Frustrated

On the heels of my plangent cries of frustration, in my renascent endeavor to formulate a coherent opinion on a war with Iraq, Kevin Drum, though he doesn't know me from Abdul Adham, sits me down avuncularly and explains:

I am sympathetic to the notion that administrations lie a lot on the subject of war, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that this particular administration routinely lies about anything they think they can get away with. And yet....that leaves us with a problem, doesn't it? If, a priori, nothing the administration says is believable, then opposition to war simply becomes a religious doctrine. After all, no one else is going to try and make the case.

[. . .]

If your opposition to war is based on the idea that Saddam does indeed possess illegal weapons but it's best to leave him alone anyway, well and good. But if it's based on the idea that the administration is lying and none of this stuff exists, you should tread carefully. I think it's pretty likely you will be proven wrong shortly.

Kevin, of course, as usual, is correct, in an irritatingly reasonable way. However, a couple of things bother me. Namely, I'm not nearly as opposed to a war against Iraq as I am the pretense in which such a war will invariably now be fought. The fact that this administration needs to give the leaders of the world ample excuse to green light a war the latter are not willing to fight does not excuse outright the fact that this "case" must be made with winks and nudges, not to mention outright forgery (in the case of Britain). There is an aesthetics and poetics to war, which acknowledge the means of war itself, not simply its myriad of ends. We have come to expect propaganda, but this does not necessitate its blithe acknowledgment and acceptance.

I envy those who have a solid opinion one way or another on this issue, I really do. I, however, am torn by the aggrieving dubiety, not to mention dangerous, preemptive precedent, that is guiding a war effort that has, on a number of levels, a legitimate end. Once again, how does one form a meaningful opinion when the process of war -- its beginning, middle, and ending -- itself is as important as the war's desired effect; when, indeed, the consequences of both are related, intertwined? To what extent, (how) does one, (how) can one, support a war with legitimate ends, but whose process is continually strained by dishonesty. (Note: these are not merely rhetorical gestures here!) After all, one need not believe everything one is told is a lie to seriously question a messenger's integrity; moreover, when the modicum of probity one expects in preparatory propaganda is left wanting, how high can one's expectation of the war be, again, no matter its justification. Will the world be free of a tyrant? Possibly. Will a nation of millions be free to live in a dummy democracy? a liberal democracy by which an Iranian theocracy will fall, Saudi Arabia's oil hegemony will be challenged, and Al Qaeda's financing thus drained? Perhaps. Will the second-largest oil reserve no longer be in the hands of "evil"? It depends on your opinion of Exxon, BP, Shell, et al. The answer to all these questions notwithstanding, is it possible for a country (or coalition) to lose a war they've "won"; and if so, at what price? In times like these, the apparent unwillingness to consider the implications of this question (eg., Donald "North Korea is a terrorist regime" Rumsfeld), irrespective of the position one ultimately takes, betrays a dangerous navigation of the passage between the Scylla and Charybdis of ignorance and madness.

Perhaps, by way of extension, in times like these, with leaders like these, none of us can afford blissful ignorance, nor do we deserve the freedom from the struggle for, or with, an opinion.