ConflictConflict revisited
The Iraq inquiry has had us all thinking again about the Iraq conflict. Its seven years since the invasion of Iraq was launched. America led by President George Bush took the decision to invade Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported the action and committed British troops to the invasion. The way it was explained made it all seem pretty clear and there seemed good reason to act. Despot Saddam Hussein had amassed a huge store of mean weapons and was in the mood to unleash them – on us.
These weapons were referred to as WMD (weapons of mass destruction). An acronym that was oft repeated. The individual letters took on a huge portentous concrete form. Perhaps we were under threat and should act decisively.
Saddam was known to have produced and used chemical weapons on his own people so the threat seemed entirely plausible. Sept 11th was a recent memory and cast a shadow of fear in which we all stood. In peoples minds Saddam, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and the Taliban conflated into some monstrous multi headed world threat.
There were some issues about the legality of invading a sovereign country but who cares when your own safety and that of your family is at risk. Go and sort him out and make the world a safer place AND the Iraqi people will thank us. And that is how it seemed at the time. The invasion was launched and over the subsequent weeks the real drama of war unfolded.
We were all onlookers in this drama and we all had an opinion. It is difficult for the onlooker to make sense of reported conflict. There are many different voices expressing violently conflicting views. How do you reconcile the many ‘voices’ to form a coherent personal view? Over time those views might strengthen or weaken and change. I felt as confused about it as anyone else and expressed this in a digital work called ‘conflict’. You mouse click to invoke the opposing voices of conflict (actual statements). Over time the statements fade and coalesce into a nebulous unknowing whole.
Conflict has been shown at various venues in the States and is used by Brown University within its courses.
Martin Allman
These weapons were referred to as WMD (weapons of mass destruction). An acronym that was oft repeated. The individual letters took on a huge portentous concrete form. Perhaps we were under threat and should act decisively.
Saddam was known to have produced and used chemical weapons on his own people so the threat seemed entirely plausible. Sept 11th was a recent memory and cast a shadow of fear in which we all stood. In peoples minds Saddam, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and the Taliban conflated into some monstrous multi headed world threat.
There were some issues about the legality of invading a sovereign country but who cares when your own safety and that of your family is at risk. Go and sort him out and make the world a safer place AND the Iraqi people will thank us. And that is how it seemed at the time. The invasion was launched and over the subsequent weeks the real drama of war unfolded.
We were all onlookers in this drama and we all had an opinion. It is difficult for the onlooker to make sense of reported conflict. There are many different voices expressing violently conflicting views. How do you reconcile the many ‘voices’ to form a coherent personal view? Over time those views might strengthen or weaken and change. I felt as confused about it as anyone else and expressed this in a digital work called ‘conflict’. You mouse click to invoke the opposing voices of conflict (actual statements). Over time the statements fade and coalesce into a nebulous unknowing whole.
Conflict has been shown at various venues in the States and is used by Brown University within its courses.
Martin Allman
*