HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Propaganda
Stinkers:
Fresh
Samples From the Field
by
Paul de Rooij
April
10, 2003
“Allies
breach Saddam’s ‘red line’!!” read the screaming front-page headline in
London’s The Independent on April 1st.
The Independent, CNN, and BBC intimated that as soon as US troops would
step over this magic line, then the Iraqis would unleash their chemical weapons
– finally providing an after-the-fact pretext for this war. However, it was not the Iraqi generals who
drew a line in the sand, it was the “play by play analysts”, the retired US
generals on CNN, who drew this circle around Baghdad. The “red line” is a propaganda construct.
When
the US forces crossed the so-called red line most TV news and print media,
especially CNN, were full of references to the risk this entailed. Several authors of articles containing
references to the “red line” were contacted and asked how they justified using
this terminology. Predictably, most of
the journalists in question didn’t reply.
However, two unembedded journalists did reply and categorically denied
using the “red line” term. In other
words, their newspapers in London and New York introduced the “red line”
references and elaborated significantly.
What
would happen when the troops moved past the “red line”? An American Colonel explained on CNN that
they would go to a “level two chemical attack preparedness” -- this must be
equivalent to an “orange alert” in the US.
What this entailed was wearing the chemical suit without closing it
off. However, a few things made one
question the legitimacy of this episode.
First, a flag was visible in the picture, and thereby anyone’s
propaganda alert signals should start flashing. In the same scene, a soldier could be seen in the background
walking around in his regular combat fatigues.
Furthermore, in the subsequent days when the troops were near Baghdad
airport, well within the “red line”, they obviously were not wearing any
chemical suits. This is proof that the
“red line” was actually a red herring, and it really was meant to remind
Americans this war has a justification in the form of combating chemical weapons.
Imagine
if the military had believed their own propaganda; this could easily have
become the primary cause for casualties.
The day the Americans crossed the “red line” it was 41ºC (106F)! By requiring the use of chemical suits the
army would risk scoring an own-goal with most soldiers dehydrated in the
field. The forced separation of the
propagandists from the military commanders is fast emerging as an urgent
military requirement. Propaganda
contamination could easily become the leading contender for “allied” soldiers’
deaths. It already claimed some victims
[1].
The
propagandists attempt to feed the insatiable 24-hour newscast monsters. When so many news items must be produced
rapidly, then invariably mistakes will occur contradicting the propagandists’
aims. Both BBC and CNN have shown
scenes where Saddam’s pictures or statues came to an unceremonious end. These scenes reinforce the message that the
“US-UK” have “come to get Saddam”. In
one such BBC episode, the soldiers tore down Saddam’s photograph, but then
another was shown on top of a hospital removing the Iraqi flag. Hmmm…
This conveys a very different message.
So, what else do the “US-UK” have in store?
Al
Jazeera continued to produce reportage that potentially could embarrass the
Americans. This perhaps explains why
the hotel where Al Jazeera was staying in Basra was bombed on April 1st, and
why their offices in Baghdad were bombed on April 7th killing one cameraman [2]. Al Jazeera
journalists have been targeted before [3]. One of the Al Jazeera reports contained some
nuggets and raised questions about the hidden player in this war – one whose
name CNN or BBC don’t dare to mention, Israel.
Al Jazeera showed footage of an unexploded Israeli missile, and elsewhere
bits of metal with Hebrew markings.
Perhaps it is too much to expect CNN to ask who fired these
missiles. (After the 1991 Gulf War, an
Israeli Air Force reservist engaging in a bit of R&R skiing in France,
boasted to this author: “… if you only knew where I have been.” He barely could hide his glee at the outcome
of that war.)
Depleted
Uranium (DU Ammo)
Propaganda
is as much about what is censored as it is about the projected message. In the case of DU-Ammo and its consequences
propaganda aims to hide this from public view.
Now, between April 6th and 9th American A-10s were busy over Baghdad
spreading DU-Ammo. Similarly, US tanks
were firing at will – possibly with DU-Ammo.
There is no secret about this, and it is plain to see on CNN – it is the
consequences that aren’t discussed.
DU-Ammo aerosols are thought to be the cause of the permanently
debilitating “Gulf War Syndrome.”
Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up
Kuwait, has stated that the use of these weapons amounts to “a war crime” [4] – and he wasn’t referring to their use inside a city like
Baghdad. We only know about the
devastating effects of this weapon from the fact that 36% US Gulf War veterans
sought disability benefits, and 6% were diagnosed with the debilitating
syndrome. Now, the DU aerosols will
spread over a city of six million people, and of course US troops [5].
Some
key questions emerge about DU Ammo, questions that any free press should
ask. Are US-UK soldiers going to be
exposed to more DU-aerosol than during the Gulf War? How about the Iraqi population?
Is Baghdad going to be rendered uninhabitable? No statistics are available on the number of deformed children
born to the Gulf War veterans – perhaps this time they will keep a better
tally. Hospital wards in Basra, the
city most affected by DU aerosols in 1991, contain the prospect for many
Iraqis, i.e., many deformed new-born and still-born infants.
During
a recent president’s press conference, the ugly word terrorism reappeared. The reference pertained to guerrilla actions
against the US Marines. The next day a
general repeated the claim, but stated that the attack had the “look and feel
of terrorism.” Oh, the public needs to
be reminded that this war has something to do with terrorism! However, to lend to the CNN theatrics, what
is really needed is the Israeli pronunciation of this word. Shimon Peres’ gargled pronunciation is the best
and perhaps he should offer some instruction; repeat after him: “Terrrrrrorrrrizm”.
The
increasing references to terrorism also suggest what to expect in the coming
days after the Americans claim victory.
Just as there was no official declaration of war, we shouldn’t expect a
formal ending to this war either; there will be no official surrender
ceremony. Maybe this would be too
grotesque if Saddam is hanging from a lamppost, or if the US plans to kill many
members of the vanquished government.
It is also likely that reaction against Americans will continue
indefinitely from “pockets of resistance”, and it is more than likely that this
will be classed as terrorism. However,
violence against an occupier or an invading military force is NOT terrorism,
and the US is definitely not in a position to define what is legitimate
violence. It is also absurd for it to
draw lines in the sand and expect violence to be contained by them. Perhaps Americans should consider that the
shockwaves of bombs don’t necessarily stop at national borders. Iraqis whose nation has been demolished by
the US may have an understandable wish to seek revenge – and New York or London
may be the targets of choice. Has this
war done anything to reduce this threat?
Questions any free press would
ask in the coming weeks Iraqi oil
exports are due to restart very soon.
What will happen to the oil revenues? What will happen to the Iraqi trade with Jordan and Syria? Iraq was a major trading partner of these
countries. So, will the US extract
onerous concessions before reestablishing trade? How many months will it be
before the Basra-Haifa(Israel) pipeline starts flowing again? What will happen to the Kirkuk-Baniyas
pipeline, which the US alleged was used to “smuggle” Iraqi oil through Syria
in contravention of UN sanctions? Will Syria be punished with this oil being
redirected to Haifa? The Israeli press and AIPAC gloat over the Iraqi opposition
leaders visiting AIPAC offices – none other than Kanan Makiya has shown
up. Do AIPAC or the neocons have veto
power over appointees? (see: Nathan
Guttman’s “AIPAC and the Iraqi opposition”, Ha’aretz, April 8, 2003) Will Iraq reemerge as an independent country or will it be torn
asunder? The Kurds have been led to
believe that they can expect something in the North. Why are British forces tearing down Iraqi
flags? |
Paul de Rooij is an economist
living in London, and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
(NB: attachments will be deleted automatically)
[1]
Some of US soldiers caught in an ambush stated that their officers had told
them to expect no resistance! The only
way such a misconception was spread was because the military believed their own
propaganda.
[2]
Brian Whitaker, “Speculation mounts over Saddam's fate”, The Guardian, April 8,
2003
[3]
Jason Deans, “Al-Jazeera's Basra hotel bombed”, The Guardian, April 2, 2003
[4]
Neil Mackay, “US Forces’ Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal’ ”, Sunday
Herald, March 30, 2003.
[5]
Until recently the population of Baghdad hovered around five million. According to a recent report, the flight
from the smaller villages has increased the city’s population significantly.
This
article is a follow up to:
* Arrogant Propaganda:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/DeRooij_Propaganda.htm
* And the Glossary of Warmongering
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Rooij_Glossary-Warmongering.htm