Watch out for Bluff, Stand in the Truth

Here's a question to think about. Could Saddam Hussein be right when he says that Iraq now has no weapons of mass destruction?

I put this question hypothetically to tease out some issues at a time of widespread concern about the future. People all over the planet are asking questions like this. Daily, we confront the possibility of a war which will have massive global consequences. It gives every indication of bringing about change to our everyday life: from the petrol pump to how we relate in the street to our neighbours and new comers; to the way we see our elected office-bearers; to how we understand truth in relation to our duties as citizens and members of our communities; to how we now view the war on terrorism.

It seems that a lot of birds are coming home to roost at this time.

But let us spare a thought for the 17 year-old Iraqi conscripts who must have some unspoken reservations, if not foreboding suspicions, about their leader. Would they not wonder whether he had lost his marbles and simply become ignorant of whether such weapons had been destroyed or not? After all if you are living under such a thought-policed régime would you not be frightened to speak of having had such thoughts? You might not even mumble them to yourself for fear of being overheard.

We do know that a complex negotiation process, showing few signs of peaceful resolution, is now days away from coming to a head. Looked at a little closer, the response of the Iraqi military dictatorship to the threat of a war is full of ambiguities.

Saddam is confronted by the fact of massed troop deployment on his borders. He sees the coalition of the willing getting ready for decisive action. He hears the other side using the international media to say he is simply playing them along for as long as possible. He hears them say that he is in league with the forces of terrorism. He knows that no strikes comparable to September 11, or the Bali Night Club have, as yet, been unleashed to show support for his beleaguered régime from terrorist cells said to be networking dastardly deeds in a web that now encircles the globe. Saddam knows that this process, now stretched to breaking point, is full of actual and potential consequences for the political régimes of the west who threaten war against him. Their rapidly approaching deadlines require of Saddam a "world's best practise" approach playing his remaining cards.

Much is at stake and Saddam well knows that his future as a ruler is on the chopping block. His days are numbered. The cat and mouse games with de-deployment of forbidden missiles shows he knows full well how politics is conducted in the "democratic" west. He knows he has fomented political unrest among constituents of those arrayed against him. Give a little, gain a little time, as pressure grows at other points.

Saddam knows how he has been portrayed by these western leaders. He knows how apt their characterisations of him are. He knows whether he is telling the truth about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And here we come to the truly interesting point in this entire imbroglio.

IF Saddam was truly wanting us to believe that he was telling the truth, then he is now in the best position he has been in to ensure that post-Saddam Iraq will disclose the facts and vindicate him. That is why his rejection of the exile option to date seems to indicate that he does still command weapons of mass destruction. After all if there were none, then that, in fact, would put him in a position of peculiar power to inflict significant long-term political damage to his enemies.

But then follow the logic a bit further: what kind of debate we would enter should UN verified inspections in a post-Saddam Iraq disclose that he was in fact telling the truth about his mass destruction arsenals?

That would be an enormous vindication for those on the security council who have refused to vote for a UN endorsement of war. So we should be alert to all the possible political repercussions and not become subsumed by the arguments to and fro at any particular stage of this process, in any one corner of it. If we are to assess the potential and eventual impact upon countries like Australia then we need as best we can to take note of all possible angles. We have become a misfit in its own region and the post-war impact will be significant. Partnership in this "coalition of the willing" will shape our national future for decades to come.

Saddam's refusal to take the exile option is, at this stage a prima facie indication that he does have arsenals of such weapons. He has too much to hide and anyway he and he and his generals have too much to lose, if not use, for when the war starts. But we don't know this for sure at this point.

But do we want a war to prove to us that Saddam has, or has not, such weapons? Is that the only action that will prove it? Such a last ditch style of verification seems to me to indicate that Saddam would have lost the battle but won another war, in that battle bluff and deception has prevailed over honesty and truth.

So Saddam is a liar. Does that justify such a massive death-toll of young Iraqi 17 year old conscripts? My point is this: are not his lies carefully constructed to conceal his power base whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal? Are we not now dealing with a problem at a deep level, in which the contending sides are trying to give the impression of strength in a situation where they all command less than they say they do? It certainly give credibility to the "game theory" construal of political debate.

The problem for us from this side of the "coalition of the willing" is that our own national military response is publicly justified by inferences from what is not known. That must indicate that our nation's leaders have resorted to counter-bluff, and the search for truth must be short-circuited.

In time of war an appeal to "national interest" is not the  justification which a nation's leaders should give. In time of war the national interest can only be truly safeguarded by an appeal to justice. Fudge justice and we destroy any just-war basis we have had for a truly conscientious justification of our own involvement. At the very least we need to face the possibility that this entire negotiation is laced and inter-laced with bluff and counter-bluff from all sides.

Let us keep in mind that in this game of bluff, Saddam is surely trying to shore up his own power base and we do not know the residual strength or fragility of that base in its core. Given his magnified, incredibly ego-centric, dictatorial bluster, we may be in danger of overlooking the extent to which administrative dry-rot has infected his régime since the aftermath of the 1991 war.

Let us recall that the USA, the self-proclaiming freedom-loving leader of the rest of the west, was caught totally unawares by the collapse of morale that broke up the Soviet Union and brought the "cold war" to a close. That American "victory" was achieved by a nation locked into its own self-image to such an extent that it did not know it was standing on the brink of sole super power status.

Let us not avoid the gruesome possibility that we are confronting a hopelessly inefficient government, ruthlessly bluffing to hold on to power, and even as its grip is loosening it is conscripting thousands of 17 year-old human shields to fight a war that can't be won.

In such a situation we should watch very carefully and pray very fervently, and be alert to the possibility that behind his wily smiles, Saddam has more tricks up his sleeve. Could not a last minute capitulation, taking the exile option, disclose matters that will be full of potential political danger for Bush, Blair and Howard? We need to be careful and alert as we interpret the activities of the next few days and weeks - they are bound to be frenetic and the frenzy generated by the global mass media is too often construing the political bluffing, local and global, in its own hopelessly self-serving way.

Christian political reflection, as ever, needs to listen to Jesus' words to his disciples. We confess them to be a sure basis from which to  contribute positively in the midst of earth-shaking problems. Jesus' teaching in the temple, that belovéd centre of worship to the Lord God of Israel, exposed the dry-rot corruption that undermined true religion. The temple had been erected by Herod the Great, a sign of Roman "respect" for Herod the Great's bloody attempts to accommodate biblical religion. John the Baptist knew this and had been another famous victim of that treacherous dynasty. As Jesus'  disciples were given a brief glimpse of immanent shifts in the tectonic plates of the Roman Imperium, they sought their Rabbi's advice. He helped them discern the massive political storm-clouds on their horizon. Indeed, He implied that they hadn't seen anything yet. His words were as reassuring then as they are now: "Take heed to yourselves that no one leads you astray. … take heed, I have told you all things beforehand. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away. … And what I say to you I say to all: Watch!" He closed out their fear, helping them to trust their lives to their Father in Heaven who would not be taken by surprise.

At this difficult time, let us too be very watchful, and prayerful, and so seek wisdom to avoid being taken in by bluffing spin from whatever source it may derive. We should also pray for God's mercy on the 17 year-old Iraqi conscripts that peace will come before they need to fire any futile shot.

Bruce C Wearne

Point Lonsdale Vic AUSTRALIA Monday, March 10, 2003