Miss Cindy Sheehan, whose personal life spins toward the soap opera-esque, has begged our attention, suggesting that people who support the fight in Iraq are "brainwashed." It is hardly an original observation she has offered. The "brainwashed" are everywhere: in churches, synagogues and mosques; on blogrolls and FoxNews; at NASCAR races and Toby Keith concerts; at symposiums on Intelligent Design.
But Miss Sheehan's observation is also reminiscent of something I would often urge my friends (and some students) to do when in the heat of a debate: Always be the first one to say "Well, I prefer to keep an open mind," thus securing for yourself a swift victory in the art of polemics. No one loses ANY argument if one secures the "high ground" of intellectual openness. Similarly, Miss Sheehan's observation is actually not so much an insult as it is a compliment–to herself. For she tacitly declares herself a member of the cognoscenti, the enlightened and clear-minded, the illuminati. The rest of us, well, we're just doltish cadavers with White-Housewashed brains, plodding like zombies toward the abyss. In contrast, if she is not all-knowing, she is at least complete and total in her understanding of foreign policy, war, and the clash of civilizations. All this with a round of applause from the prophet of perspicacity himself, Al Sharpton!
Of course, Miss Sheehan really wants us to lose our focus: she does not want us to look at the causes of the war; she wants us to look at the causes of her grief. And the causes of her grief are what she dismisses as the "false causes" of the war (see, she knows THE truth) which led to her son's death (who reenlisted for a return to Iraq, by the way, brainwashed as he was). That is why her question to President Bush–What "noble cause" did my son die for?– is so painful for her: Her mental advantage over the rest of us has determined that there is nothing for which her son died that could be considered noble. Her question to the president, in fact, is not really a question, as she has already found her answer. It is a rebuke, a declarative statement oozing with contempt and hostility: President Bush is a maker of zombies.
You of course already know the "causes" that are "false": weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's threat, Iraq's connection to 9/11, etc. Of course, each of these is viewed as false in the most logically fallacious way: If there is WMD, we will find them. We did not find them, THEREFORE there never were any WMD. It's like saying if there is a moon, I will see it when I look at the sky. I do not see the moon at this moment, therefore someone is lying about the moon. You see, the deficiency is not necessarily with the president and his minions. The deficiency may very well be with his critics. Their deficiency is due to a certain lack of humility; they lack healthy uncertainty.
So, in light of all this, I've spent some time just looking at the history of WMD inventories from Iraq. During my perusal, I discovered this interesting tidbit: in the mid-90s it was learned that prisoners were taken from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison (have you heard of that place?) and taken to facilities where chemical and biological weapons were tested on those prisoners. (Hillary Clinton referred to the US's prisoner abuses at the that facility as "atrocities". I wonder what word she'd use to describe the use of humans as lab rats?) [see entry for June-August 1995]
Anyhow, that tidbit is worth mentioning, considering how sensitive the left is about such bad things. But I also found interesting the inventory reports submitted throughout the 1990's (I believe there were five) provided by the Iraqi government which listed chemical and biological weapons, and agents for mixing such weapons, in quantities measured in thousands of metric tons. The Iraqis themselves (these are not the reports of "failed intelligence agencies" but Iraq officials, for you sceptics out there) declared that they had manufactured VX nerve gas (some reports say liters, others 4 to 400 tons), mustard gas, and other such pleasantries. (See the list near bottom of this link.)
And then of course there are the UNSCOM reports of inspectors personally destroying or witnessing the destroying of vast parts of Iraq's inventories; and that much of the inventories' whereabouts or alleged destruction could not be verified. From the same reports, one comment (among many) stands out:
"...Iraq's basic declarations of its holdings and capabilities in prohibited weapons areas have never been "full, final or complete", as required by the Council. Further, Iraq's failure to provide all of the materials and evidence required to fill in the gaps left by those declarations and its acts of unilateral destruction have significantly obfuscated the situation.
... If the Commission is to enter such reports credibly, where prohibited weapons have existed, it must be able to verify positively that they have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless. Where items and facilities for the potential manufacture or constitution of such weapons existed or exist, it must be able to verify negatively that prohibited weapons are not being created. This is the standard that was envisaged by the Security Council and is the standard routinely applied in all comparable disarmament and arms control regimes." UNSCOM REPORT, APRIL 1998
Add to this the blatantly bizarre behavior of Saddam Hussein–welcoming inspectors promising full access, then shutting them out, and then his expulsion of just the American inspectors–and an objective observer must rationally conclude that WMDs were part of the Hussein arsenal. How else to explain to an outsider a leader who would permit the devastation of his regime and much of his country by an adversary who has given him 13 years to come clean and avoid conflict? Mere political posturing, mere bravado?
What I am saying is this: The outrage at the lack of WMD repeatedly voiced by critics of the war is demonstrably fallacious, and intentionally disregards history. When Iraq admits to WMD, when it submits inventories to the UN and those inventories are largely confirmed by inspectors (not always), then a logical person concludes that Iraq possesses WMD. That they no longer do possess them is irrelevant.
Of course, the other "false pretext" on which the war is allegedly based was that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. But, curiously, he demonstrably was a threat. Even on the most superficial level he was a threat to world peace. For when a regime gives the middle finger to international law (all the while promising compliance), ignoring 17 UN resolutions and corrupting a nobly-intentioned Oil-For-Food program, then the world is threatened. Why? Because it spits on international law, treating it like so much toothless nonsense. Moreover, Hussein's caprice destabilized the region: Does anyone believe Israel felt comfortable with Iraq being "governed" by such a double-minded man? And does anyone believe that Israel would be pulling out of the Gaza Strip with Hussein still in power in Iraq? Well, I don't believe it for a second.
Lastly, regarding the connection of Iraq and 9/11, I've already addressed that in Mr. President, What About This Draft?
It is evident that opposing the war is no longer a moral duty. It's become a sort of brand loyalty, even a commodity traded for commercial gain. People are circling around Miss Sheehan for financial gain and political notoriety; swirling in the maelstrom of book deals, magazine interviews, movie rights, radio and TV ratings. Soon, the tide will turn for or against the war depending on which viewpoint generates the most cash for vendors, publishers and ad agencies, though, as it stands, I am sure plenty of economic energy is generated in the heat-engine that is the Sheehan sideshow, with opposing sides entrenched against one another. But like Hurricane Katrina, this story will begin to break apart, finally drizzling out over New England. News crews will travel home, publishers will reconvene, and the next great moment will be awaited, signs and microphones and computer graphics in hand.
But right now, a huge portion of the media and its audience are being directed by a mother whose grief and anger are pointing in all the wrong directions; by a mother who wants to direct the president, and the country, on how to conduct a war on terrorism. Grief is horrible to observe; even harder to endure. But grief is not entitled to tyrannize either the news or the government. It is entitled to speak, to mourn, to wail and even scream. But it is not an oracle offering advice out of a morass (particularly an alleged one). Yes, praise the democracy where such voices are heard, respected, even highlighted. But woe to that country that succumbs to the manipulations of grief, elevating it beyond its proper place. For there are other, equally viable emotions, full of force and inspiration. For instance, what of a father's pride in his son's death while in valiant battle? Where are the TV crews and magazine reporters camped out with Miss Sheehan's soon-to-be ex-husband? Are not his emotions worth noting, worth bringing to the President's attention, worth reporting in order to inform the public about war?
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
