The costs of the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation -- human, material, environmental, historical and otherwise -- should have caused any responsible person to ponder a little bit. Amidst all this agony, the only thing the US president could show regret for was lack of good intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- as if people didn't know it was him who wanted to see only the kind of intelligence that could pave the way to the long-ago-decided war. That's not acknowledgment of a mistake or the offering of an apology. On the contrary, it's one more maneuver to escape from accountability. So there is no surprise on the Bush front.We are all human beings, erring is in our nature. Not only people, but also everything made of people, such as states, institutions and corporations, have already made or will eventually make mistakes. Making mistakes is not such a big deal, but dealing with them is. That's an indicator of one's maturity and humaneness. I don't usually see those attributes in Bush and Dick Cheney when it comes to the Iraq discussion. And I don't see them among most Turks and Armenians when it comes to the discussion over the horrible events of 1915 and thereafter.
Any apologetic gesture on the matter is crushed by the unresponsive majority. That has been the case with a group of Turkish intellectuals' recent apology initiative. And I'm sure if Armenian intellectuals one day start a campaign to apologize for their community's anti-Turkish actions and feelings, they will have to confront a similar reaction from their own society.
Normally, human conscience, if it's working properly, should signal to one deep inside whether something done to our fellow humans is right or wrong. The denial of mistakes on a particular issue can stem from a deep ignorance that results in a false sense of rightness. There are also those who know mistakes were made, but stop short of acknowledging them for various -- most often political -- reasons. With all fairness to President Bush, I think he falls into the first category of deniers. The man sincerely believes he was right in Iraq and he still has no idea about the terrible consequences of his actions.
When it comes to the "Armenian genocide" discussion, I would put most of the Armenian and Turkish masses in the first category. Due to the one-sided information they usually get, through their governments, educators and, many times, intellectuals, they have no idea what really happened back then. All they know is that their nations and governments were right, be it the Dashnaks or the Committee on Union and Progress. That's part of the reason why one sees little or no empathy for the sufferings of the other side.
As for governments, composed of politicians and bureaucrats, they are generally more knowledgeable than the public. Therefore, they would fall into the second group of deniers. They would be the last to admit any mistakes, particularly the politicians, who present themselves as the most mistake-free creatures in the world.
Intellectuals are supposed to act as the conscience of a nation in controversial and confusing situations. Some so-called intellectuals may very well fall into the first category. Many more are from the second group. Among the reasons for their silence would be fear of state and public pressure. The more they self-criticize, the better intellectuals they become. And the more "better intellectuals" in a nation, the better a country it becomes.
A true intellectual does not and should not throw shoes at a denier. He or she should never stop throwing views, instead. The Iraqi journalist's shoes may not have hit Bush, but he has already been badly hurt by countless punches from the minds of lots of intellectuals in his own country, not to mention the world. Wisdom is that you admit your mistakes -- at least some of them -- before someone throws them back at you. And the mistakes and denials of others should not prevent you from being candid about your actions
