians - but point out many deaths probably go unreported.

About 3,000 coalition troops - more than 2,800 of them Americans - have died in Iraq in the same period.

The monthly Iraqi death toll hit a record high in October 2006, with more than 3,700 people losing their lives, according to a UN report.

-David Ignatius - Expect The Worst In Iraq - washingtonpost.com (02/07/2007): I selected this item because it's one of those interesting opinion pieces that comes right out and says that there are no good courses of actions... and that we should be selfish. Many other opinions are not quite as honest about our self-serving priorities. Selection:

In this bleak situation -- where, as everyone keeps repeating, "there are no good options" -- what's the right course for U.S. policy? A useful approach may be to start planning, not for the best but for the worst. Congress and the administration should begin thinking about potential catastrophes in Iraq -- and about how to protect the core national interests of the United States and its allies.

At least he's open. He also has a section called "Protect the oil." And yes, it comes before the part about protecting Iraqi civilians. Just so you know that I don't only quote people who are consistently humanitarian in their concerns. There are plenty who aren't.