The Hyperion Chronicles

“Ours is not to question why...oh, wait: yes it is”

#105 Questioning War (Part I)

I tell you people: I’m torn. On the one hand, the war is horrible, like all wars. On the other hand, it does give me many things to write about. I’ve written my position on the war, and I wrote some funny things about war. But many of my readers have sent in questions about the war; asking me to clarify. So, that’s what I’m doing in the next two columns. Thanks so much to everyone who sent in a question or helped with research. And if you didn’t send in a question, hopefully you’ll find something below to answer your queries, and if you don’t, please write and ask. That’s what we’re here for at the Hyperion Institute for Advanced Callimastian Studies.

Why is the world (especially France) against us?

Understand: the world is not against us. Many more countries are openly supporting the US and Britain than are openly opposed. But there are some high profile countries that are opposed, mainly France, Russia, China, Germany, and much of the Arab world. Everyone has their own reasons, but they have some in common. America is the only super power left, and the others naturally gang up to stop the US, the same way neighborhood kids might to stop a bully. We shouldn’t wonder too much: it’s the same reason people seem to take pleasure in pulling down Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, Barbra Streisand, or anyone on top. Also, they are all either going to suffer financially if Saddam is no longer in power or they have been doing illegal business already. France, Russia, and Germany have huge future oil contracts with a Saddam-led Iraq. China has been violating the embargo and has sold Iraq sensitive military equipment. Russia is owed billions in contracts for old weapons and equipment, and just this week we learned Russian firms are in Iraq helping the Iraqis with GPS jamming equipment. Germany also has a natural reticence to go to war, and with their past, I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.

As for France…

If all these nations need counseling for their issues, France needs to live on the psychiatric couch. You have to understand, they used to be a super power, and now they are not, although they still see themselves as such, and it rankles them. Anti-Americanism has been rife in France since the ‘60s, and may ironically come from the Marshal Plan. After WWII, besides saving the day, America loaned billions upon billions of dollars (which, except for one country, was never paid back) to war-torn Europe to help rebuild. There may be some resentment from needing America’s help so much. And, I suppose being invaded twice in the last century gives France a dislike for war and unilateral action. Mostly, though, they’re just French. C’est la vie.

The Arab world has its own worries. Part of it stems from pride, and not wanting the US to take care of their problem. Part of it is they fear this action is the start of a war on all of the Middle East, and all Arab and Muslim culture. Part of it is because America is such a strong ally of Israel, which most of the Arab/Muslim world cannot stand. But, let’s be honest: along with the Balkans, this area of the world has not, is not, will not, and maybe cannot ever be at peace. I’d tend to be more suspicious if they were all on our side.

Why do the French have veto power?

The UN is currently made up of 191 nations. Of these, 15 are on the Security Council, which is supposed to look after the safety of the world. Since this is the primary mission of the UN, this is the power broker Council. (Compared to the Economic or Trusteeship Councils, which are still important but not as much, or the UFO Council, which isn’t.) Anyway, ten member nations of the Security Council rotate, which is why we saw weak countries like Chile and Angola actually wielding some power. Five members have permanent status, and can also veto any resolution. These counties are the United States, Great Britain, Russia, China and France. If you recall when the UN was created, then you might realize that ostensibly, these are the five “winners” of World War II. Part of my anger toward the government of France is that I don’t think they “won” WWII, but rather “had their asses saved yet again,” so it bothers me why they get to be a permanent member and have veto power. But that’s the reason.

Have the French ever won a war?

Not for a long time, and this may be a factor in their hatred of war too, although I’m sure they’d deny it.

Why don’t they call him Saddam Hussein more often, instead of just Saddam?

Hussein is Saddam’s father’s name, and not his. Saddam’s actual name is huge, as is the custom there, and that he’s called “Saddam Hussein” at all is only to make it more Western, since we usually call people two names, accept for Madonna Cher, and Lassie. Also, the King of Jordan is named Hussein, and we like Jordan, so there was an effort made not to have confusion.

Is the country of Qatar pronounced kuh-TAR or Kutt-er?

Qatar is indeed pronounced “cutter,” something most of the western world didn’t know until this conflict started shaping up. I guess you can now argue against the people who say no knowledge comes from war.

Why are there military units called Cavalry, and why does the media keep pronouncing it Calvary?

The military has a lot of strange paradoxes. They like to brag they were the first fully integrated part of the United States, and they are always on the cutting edge (not to be confused with Qating edge, which will only be funny if you read the last question, so go back and read it!). However, in many ways, the military holds on to their traditions fiercely. While battle uniforms are dictated by where they are fighting, some of the dress uniforms hearken back to other centuries. The names of officers in the Army and Navy is another one. (In the Navy, a Captain, an O6, is right below an Admiral, the equivalent of a general. In the Army, a Captain is an O3, several steps lower. Why they don’t integrate the terms is beyond me) When it comes to the names of the different divisions, tradition dies hard. Originally the Cavalry units were just that: they used horses, most famously in the Old West. Well, even though horses aren’t used anymore, those same units have been passed down from command to command, and the name has stuck.

What are the Geneva Conventions, and why is everyone making a big deal about them?

This is a big enough question that I’m going to write a whole column on it, unless I get sick of the war and want to go back to funnier stuff, like starvation and murder. But for now, go here:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView

Is embedded reporting a good idea?

On this one it’s just my opinion, but here are some things to consider. In WWII and Korea, the reporters were allowed to be right there with the troops. Walter Cronkite even parachuted into France with the Allied troops. Of course, his reports were still censored by the military before they got back to the US, but he understood that, and I’ve heard him say that he didn’t have a problem with it, understanding that the safety of the men couldn’t be compromised and so forth. Then in Vietnam, the government didn’t have nearly as much control over the media, and America got these horrific pictures of war. Much of the reason the country turned against ‘Nam is because of the images they saw during the dinner hour. In some ways, this was inevitable; as this was the first time anyone had watched a war literally in their living room, with all its horror. Of course, then, as always, the slant of the reporting had much to do with that as well.

In the first Gulf War, the Pentagon severely limited the access to the troops, perhaps still stung by the treatment of the press and subsequently the people to the troops in and after Viet Nam. This time around, the government has decided to give incredible access, and make use of the technology the news has, by allowing the embedding reporting, and stories to be filed sometimes as they are happening. Critics say the government is doing this to A) protect itself in case they come upon some atrocity Saddam has perpetrated, so the press can report it and have more credibility than if the military just claims it wasn’t them, and B) being close to the troops will tend to sway the reporting, so that it’s more in favor of the Coalition position. In other words it’s hard to criticize men and women you’ve just seen spend 72 straight hours marching toward Baghdad and protecting you several times. Proponents say this way we get a real look at what’s really happening.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I don’t care, and may actually even support the idea of the military using the media. So what? You need to get it through your head: any endeavor done by humans, whether science, religion, politics, history, or the media, was not, is not, and never will be unbiased. It just can’t be. As human beings, our emotions guide everything we do, and reporters are no different. So, in that regard, I have no problem with the military “using” the media, just as they know the media will use them (ratings, anyone?).

On the other hand, I think people are getting fooled into thinking they are really seeing the war. We’re not seeing the whole picture of war anymore now than we were with the sanitized propaganda that used to run before movies during Korea. What we are getting is slices of life, a little bit of what it’s like to be with the troops, but we still don’t know half of what’s going on, and half of what we “know” is wrong or at best misleading. In wartime, it seems, all journalistic ethics go out the window, and they report any rumor they hear as if it’s true. The bottom line is: America is invading a country the size of California, which is virtually all desert. It takes time, and at times it’s boring. It’s impossible to get a feel for just how many troops are there, and how they are progressing, and what’s going on. But the media needs to fill 24 hours of programming per day, so they jazz it up. We see and hear explosions, we are told breathlessly of victories, and anything good is trumpeted as D-Day. In fact, the only thing they are quicker to report is when something goes wrong. And this has warped the perspective of people watching. You got this idea that things were going swimmingly at first because they hadn’t really run into anyone yet. Then there were some casualties and prisoners, and it was like the world was falling apart. Even the stock market seemed to shoot the moon or fall through the floor, depending on the mood for the day.

So, while I appreciate having the reporters out there, and I think it’s great they get to actually see how hard the troops are working and what they are going through, which seems to make them think twice before shooting their mouth off in criticism, I also think we get too dependent on these few people, as if that’s all there is, and I think despite our knowledge, most of us tend to judge the war on these few images and the ideas of programming producers sitting in a studio. And that’s not a good thing.

That’s the end of Part I. Make sure you read the conclusion, when we delve the psyche of Saddam, and ask, “What’s with the beret?”

Hyperion

March 26, 2003

Credits:

Thanks to Koz for great questions

Thanks to Bear for great questions and flow ideas

Thanks to Borgy for research and advice