The Fog Of Wars
By Jeff Berg
18 August, 2006
Countercurrents.orgIt is said that the first casualty of war is truth and famed military strategist Karl von Clausewitz is commonly credited with having referred to this phenomena as resulting from the "fog of war". (It is one of history's more appropriate uses of irony that this is a phrase he never actually said and who in fact did say it is shrouded.) Now according to Mssrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Harper, Blair, and Howard we are involved in a war and not just any old war. It is a war that their courtiers in the punditocracy variably refer to as WWIII, WWIV (the cold war was WWIII in this construct) and even according Sean Hannity WWV. Though Hannity's incoherence on the subject makes it difficult to make any sense out of what he may mean by this.
Now it seems reasonable to conclude that in a regional conflict where one's country has no direct stake it is easier for individuals of that country, their media and their government to avoid falling prey to the mind altering vapours of war's fog. An alteration that seems to induce in those affected an incapacity for anything but the most rabidly partisan interpretation of events and a marked increase in the application of double standards, inversions of fact and shifting goal posts. So for example Canadian society as a whole from accredited expert, to pundit , down to the casual reader of international news are relatively clear on the facts surrounding the occupation of Tibet by China. By contrast this is something which we clearly find more difficult at every level to do when our citizens and our leaders identify us as having a stake in the conflict. The most recent example of this being our population, media and government's response to the death and destruction resulting from the battle between the IDF and Hizbollah fighters.
Now following the logic that the greater our perceived interest in the outcome the greater our difficulty with a non-partisan interpretation of events it stands to reason then that the more major the conflict the more intense the fog. Its effect becoming most pronounced when the conflict is classified by common consensus of the intelligentsia to be a “clash of civilizations” or a WW. For example if you remember back to the build up to the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq Canadian society was very much polarized.
On the one hand much of the media and the corporate leadership and the Conservative opposition thought it absolutely essential that we "back our friend and ally" in stamping their military footprint on Iraq. At the same time a great many of Canada's people, most especially unanimous in this opinion were Quebecers and First Nation people's, felt very strongly that it would be both immoral and disastrous for Canada to aid and abet this resort to violence as a way of "dealing with Saddam". These same folk arguing that not only did the argument that preventative war was "Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." hold no international legal standing it also had grabbed by 180 degrees the wrong end of a exceedingly sharp stick. Thus the plan to run with it at mach speed was both a very bad idea indeed and had furthermore had no chance of restricting its harm to those intended.
These arguments for the most part left aside whether those intended for destruction were deserving of this fate feeling perhaps not unjustly that their point was already amply made so why bother with the sticky wicket of being called a "Saddam Symp". Aided in this choice in all likelihood by Quebecers and first Nations historically having so little appetite for all things cricket. A distaste arising no doubt from having had to suffer so often at the hands of what Anglo's have deemed cricket in their relations with them over the last century.
After the conflict was underway the voices of the Reform party, Steven Harper in particular, many in the PC party, the front back and middle pages of the Sun papers, the editorial slant of the National Post along with many op-eds in both the Globe and the Star and papers throughout the land but especially in Alberta rang with the clarion call for the moral equivalent of "backing your buddy when he gets into a brawl". Arguing that
whether or not you agreed with the reasons for going to war now that it was on it was necessary to choose sides. In other words demanding of Canadians that they be partisan irrespective of the facts. From outside the country the pressure was if anything more fierce as a result of the most sustained and withering pressure from America's government and America's media/business class that this country has seen since the Vietnam war.
Even within the Liberal party's cabinet there were strong objections to the decision to stay out. Many claiming then and since that Paul Martin, at the time very much Canada's brightest political star and the heir apparent of Canada's "natural ruling party", was not on board. He allegedly choosing to believe his business buddies who were telling him that America's punishment for refusal would be so extreme that it was not in his party's or the country's interest to deny this request. Remarkably our PM of the time, Jean Chretien a French Quebecer, stood fast in the face of this virulent opposition to his decision to keep Canada's Armed forces out of Iraq. It is completely non-partisan and factual to say today that Canadian's are on the whole very grateful not to be involved in that very bloody, very protracted, very expensive, and disastrous effort at pacifying the Iraqi people to the American way.
It still remains to be seen if "Stevo" will be committing any troops when/if international boots hit Southern Lebanon. An effort for historical reasons that the French are taking the lead on. Seasoned commentators like Robert Fisk are projecting that this ceasefire will not hold which will mean that if and when UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) arrives in Lebanon they may well become yet another combatant in a very long list of participants in this ongoing human made catastrophe. But before we get to that pass the world still has to keep its fingers crossed while the Lebanese army files south.
Fifteen thousand Lebanese soldiers are to be committed to the area where Hizbollah and Israel have been exchanging fire and tensions will be extremely high. Imagine if you will young Canadian males, trained in combat, armed to the teeth, going to a part of our country occupied by alien forces that has been bombed quite literally to smithereens, again. Add to this potent mix that Hizbollah is now viewed by the overwhelming majority of Lebanese as national heroes who dared to stand up to Israel while the Lebanese Army stood by and let the country be smashed, again. It is a non-partisan fact to note that throughout the Middle East the vast majority of young males view the Hizbollah as the virtuous defenders of Lebanese sovereignty and America and Israel as being merely different faces on a coin from the same realm. Both equally responsible for the destruction of Lebanon as they are for the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. (for a look at the extent of the Israeli military campaign: http://tinyurl.com/phd48 )
We can only keep our fingers crossed that Lebanese military discipline is up to the task of not re-igniting this conflagration. For if the Lebanese Army and the IDF start mixing it up it is very difficult to see Syria and Iran staying completely on the sidelines. And if they do not the American ‘deciders’ (Cheney & Rumsfeld) who are looking for a pretext to attack them both may be able to carry the day with those that would otherwise keep leashed these particular dogs of war. Not because they are pacifist but because they fear the probable consequences. And given that the U.S. has 140,000 targets in Iraq who would probably not be all that unhappy to take on a more conventional enemy such a conflict would be extremely bad news for the world. In the words of Robert McNamara “Apocalypse soon”. http://tinyurl.com/cfosy And even if we do manage to avert this apocalyptic scenario we will not yet be out of the proverbial woods.
Like the IDF and the American army before them UNIFIL will be viewed by most in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East as part of the ongoing problem that is Israel’s and America’s various occupations and what they overwhelmingly believe is the principal cause of the increasing radicalization of the region’s youth and political leadership. Since Israel’s first invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982 we have seen the PLO move from Arafat to Hamas and southern Lebanon go from Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin’s manifesto to Abbas al-Musawi to Hassan Nasrallah. The latter taking Musawi’s place after he was assassinated by Israel and Arafat the putative reason for the 1982 invasion. An invasion that spawned Hizbollah as a political and military entity. And never once have we had an admission of failure on the part of any of the leaders of Israel or America. To listen to them talk it is as if they have moved from one spectacular and stirring success to another.
Given the history of the region it very much makes one wonder just exactly what would be sufficiently ruinous to them to qualify as a failure. At a recent G-8 summit GW was to be heard opining to the international press that he would very much like to see Russia become like the “great democracy” that America had created in Iraq. Putin forced to respond countered with, “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.” To which Bush, who considers himself a quick wit artist, honest, retorted “Just wait heh-heh-heh.” It is a very good thing that everybody recognizes that this man is not in charge of his family much less the free world. Otherwise it would be difficult to construe such words as anything but fighting ones. And rather ill advised ones at that given the hair trigger status that both sides have hundreds of nuclear weapons on. (or is it thousands? I really can’t be bothered to check as it is the ultimate in distinctions without a difference)
In any case even if UNIFIL does manage to separate the combatants and the peace does hold for a year or two the savage destruction that took place is bound to increase the distrust and paranoia of both sides. The original UNIFIL mission begun in 1978 failed badly and the U.N. positions where overrun by Saad Haddad’s IDF supported troops and a full scale invasion by Israel. This was followed by an 18 year occupation of southern Lebanon after which UNIFIL once again renewed its duties. (adds a whole new dimension to the definition of interim doesn’t it?) All of this was in addition to the horrifyingly destructive civil war that was a direct consequence of the destabilization of Lebanese society. Which not surprisingly only contributed to the further radicalization of the region's political parties and who is and is not considered electable. i.e. Non-warriors need not apply. A radicalization that over the years it seems impossible to deny has grown worse with every shell hurled. Or as the ruler of America's second most dependable ally in the region King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia put it this month: "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire." And what will Canada and her “revitalized” military do? And if she does enter the maelstrom will she go as fire fighter or as an extinguisher?
By the by any of you who may have felt tempted to nibble even a little on the Jack Granetstein led media campaign to convince Canada's taxpayers about the necessity for spending a few tens of billions on military 'needs' might like to know the following.
Before Harper's most recent $16 billion outlay Canada's military was ranked 7th in terms of military spending among OECD nations. The OECD being the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For all intents and purposes the OECD is the 'US' club. On the 'THEM' outside looking in is Brazil, China, India, the Russian Federation, South Africa, and the ROW. (rest of world) aka The 150 or so poorest of the poor countries. In other words among the richest of the rich, the top 30 industrialized nations of the world in terms of per capita GDP, we are seventh in terms of military spending. In other words despite all of the rhetoric to the country even before this latest up tick we are among the more militarized countries in the world. It also bears mentioning that we are America’s bullets for Iraq supplier of choice.
Now whereas we have, so far, managed to avoid being sucked into the cycle of violence in Iraq or Lebanon, Afghanistan tells a different tale of Canada’s military role for the Anglosphere. For here the Liberals did commit Canadian troops to becoming part of the U.S. directed use of force to remove the Taliban and entrench new rulers in Afghanistan.
There is now talk by the braggadacious leader of our armed forces General Rick Hillier of a ten to twenty year commitment to "nation building". It remains to be seen to just how much building the use of C7's (variation of M-16's, Canada's weapon of choice), attack helicopters, drones and F-16's will lead. The history of America's efforts at such like "creative destruction" makes for chilling reading to say the least. We as a country are however committed for the foreseeable future and there seems little sign that our population is very restive about this fact.
Afghanistan seems instead a rather clear example of the degree to which modern war can be conducted by Western democracies with seemingly all but no disruption to “business as usual” for the vast majority of the population. Afghanistan is to put it mildly not exactly water cooler material among the vast majority of Canadians and even our religious leadership seems to be somatized as far as protest to the use of lethal levels of violence. A violence which our leadership assures us despite its spectacular run of failures since 1948 should be a central tenet of our approach to solving the problem we have decided many countries in Asia present to us.
What we as a people are focused on instead is what the American, British, and Australian governments and presses approach with a fervour that one is very tempted to describe as religious: The Global War on Terror. The most recent fervid overheating of the issue being the arrest of multiple suspects in the alleged case of a conspiracy to blow up numerous airliners. This despite the fact that they had been under surveillance for over a year, had yet to buy a plane ticket much less build a bomb and that the arrest was sparked supposedly by “information” that was extracted from a suspect in Pakistan. Remember they were under direct surveillance of various British security organizations. And the “big break” comes from a suspect in Pakistan? Denmark and the state of its state come somehow to mind.
To put it as politely as humanly possible let’s compare shall we the massive media overkill on this could-a-been disaster with, oh I don’t know, lets say the amount of attention being given to American GI’s permanent disability rates from the first Gulf War. Or the massive spike in Iraqi cancer and fetal abnormality rates since the first gulf war and the work by Dr. Leuren Moret and Dr. Doug Rokke on the effects of depleted uranium. Or even what has been known since the 1940’s about the effects of aerosolized DU. This is of course not to say that we should not be concerned over the safety of airline passengers. These citizens do after all represent an exceedingly large number of our most important movers and shakers. It is simply to say that there is a whole heck of a lot of very disproportional reporting going on that reflects a very deep bias against what ‘they’ are making us suffer versus what ‘we’ are making them suffer. Even when our own is purely potential and theirs’ is all too actual.
I leave you for now on that note. And strongly suggest that you read the following article on the coverage of the “greatest terrorist threat since 9/11”. http://tinyurl.com/r5l86 It is written by Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan. If on the other hand you’ve had enough for now I will summarize his findings for you: “Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.”
