Truth: The First Casualty in Preparing for War
by Bruce Campbell

Truth is the first casualty not only in war, we are being reminded, but also in preparing for war. As the U.S. prepares to attack another country, how are any Americans to understand whether to support or resist, when basic facts are contested, or confidential, or no objective source of facts is nearby?

The mainstream news media, despite much-vaunted investigative units, are no more able to get the salient facts than we are, and they are reduced to reporting each side's version of facts, which changes from hour to hour.

In pursuit of details or facts or information (not necessarily the same), we find this documentary, produced last year by a defecting member of the original Iraq arms inspection team, ex-Marine Scott Ritter. With a mix of interviews, file footage, and rough video clips shot by the UN-sponsored inspection team itself, the film tries to present facts — or at least details — to support the conclusion that the U.S. manipulated the independent inspection process conducted during the 1990s, replacing the goal of disarming of Iraq with a goal of justifying attack and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Ritter believes that an effort that began as objective and fair, and regarded as such internationally, had its legitimacy derailed by an American political machine bent on military conquest. For Ritter, the possibility existed that Iraq could be — indeed was — disarmed, and that to provoke further was an hegemony prohibited by the ethos of the United Nations. He implies that the economic sanctions therefore lasted needlessly long due to the political posturing of the U.S., which in his view represents nothing less than contempt for innocent lives.

The film takes us through a quick recent history lesson, beginning with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the international response. It not only introduces the key players in the emerging role of the United Nations, but gives them voice, notably through interviews with Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish diplomat who headed the first UN inspection team, and Australian Roger Hill, who took over as lead inspector after Ritter's resignation from the team. Especially fascinating are the on-camera interviews with top Iraqi officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and Lt. General Amer Rashid, Iraqi Minister of Oil. Whatever one thinks of the Iraqis' logic, for most viewers their comments will comprise the first authentic representation of their position.

The film also works to present the story as a pretty good yarn, complete with COPS-like night-vision video clips, as if Ritter were anticipating the movie version starring Arnold Schwarzenegger or Vin Diesel. It's entertaining, but it's also instructive to see details of the confrontations between the inspection teams and the Iraqis, close up to the chessboard. At least while the cameras were rolling, the inspection teams took a determined and systematic approach, working to establish respect for the boundaries of their authority. Ritter would like us to contemplate the details of this professionalism and lament that its credibility could be scuttled and the good name of the UN squandered, and it makes for a compelling video argument.

The film's strength is also its limitation: that it can only speak with authority about the inspections — a fairly narrow, if vital, aspect of the Iraqi situation. You get the nagging feeling from watching Ritter weave his thesis for us that there is undoubtedly information to which he never had access, despite his belief that he was intimately involved with the key players. The film gives, for instance, no wider context regarding the shifting nature of the byzantine, inter-Arab national relationships that color Iraq's opaque foreign policy. As an on-the-ground operative, Ritter must be tempted to surmise what are the real motivations and machinations of his superiors or of the entire government. While Ritter was undoubtedly closer to the sources than the rest of us, some of his conclusions still feel hasty or preemptory, with that particular metallic clank of conspiracy theorists. Even for Ritter, sorting details, facts and information is a trick.

Ritter has been charged in the press with attempting to assume the moral high ground for personal gain. Nonetheless, he has done a service by opening up to us the mechanics of an operation about which we hear much but know little. His underlying insistence is that the appropriate use of U.S. power lies in enforcing peace and containing aggression, rather than in political-military conquest. In democratic discourse to date, this option has been quickly ridiculed and not given the thoughtful and creative consideration it deserves. He is asking us not to accept so-called neutral international missions at face value, and in so doing introduces questions more of us should be voicing — and quickly — about the facts our leaders will cite when deciding to put many people, on both sides, in harm's way.

Bruce Campbell is a media review editor for The Witness. He may be reached by email at bcliz@sprintmail.com