|
“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].
Uncomfortable
Snippets
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.
Terrorism
is back!
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?
Notes:
[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
And
the Glossary of Warmongering
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London, and
can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
(NB: attachments will be deleted automatically.)
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
