The
Fog Of Wars
By Jeff Berg
18 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
It
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.”