Reason in wartime
by Kara Archer
"I believe virtually everything I read. And that is why I think I am a more selective human than somebody who doesn"t believe anything." -David St. Hubbins in This is Spinal Tap The first casualty when war comes is truth, they say. As if truth didn"t have it hard enough keeping body and soul together even in peacetime. It"s constantly getting pushed aside by sly salespeople, pandering politicians and even by all sorts of do-gooders with the noblest of intentions and the sloppiest of research methods. It"s always a good idea to maintain the highest level of healthy skepticism, but when a war"s on, we need to become even more critical. International relationships, especially hostile ones, involve complex diplomatic strategies and global interdependency. Although peace demonstrations serve a certain purpose in pressuring the administration, a few catchy slogans cannot take the place of historical understanding and impartial inquiry. Unscrutinized acceptance of peace rhetoric is hardly more valuable in the practice of democracy than is wholesale submission to the propaganda of war. In Nuremburg Diary, Nazi Gen. Herman Goering bluntly described the voodoo that hawks do so well, converting peace-loving people who just want to go about their business into a throng of acquiescent warmongers. "Naturally," he says, "the common people don"t want war Ö That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along Ö All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Does that tactic sound familiar? It should, not only because that strategy has been employed in the current crisis, but because it"s a crucial element of modern warfare. For one extreme example, turn to the start of American involvement in World War I. Woodrow Wilson was elected as a peace candidate in 1916, but after taking office, he created the Committee on Public Information - a mass effort of artists, businessmen, journalists and academics to stir up public support for American entrance into World War I. Stories circulated about German atrocities, and the American people started to worry about whether or not the world was safe for democracy. The Committee on Public Information transformed an isolationist population reluctant to involve itself in European affairs into a group that frowned on anyone who spoke against the war. A matter of equal concern, however, is the propaganda of doves. Poor reasoning is poor reasoning, whether it is agreeable or not. For example, one popular phrase mentioned in opposition to the war in Iraq: "George Bush is trying to fight his daddy"s war." It"s a red herring. While it may or may not be true that George Bush Jr. wants to fight George Bush Sr."s war, the argument distracts from the real issues at hand, which question the legitimacy, necessity and effectiveness of United States military action in Iraq. Rather than exploring concerns about national security or estimations of how the actions will impact the region, speculations about President Bush"s stubborn loyalty to his father"s cause invites us down a different path: the dark scary path into President Bush"s id. Peace propaganda is the rowdy cousin of war rhetoric. Appeals to emotion, invitations to join the bandwagon, loaded questions Ö you find them on both sides of the issue. "You don"t want the poor children of Iraq to die, do you?" peace activists say, but war advocates echo the same argument in support of Saddam Hussein"s removal. Presumably, none of us want the poor children of Iraq to die. The problem is that the most visible aspects of the debate so often surround the things we all agree upon. "War in Iraq will cause more terrorism in the United States," arguments for peace predict. "There will be more terrorism in the United States if we don"t have war in Iraq," the Bush Administration says. "The war will cause instability in the Middle East!" says the peace protester. "War in Iraq will bring about more stability in the Middle East!" Bush says. Too often, the debate degenerates into "You"re a dirty liar," and "You"re a stinking pie-in-the-sky liberal!" So much information is available through the Internet, over the radio, on the television, that it"s easy to find an article or a soundbite that supports our most deeply cherished beliefs and affirms our identities. The danger of this, however, is that we compartmentalize. We can learn more and more and more about the side of an issue that appeals to us until we no longer understand how a sentient human being could hold an opposing view. Dispassionate analysis of various outcomes of the war get lost amongst emotional arguments and ultimately drive wedges between groups of people that, at the heart, care deeply about the most fundamental principles: compassion, the need for security, the responsibility of the United States to act with wisdom. By the same token, however, so much information is available that we can educate ourselves on an issue much more easily than we could in the past. Critical analysis of the strongest arguments for and against the war draws the debate to the most significant issues. With a few clicks of the mouse, we can read United Nations resolutions and articles from newspapers across the world, we can access independent studies performed by institutes devoted to non-proliferation, human rights and international peacekeeping efforts. To some extent, the information we need to form solid, wise and well-supported stances literally lies at our fingertips. The key is to recognize propaganda for what it is, then concern ourselves with the important stuff.
