by Harvey Secord
Orwell's 1984 always seemed flawed to me, in that the rewriting of history seemed so easily accepted by the populace. The idea that people could change their opinions so easily, without even being aware of the change, was disappointing.
I was wrong.
If I have gained any wisdom since then, it would be in the realization that the issue is not how easy it is to rewrite history, it is how difficult it is to write history and not be rewriting it. Even if I fancy myself as someone reminding people of forgotten history, I am just as guilty of the crime against which I am railing.
People have strong opinions on the Iraq war. If we exclude the disingenuous, most are attempting to arrive at a realistic analysis of all aspects of the war. While some continue to support the war, many have opposed it for a variety of reasons - not the least of which include hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
When one takes a stand, there is a tendency to look only at supporting evidence for that stand. That is human nature. It is natural to take at face value claims that support your position. Those who oppose the Iraq war are far more likely to believe that Bush lied than those who continue to support it.
For instance, there has been a story published in some media and on various blogs that, about a month prior to the war, Saddam Hussein offered to leave Iraq, if given a billion dollars. It is alleged this was discussed between the Spanish Prime Minister and President Bush at Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas. One version of the story was that Prime Minister Aznar presented the offer to President Bush. Another version is that Mr. Bush mentioned it, in passing, to Mr. Aznar.
Here's the point though: For those opposed to the war, the relevance of such an occurrence was that it suggests that the war could have been avoided. It suggests that Mr. Bush had the means of finding a solution to the Iraq situation that didn't involve the loss of so many (or any) lives. For those opposed to the war, it provides them with evidence that President Bush was particularly disingenuous in making the case for war; it provides them with evidence that the war had ulterior motives (it was really about oil, for instance).
For those who support the war, instead, such an alleged offer shows the Saddam Hussein they love to loathe - the supremely greedy Saddam; the cunning Saddam who was always looking for a means to divide those allied against him and who was always looking for a way to prolong the status quo. On their view, at best this was a deliberate tactic to divide or stall; the very same tactic he used countless times previously in negotiations. This was the same Saddam who fired missiles at Israel, during the first Gulf War, in the hopes that they would draw Israel into the conflict which in turn might turn America's Arab allies against it. They point out that President Bush actually gave Saddam Hussein a 48 hour opportunity to flee Iraq or face war, and Hussein chose to stay.
The fact is that this phenomenon is not particular to this event. Almost every event that comes out of this war has received this treatment, whether the event is good news or bad. And the focus of each event has been lost. Instead, it has turned out that most often it is the battle over interpretation that matters more than the actual events themselves.
No one, it seems, cared to examine Hussein's alleged offer. No one has asked, "Who was to pay him the billion dollars?" No one has asked, "Where would he go?" No one has asked, "Would he be immune from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity?" No one has asked, "What about his lieutenants? What about his sons?"
Instead, the alleged offer is used either to show President Bush in a bad light or, on the other side, Saddam Hussein in a bad light. The alleged offer is a weapon rather than a piece of history to be dissected. And sadly, neither side can understand this difference.
Perhaps, though, neither side can see this difference because ultimately, there is no difference. Even my analysis of the alleged offer is also just a manoeuvre - just one level up. If so, writing history is rewriting history. This is my fear, and it is what makes history compelling.
All of the above is my apologia for what is to follow. I want to go back in time and unrewrite some history. Unrewriting is very different than deconstructing. I don't want to deconstruct the present situation in Iraq. I want to temporarily forget all that has happened, and therefore all the interpretations and all the arsenal that has built up through those interpretations.
I want to go back to a time post 9/11, but pre-Iraq war. And I want to look at a resolution passed by the UN Security Council in the late Fall of 2002 - Resolution 1441. This was the last point before the war where the rest of the world was in seeming agreement.
Part II
Harvey Secord is a Canadian businessman who once dabbled in politics and specializes in disagreeing as an art form.