Breda O'Brien: From a philosophical point of view, the first casualty of war may be truth, but the second casualty of the current conflict is democracy, or more accurately, the sense which a citizen has that our democratic system works reasonably well and is worth participating in, despite its obvious imperfections.
There is a strong anti-war sentiment in this country, which has focused on the use of Shannon by the US. Our Government, allegedly elected to represent us, will do no such thing when it comes to the use of Shannon, because to do so is to risk offending the all-conquering superpower. The frustration and cynicism engendered by the Government's stance are not to be underestimated, because it will have reverberations for many years to come in the degree to which people are willing to invest time and interest in electoral politics.
This is not to suggest that the Government should govern by opinion poll, because public opinion is notoriously fickle. There are many times when leadership is called for, which means the ability to propose and follow a course of action even when it may be unpopular, simply because it is the right thing to do. There is no sense of that in Ireland in this conflict.
Firstly, the anti-war sentiment is not a fickle thing, but is deep-rooted in the Irish psyche. Secondly, our Government is not acting from principle, but pragmatically, and disguising it as principle. There would be more public acceptance if it was willing to say that as a small country, we cannot offend the US in any way, because of the economic and political fallout from such a stance. At least we would not have to cope with our Taoiseach declaring that a second UN mandate is imperative, and then watching as imperative becomes a synonym for optional.
Not that we can blame our Government alone for a sense of disillusionment with democracy. One of the paradoxes of our age is that we have the sensation of being participants in the events of history, whereas all we really have is front-row seats courtesy of the media. World leaders visit our living rooms every evening. We have a completely false sense of knowing them, of understanding their motivations. Unconsciously, something in us rebels at the fact that the communication is forever condemned to be one-way. Previous generations might have been more resigned to having no influence, to being very tiny cogs in a vast wheel, but the expectations of this generation are different.
It is of course naïve to assert that the media are mere conveyor belts of information, even if most media outlets will not display their bias as blatantly as Fox News. When the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, Mr Mohammed Aldouri, was giving his reaction to the announcement of the deadline for war, Fox News provided helpfully superimposed in the corner of the picture the words "High error alert". Such is its regard for the intelligence of its viewers.
Yet even those media outlets who are more subtle in their presentation will also have their agendas, not the least of which will be the fact that war is good for revenue. All my sympathies are with those who oppose war, but as Robert Thouless points out in his 1930 classic, Straight and Crooked Thinking, it is when our emotions are most engaged that we need to examine our own prejudices most closely. Simplification, bias and sloganeering are not the exclusive province of any side in a conflict.
Aside from the dangers of distortion, when the sheer volume of information is not matched by any ability to influence events, it leads to a feeling of helplessness which human beings cannot endure for very long. The most likely way most people will deal with it is to turn off, to become more cynical, to focus on the areas where they do have some measure of control, such as friends, family and personal interests. The trend towards an atomised and heavily individualistic society is therefore accelerated.
It is especially serious when young people become disillusioned. Irish teenagers despise what Saddam stands for. However, they know that the world is full of tyrants, but that it has become expedient to concentrate on eliminating one, while at the same time tolerating and even supporting others. They know that this man was once a useful pawn whose evil deeds were overlooked. They know that alternatives to war, such as the massive extension of the arms inspection programme, were not even tried. They know that the UN has been sidelined. If, then, they become cynical about the rule of law and the operation of democracy, and feel that it is not worth their while to have anything to do with it, the consequences of this war extend much further than the unfortunates who will be killed and maimed by it.
Tyranny has more than one face. We hear a voice on radio announce that the markets took a "nice little bounce" when war was declared, and realise that for some people, war is very good news because it will make them wealthy.
It is a form of tyranny when markets dictate world events, when global forces shape the lives and deaths of thousands, and individuals and communities are disenfranchised.
Cynicism is one response to a feeling of helplessness. A resurgence of idealism is another possibility, though admittedly less likely. Yet the turnout at the anti-war march some weeks ago does offer some hope that a sense of helplessness does not always have to lead to passivity. The trouble is finding a focus which enables people to sustain their energy to work for change. Many of the elements of the anti-globalisation movement are incoherent and contradictory, and offer no natural home to the average person who wishes to make the system more accountable, not overthrow it.
Still, to yield to cynicism is to give the victory to those who wish to see us atomised and therefore compliant. At times when passivity seems the only option, it is worth pondering on something which Margaret Mead once said.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."