OPINION

The final outcome

Let us suppose that Demosthenes was right when, codifying his critical method, he ended with the phrase: «The final outcome shows the way to judge the events that precede it.» What would be the final outcome of the war in Iraq, so that we can use it as a measure of what went before, what led to the invasion and occupation of the country? The two allies, US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, claim that the final outcome, and so the measure of things, is the liberation of a people from their oppressor and the introduction of democracy into Iraq. Hence any discussion about how the war was decided and how it was conducted is superfluous. Changing the formula of «the end justifies the means» into «the end justifies the beginning and the middle» they declare they are morally and politically justified, and deserving of congratulations and a new term in office. But is the «introduction of democracy» and «liberation» really the final outcome? The supposedly democratized and liberated Iraqis themselves, regardless of creed and their views on Saddam, do not seem to agree, as their actions force the Americans to acknowledge that they are facing a classic rebel uprising. No, the end wasn’t democratic and liberating, and nothing is justified retrospectively. Other events must be used as indicators of the quality of the war plans. One such event, dramatically revealing, is the suicide of Briton David Kelly, a government biological weapons expert. Information Kelly gave to the BBC showed one facet of Iraq-gate, the falsification of evidence and deception. One of his last e-mail messages, referring to «many dark actors playing games,» seems like a riddle but is perfectly lucid – a just measure by which to judge the vileness of the preceding events.