There is no difference between writing history and rewriting
it. Someone can choose to do one or the other shortly after an event that turns
out to be historical; and someone else can choose to do one or the other long
after the event. This means that the lapse of time does not necessarily
indicate whether or not the writing or rewriting of history is accurate or
false.
In fact, accuracy of the historical record depends solely on
the competence and integrity of the writer, whether he is writing a first draft
or rewriting old history. The way to gauge the competence of the writer is to
measure the difference between what he promises to deliver and what he actually
delivers. As to his integrity, the way to gauge it is to measure the amount of
politicking he injects into his work.
This is why we can only be puzzled at the fact that so many
Anglophile writers saw fit to make definitive commentaries only hours after the
publication of a document that will surely prove to be of crucial historical
consequence. What is astonishing is that the document is so lengthy it will
take a year to read. That document was produced by the John Chilcot Inquiry
which investigated the British decision to participate in America 's 2003 war on Iraq .
Two of the puzzling commentaries were published on July 6,
2016. One came under the title: “Another Iraq War Rehash” and the subtitle: “A
new British report seems to share Trump's views of Saddam Hussein,” published
as an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The other is a column that came
under the title: “The latest attempt to rewrite the history of the Iraq War,”
written by Benny Avni and published in the New York Post.
Look how the editors of the Wall Street Journal begin their
piece, signaling to the readers they intend to be the most clownish ignoramuses
anyone has ever been. Here is their first paragraph: “Britain 's establishment never forgave itself for
taking the country to war in Iraq
in 2003, and the publication of an inquiry into the invasion provided a fresh
opportunity for self-flagellation. At four times the length of Tolstoy's 'War
and Peace,' the so-called Chilcot Inquiry tells us nothing we didn't know”.
But how did they know they didn't know? Do they have
Computer HAL of the Space Odyssey 2001 fame? Or do they have Android Data of
the Star Trek fame? Either could have read the million and a half words of the
Inquiry in a matter of hours, digest all the content and compare it with what
the editors of the Journal say they already know, thus determine whether or not
there was something new here? But they don't have HAL or Data, and so – like
clowns – they convinced themselves they can say anything they want, and someone
will believe them. This done, they went on to play politics with an event as
solemn as that. Here is what they wrote:
“By 2008 the war was effectively won thanks to Mr. Bush's
surge. The chaos that has since unfolded is the result of President Obama's
hasty withdrawal, not the invasion … Messrs, Bush and Blair were never more
right than when they chose not to delegate responsibility for global security
to the diplomats at Turtle Bay … Donald Trump declared that while Saddam was a
'bad guy,' he kill[ed] terrorists. Does Mr. Chilcot take Mr. Trump's de facto endorsement
as a compliment?”
As to Benny Avni's column, the writer begins it with a weird
observation and builds on it an even weirder construct. Here is the
observation: “If hindsight is 20/20, how come no one examines actions not
taken, while those like Bush's 2003 decision to overthrow Saddam are forever
second-guessed?” In effect, Avni is complaining that when new information comes
to light, the effort to refine the historical record is actuated … and he does
not like this process one bit.
What he believes is more useful than updating the record is
to speculate about what might have happened if certain actions that were not
taken, were actually taken. This is in line with the Jewish religious belief
that history is not based on facts but based on what you speculate, and what
you manage to convince others is the truth. These folks are the authentic
mutilators of history as reflected in the slaughterhouse they call Old
Testament.
Speculating is what Avni does throughout the rest of the
column. What makes the exercise even more painful is that he speculates about
the future behavior of the people he detests. Here is an example: “That will be
used as ammunition by those who've long called for trying Tony Blair on
war-crimes charges. And can Bush be far behind?” He does not stop there, but
goes on to say:
“Politically, the Chilcot report will embolden those, like
Bernie Sanders, who say Iraq
was 'the worst foreign-policy blunder in the history of the country.' Or Donald
Trump who just added Saddam to the list of his favorite foreign dictators.
'Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but he killed terrorists. He did that so good,'”
Avni quotes Trump as saying.
He continues to speculate to the end of the column where he
closes with this: “Obama's avoidance of military intervention in Mideast disputes prolongs war, mayhem and terrorism …
There's a lot to criticize about Bush and Blair … Their actions are endlessly
investigated. But lack of leadership and inaction can be just as bad, if not
worse”.