A rchive Date
[ 25-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Mass Media ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_mar25.html
War is hell, and so's the propaganda
Seeing through the media, and government, spin
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun
March 25, 2003
It seems to me that those of us who support the war in Iraq ought to admit a few obvious things.
1) That the Iraqis are a lot tougher than their dismal performance in Gulf War I led a lot of people to believe.
2) That this is not going to be the cakewalk to victory that some armchair generals (but not George Bush or Tony Blair) originally predicted.
3) That those of us in Canada who see this as a just war and believe we should be part of the U.S.-led coalition are clearly in the minority - although we do have Don Cherry. But we are not an insignificant minority.
With that done, some other things seem obvious.
4) The U.S.-led coalition is going to win this war and it is not going to be deterred by a few pictures of killed or captured soldiers. As heart-rending as those pictures were, so are the pictures of dead Iraqi soldiers and wounded civilians, including children. But what must vets and their families of World War I and II think of those in the media who blithely predict that the death or capture of a few dozen soldiers - and there will be more - will ultimately affect the decision on whether or not to keep on fighting?
5) In the last Gulf war, "media critics" (translation: journalists who make a career of criticizing other media outlets much more than they do their own) complained that the American-led forces confined reporters to a briefing room, showing them only what they wanted them to see. Now they complain that, in addition to running the daily briefings, they have embedded reporters with their troops and thus are allowing them to see only what they want them to see. So, what is it, exactly, they want? And if we're going to criticize the Americans for seeking to control media images coming from this war, how about saving some criticism for good ol' Saddam Hussein. When was the last time the maniac-in-chief held a "live" press conference with real media?
6) While we're on the subject, former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney summed it up nicely on Sunday when he noted in a TV interview that Canadians, including Liberal MPs, who think there is no moral difference between George Bush and Saddam Hussein, have now officially entered the world of "Looney Tunes." (Point of note, Mulroney is the chair of Quebecor World,whose parent company, Quebecor, also owns Sun Media.)
Polite answer
7) At any rate, for those who insist the American leadership is no different from Iraq's, think of how politely U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks answered that question from a reporter during yesterday's military briefing about when the Americans were going to stop their campaign of lies and deceit. One awaits with interest how the Iraqi high command will react to such a question about their military strategy in, say, pretending to surrender and then shooting and ambushing soldiers, or shooting up river banks in the vain hope of killing a downed and presumably wounded pilot. That is, whenever they actually hold a press conference, with a free press.
8) Having read the Geneva Conventions as they apply to PoWs, it's pretty safe to say that if you interpret them strictly - prisoners are to be protected from "insults and public curiosity" - then both sides have already violated them by showing pictures of captured soldiers, although the Iraqis, by displaying the bodies of dead U.S. soldiers and questioning wounded ones, have been the more egregious of the two.
9) The Americans are in many ways the authors of their own misfortune in this war. I don't believe their argument that they invaded Iraq primarily to free the Iraqi people or bring democracy to the Mideast. But neither do I believe George W. Bush is doing it simply to avenge his daddy or that it's all about oil. I believe it's about making an example of a rogue dictator and state that would love to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, a particularly good idea since the Mideast is filled with such dictators and such terrorists.
The problem with all the riders the Americans and Brits have attached to this war - for example, trying to minimize civilian casualties even when the Iraqis are using civilians as human shields - is that they are making things a lot harder on themselves and their troops than they need to be.
10) As for those "peace" protesters now weeping over innocent civilians being killed in Iraq, funny, but I don't recall many of these same folks weeping for the civilians killed when they were screaming for the "humanitarian bombing" of Kosovo, another U.S.-led assault conducted without UN approval.
11) Finally, these words of wisdom attributed to comedian Dennis Miller, but according to the urban legends Web site "snopes.com," in fact penned by W. Wayne Shields in a letter to the local paper in Wichita Falls:
- "Saddam and bin Laden will not seek UN approval before they try to kill us;"
- "Even if you are anti-war, you are still an infidel and bin Laden wants you dead, too;"
- "If your only anti-war slogan is 'no war for oil,' sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve."
Miller, however, did come up with this gem on Jay Leno: "Listen, I do not need a time of war to see peace protesters - and that's fine. Peace is fine, dissent is fine, that's the American way. But the Nazi signs have got to stop. If you're in a peace march and the guy next to you has a sign that says 'Bush is Hitler,' forget the peace thing for a second and beat his ass, because he is not Hitler."
Exactly.
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com. Or visit his home page. Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|