CSotD: A violation of the public’s right not to know
Skip to comments
Matt Davies gets it right. A very small opening, offering a very small view of a large and messy place.
Sherman told a graduating class of young soldiers "War is Hell," and while there is confusion over exactly how he phrased it, the architect of the theory of total war was no fan of the medium he invented, writing: "it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."
There have been times when politicians have felt the need to invent enemy atrocities to spur their people onward — for instance, the supposed chaining of women to machine guns by German forces in WWI — but far more in which they have felt the need to hide the actions of their own forces in order to preserve a veneer of respectability while pursuing a war. All in all, the public prefers respectability.
To say that there are no real surprises in the Wikileaks materials assumes that the viewer was keeping up with the war to begin with. I know of no time in history when the average citizen, comfortably distant from the battlefields, has made this kind of effort. Of course, for those who are not distant, it is considerably harder to remain uninformed.
During the recent Troubles in Northern Ireland, for example, there were two narratives playing out: Margaret Thatcher's simple "murder is murder" story in which all who opposed the current system were terrorists, and the view from the streets of Belfast and Derry, in which there was much more ambivalence. But the claims of torture and of government connivance coming out of the Catholic ghettoes were the result of being there rather than of reading the official accounts. So when the Bloody Sunday report was issued, there was some consternation in the official channels, but not much in the streets, where people were pleased by the admissions but not in the least surprised at what was acknowledged.
The same was true earlier in this country, when the flood of information surrounding Watergate included revelations of FBI surveillance and harrassment of activists. It may have been news for those who had ignored the situation, or who had unfailingly accepted the Official Version of Events, but it was hardly news for those being watched and harrassed.
And so it seems to be with the Wikileaks revelations about the war in Iraq. There is great handwringing in official quarters, and I would say the naming of names is a serious issue. If the intent is to show the truth, there is a failure here, and a potentially tragic one, since it cannot be argued that one side possesses all fault and the other all virtue.
To the extent that it will be used for propaganda by the militants, it's fair to ask, "But what about them?" Yet there is information in the papers about "them" for those who want to dig it out. Few will bother to make that effort.
The Pentagon Papers and the Warren Commission Report saw a great many more copies sold than were actually read, and it's doubtful that many people will actually work their way through the Wikileaks files, except for those who will treat it like the Bible, scanning for the bits that reinforce their opinions and skipping the parts that contradict them.
Meanwhile, the response from those who have been living with the realities is less one of surprise than one of affirmation. They didn't need to be told what was going on in their own streets. One of the most moderate responses I've seen was this one, which moderates some of the more blatant misinterpretations, but shows no surprise over what has been revealed, stating, "Indeed, the greatest potential harm in the release of these documents is not in the documents themselves, but in the tendentious interpretations being provided by some."
That is harm enough, but let's not swoon away in precious delicacy, like some naif who has just learned that the pink food in the plastic trays at the meat counter comes from a slaughterhouse. Wikileaks has provided a small window into a place it was more convenient to ignore, and there will be many who will choose not to peek. Would that they would also choose not to vote, but it has never worked that way and I suppose it never will.
When I was young, we were taught that democracy originated in Athens, the home of thoughtful and wise men, and that Sparta, a brutal city-state, made war upon them. During that war, Pericles helped to form the soul of democracy, while Socrates taught young men to consider the morality of their lives, and of their actions, and he was unfairly sentenced to death by those who did not think such things were appropriate in a time of crisis.
I was more than halfway through college when I finally was assigned Thucydides and it was revealed that Sparta won that war. I don't believe this means that Athens should have been more brutal, but I do believe we should have been taught the outcome much sooner, even those of us who did not major in classics.
However, the public has always fought hard to preserve its right not to know, and there have always been powerful forces assisting them in that struggle.
"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." — W.T. Sherman
Comments 1
Comments are closed.