Rules of Engagement

By: Mathew Maavak

If you want to know anything with a degree of certainty, engage directly. Tragedy and fatal mistakes befall the person who doesn't realize that in this panoptic world, what goes around comes around. If you want a headlined example, read the unfolding accounts on the Judith Miller and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr saga.

Though I do not like Libby and his ilk, I do not hold him personally responsible for the Plamegate fiasco. Politicians frequently lie. They falsify or exaggerate their slam-dunk promises or evidences. It's an old story ... a very, very, old one. So old, I wonder why it's not included alongside sex education in schools.

Politicians are there to govern, not rule. If they govern badly, they should be kicked out through the ballot box before it's too late. I admit, often it is too late. Yet, this cycle repeats endlessly. Better politicians govern better; the rest are dictators who aggrandize their instruments of "rule."

No sane person expects a pie in the sky from politicians.

It is quite telling that in a 20th century of momentous events and earth-shaking leaders, I only hold two out of thousands of leaders in esteem. One was Mahatma Gandhi, the other happens to be Nelson Mandela. I have yet to read about Huey Long...

It was Mandela who came out with a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission to usher in a stable South Africa.

Both Gandhi and Mandela engaged the world and their nemeses. Out of that, came the chance of reconciliation and truth.

The same goes with journalism. Engage and verify before your create unnecessary nemeses.

The editors at NYT should have subjected Miller to a barrage of cross-questioning before printing slam-decked stories on Saddam's WMD. It was a very serious story but the same goes for any story, any opinion on events or persons. If you are one of those who think the world is screwed up, and is getting more screwed by the day, it is because there is no direct engagement. Opinions forced by the likes of Miller, Libby and a legion of others lead to deliberated mistakes, some serious enough to warrant long-term jail.

They also lead to tens of thousands of deaths.

Long ago, Jesus Christ himself reminded his disciples on the rules of engagement. When in a city, knock on a door, and say your "shalom." If that peace is not accepted, then shake the dust off your sandals, implying that you did reach out, and was rebuffed, and would bear no consequences.

Those who added their caveats in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD did exactly that. They knew that once a more declassified version of the NIE was released, they would be exonerated - after having shaken the dust of their feet - and would bear no direct responsibility for the canards that led to a bloody war that cannot be resolved, unless the original intention was to pin US soldiers down for years in an oil rich region, or cause more anarchy by a precipitous pullout.

For officials who expressed their documented reservations, their little caveats opened large escape hatches. It can take years but is worth it.

It is important to knock on doors and engage. For you will see how the other side reacts. The worst reaction of course, is silence and for a journalist, that should raise a red flag. There were many red flags in the build up to the Iraq war and the ultimate guilt falls on journalists intoxicated by the drumbeats of war. Silent questions were kept silent. Aren't they the guardians of the public domain?

Few engaged. Those who did, got their voices drowned out. But now, who is vindicated? Those dissenting intelligence officials and "leftist" writers may not see eye to eye, but they inadvertently fed off each other to expose a fraud.

For a neutral observer, either side of dissenters did what they could in a dangerous game. They tried to prevent a slaughter, and their hands will be washed off blood as long as archives record their dissent.

Engagement, knocking on doors, and caveats are important. Embedded within them are elements of professionalism, veracity and intentions.

Professionalism and veracity means double checking "opinion" and "information." The Miller fiasco offers the best current example coz she is the most prominent protagonist. The need for veracity overarches journalism to include business profits, a successful thesis, one's love life and even personal trajectory.

Couldn't one phone call to the UN inspection team establish "the other side of the story"? They were on the ground, closer to the purported WMD sites.

But this is a gallery world. They dance to any tune. Even adults never grow out of it.

I remember a time when I gatecrashed into the doors of three flat mates, who were pretty much ridiculed for what they weren't. After pugnacious engagements, and subsequent slug-fests, the Three Mistakens turned out to be the most original individuals in the campus. The effect? An inherent individuality was seeing the light of day, and the layered reflections of the moveable herd were slowly peeled away.

You are reading what they helped set in motion.

You would have still read other stories if not for one faithful knock that was not answered. Finally, I made sure everyone heard my last query on the matter. It's an important caveat, even if you don't understand the situation then and there.

Faced with a silent answer - from the top hired hack in the land - and after an initial bafflement, the War on Terror took an added dimension. What about home soil and the local linkages? That's when the implications of the Kuala Lumpur meeting - that led to 9/11 - sunk in. I later learnt that he - and a few others - failed their intelligence vetting under the Mahathir regime and were working for the very nation suspected of promoting counterfeit terrorism in this region. (Yes, I am sore. This is also not included in the school curriculum, alongside sex education)

It's the curse of the Islamic world that beyond such doors, inhabit men who engage not their own nation, but with the purveyors of violent profit. Otherwise, you'd likely hear of soccer brawls instead of Jihad.

They rather have cross-engagements with Dick Cheney and associated "men of power"; well-dressed but poorly packaged to serve those they have been hired to serve.

Violence is the result.

But in Southeast Asia, the question is, who are the purveyors of violence? Rag tag militants on the lam? For Pete's sake, this is not Iraq where civilians find a resonance in the insurgency. In Iraq, Saudi Jihadists provide badly needed funds, and arms. Their monarchy, in the meantime, continues wheeling and dealing with Dick Cheney, the real power in the White House.

The Saudis don't have a strong presence here, even if you factor in tourists at the KLCC Twin Towers. Local Muslims in Malaysia have a historical distaste for violent Jihad, and many of them are beginning to see the world as two-tiered, one where Mammon unites powerful men of different creeds to stir war among patsies, along religious lines. This, in spite of the pseudo ethno-religious provocations of their leaders and a tangible degree of success it has attained.

They have been fooled too many times, a notable one being the fallout of the embargo against Saddam Hussein's regime. When Iraqi children were starving to death - splashed with tales of horror in the local media - they didn't realize that the biggest recipient of the oil-for-food scam was the Malaysian trading arm of Mastek. US$10 billion was exchanged for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children.

Where is the International Criminal Court in all this? Or is it called the International Court of Justice? Where about the local courts?

As for local terrorism, some things don't make sense. Other things though are predictable i.e. "when" Jemaah Islamiya's bomb maker Dr Azahari Husin would be pronounced dead. Information and disinformation pours in, ominously hinting at certain capitals. Guess what? From where I stand, Washington DC figures less prominently by the week coz the ultimate caveat for the terror machine is: Blame it on the Americans!*

But before that premise is processed and written, you need to establish "facts" after further engagements to establish "intentions." After that you can couple it with data for a slam-dunk story. If my premise is correct, you'll read the end-game of 9/11 not too long from now. It's a very depressing one, but has a historical parallel.

If I am wrong, I'll write on the Internet, energy alternatives etc or ask Will Durst whether he needs a political comedian sidekick.

Patience is needed. I didn't study in the Judith School of Slam-Dunk Journalism. In fact - and I kid you not - I don't even like political journalism.

Kuala Lumpur, Nov 18, 5am, Friday
Copyright@ Mathew Maavak 2005

* Interestingly, under this extreme Game Theory scenario, the Israelis could just publish the names of major players in the Southeast Asian Jihad franchise. It depends on three factors:

1) The changing perception in Israel on the war on terror (linked to growing doubts on the Yitzhak Rabin assassination). The Saudis may fight this changing perception to the last Zionist!

2) A weakened United States would imperil the security of Israel.

3) Dr Mahathir Mohamad's incessant anti-Jewish outbursts. He cannot stomach individual Jewish resilience. Neither can most of Europe.

Most of Mathew Maavak's commentaries can be read here or visit the Panoptic World homepage.

Posted by rowan at November 18, 2005 4:15 AM | [eMail this article!] |