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.