Scrutiny of national defense necessary

Missile defense, nuclear weapons and a $296 billion budget for 2001. Throw in the technology needed for biological warfare, and you have full proof that the U.S. military does not mess around. When Americans talk about national security, they mean it in every sense of the phrase. \nAt the same time, we increasingly have no idea what it means. The country is evolving into a nation led by people who have no concrete concept of a full-scale war, much less the capabilities of our defense technology. Take the Feb. 9 USS Greenville incident into account, and it appears we can add insult to ignorance. \nThe USS Greenville submarine surfaced in the waters of Hawaii, capsizing a Japanese fishing boat. The excursion was part of a routine public relations effort by the Navy to woo U.S. opinion leaders, educators, business leaders and media executives. \nThere were no bad intentions, President George W. Bush apologized to Japan and the incident has vanished from headlines. We should move on and forget about it, right? \nMaybe not. \nThe Navy didn't reveal until the Tuesday after the Friday crash that civilians were at two of the three control posts in the 6,900-ton sub. The Navy has yet to release the names of the 16 civilians who participated in this official function on public property. Obviously the military didn't "forget" or fail to realize that two people as sub-savvy as Betty Boop were at the helm for the 400-foot ascent to the surface. \nFrom the Navy's perspective, obscuring the information is a great way to ward off embarrassment, unpopularity or a breach of the public trust. Why would they want news of their incompetence revealed to enemies and friends? But to hear the way a navy officer described the expedition to the Washington Post adds a new shade of meaning: \n"I have seen the impact of displays on civilians who were otherwise ignorant of what we do," the officer told the Post. "You've just created a believer."\nIs it me, or is there a huge logical jump from showing someone "what we do" to creating a believer? Showing people how a submarine works and taking them for a ride is educational, an experience from which people can draw their own conclusions. \nMaking someone a "believer" seems to go a step beyond that. We believe in magic, love, God and fate. Applying the language of such untouchable things to the armed forces makes it appear there is a higher value in creating a myth than presenting all shades of the truth. \nConsidering how vital the armed forces are to the nation, it's clear they should do more than appeal to our emotions of sense of whimsy. \nThe recent incidents point to a sentiment of distorting the truth, one that was evident 10 years ago during the Persian Gulf War. In a 1991 letter signed by prominent journalists, restrictions on the media were cited as "giving Pentagon personnel 'virtual total control' over the American press" and enabling them to disregard "the role of independent journalism that is 'vital for our democracy,'" according to the American Journalism Review.\nCreating believers and promoting a sanitized view of war is not the safest way for our armed forces to promote democracy. War should be fought by a nation, backed by an informed citizenry \nthat believes in the ideals being upheld, not simply in the system upholding them. \nAs Iraq continues to mount as a threat, the importance of being informed about the issues is increasingly vital. War might not lurk on the horizon, but the first battle to be fought in the United States is one for information rather than silence, and knowledge rather than belief.