Author:
M.S.HAMILTON per jfh
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02:20:09 04/29/03 Tue
Author Host/IP: d150-99-156.home.cgocable.net/24.150.99.156
Which War Are You Watching? - A View from Spain
The American media's portrayal of the routing of Saddam Hussein as a
great military victory and a step toward world peace is almost
incomprehensible outside of the U.S., for the rest of us have been
watching a very different war. Here in Granada, I regularly watch the
Spanish, French, and British television news and then occasionally
look at the CNN and New York Times webpages. It is often hard to
believe they are covering the same events and the gap between
American and global perceptions of this war will certainly have
significant repercussions for some time to come.
In the eyes of non-American media it took the world's most powerful
and wealthiest nation months of planning, the deployment of hundreds
of thousands of troops, and the launching of thousands of missiles at
a cost of tens of billions of dollars to topple one dictator in a
country already crippled by two earlier wars and ten years of
international sanctions, defended by a third-rate army almost
entirely bereft of advanced armaments who put up no coordinated
resistance. Not an impressive feat. But-to the astonishment of the
world-America sees itself as heroic and triumphant. Everyone is happy
that Saddam is gone, but to portray this as an impressive feat of
arms seems to many people here an amazing act of self-deception. What
would happen if America ever had to face a *real* army?
The campaign itself, as viewed outside the U.S., was constantly
marred by misjudgments and bad leadership: Brits and Americans killed
themselves and each other in a rash of "friendly fire" incidents;
America's "smart weapons" proved not to be so smart and instead
caused horrifying destruction in marketplaces, buses, maternity
wards, and civilian neighborhoods; the Tomahawk missile system had to
be taken offline not because it was missing its targets but because
it was missing the entire country of Iraq(!) and instead landing in
Saudi, Jordanian, and Syrian territories; the quick advances and
welcoming crowds predicted by the Rumsfield cabal did not materialize
and a panicked American military had to call for reinforcements of
120,000 new troops after only a few days of fighting.
The American military was portrayed here as unprepared and badly
managed, without contingency plans for even the most predictable of
situations such as sandstorms, suicide bombers, and lengthening
supply lines. The flaws in this performance were only made more
obvious when European news broadcasts over and over again placed
headline stories of various mishaps and civilian deaths next to the
typically immodest statements of Rumsfield that American missiles
were "the most precise ever seen in human history" or that
"everything is going exactly as planned," or Tommy Franks announcing
the infamous "shock and awe" campaign. More than one European
commentator took advantage of America's hubris to state that the only
"shock" in this war was how badly it was waged and how inured to
human suffering the American people seem to have become.
In one particularly poignant moment on Spanish television, after a
series of unrelenting images of civilian wounded and dead (far more
graphic that would ever be allowed in the U.S.), we were shown a
Pentagon spokesperson referring to understandable levels of
"collateral damage." The Spanish commentator simply looked directly
into the camera, shook his head sadly and mused: "One wonders what
type of human being can refer to the death of a child as 'collateral
damage.'"
The disinformation campaign waged by the U.S. government also went
badly awry and European commentators openly began to compare Iraqi
and American sources as being equally tendentious and unreliable:
Tariq Aziz has defected (oops, no he hasn't); Saddam Hussein is dead
(oops, no he isn't), an Iraqi division has surrendered (oops, only
seven soldiers have surrendered), we've captured an Iraqi general
(oops, he's not a general or even a ranking officer) . . .
***
When Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Peter Arnett was fired after his
statements critical of the war, the English newspaper the Daily
Mirror sported a headline something like: American Reporter Fired for
Telling the Truth. News programs in several European countries
carried features that night, and for several days following, about
the state of the American media: How could a reporter be fired for
expressing criticism of a government in an interview?
Commentary by multiple political and academic figures made it clear
that America no longer has a "free press" in the true meaning of the
term, for in America one is not free to express criticism of the war
or of the Bush regime.
Toward the end of the military engagement, American troops fired
directly upon the hotel which housed many of the international
journalists still remaining in Baghdad. That night the rest of the
world watched in horror the film footage of an American tank rolling
into position in front of the hotel, the turret turning to aim
directly at the camera, the flash as the shell was fired, and the
destruction and dust as the shell hit just to one side of the camera.
We then watched as people, screaming for help, began to dig bodies
out from the rubble. One of those wounded was a Spanish cameraman -
we followed him as he was carried out of the building in a blanket,
placed in a vehicle and transported to the hospital, and then we
watched as he died. The Spanish media was in an uproar.
In a series of badly calculated press releases, the Pentagon first
claimed that a sniper had fired from the hotel and that the Americans
were defending themselves. Journalists who had been in the hotel for
the previous 48 hours said that this was untrue: "Another of a
seemingly endless series of American lies meant to justify their
stupid and senseless war." The Pentagon then announced that there had
been an unidentified explosion, perhaps a missile. Finally, a day and
a half later, the Pentagon admitted that American troops had indeed
fired directly upon the hotel and killed the journalists.
For every European who had watched the unmistakable and shocking
footage of the American attack two nights earlier on the news, the
prevarications of U.S. authorities were infuriating and they were
certainly not alleviated by the eventual, partial admission of
responsibility.
The day the statue of Saddam was torn down, the great divide between
America and the rest of the world was briefly suspended, and millions
watched to see if America would be wiser, more competent, and more
humane in peace than it had been in war. But within hours the chaos
began to spread and for the next few days one American spokesperson
after another got up in front of the cameras to say that America had
no responsibility for maintaining law and order or for protecting the
civilian population (despite the Geneva Conventions). In a truly
shocking development, Coalition troops did not even move to secure
hospitals (see the Geneva Conventions). Finally, after intense
international pressure, first the Brits and then the Americans
admitted that, having launched thousands of missiles at Iraq, having
crippled much of the infrastructure of the country, and having
toppled the previous regime, the occupation forces did indeed bear
some responsibility for maintaining order.
But even after that admission, it became clear that there was no plan
of action and the sacking and burning of many of Iraq's - and
humanity's - most precious treasures took place, while American
soldiers stood by aimlessly passing the time. Newspapers and news
programs throughout Europe are openly comparing America's role in
Iraq to the burning of the great Library of Alexandria, the Goths'
sacking of Rome, and the Mongols' sacking of Baghdad in the 13th
century. In the end, it was only a matter of hours from the images of
the crowds cheering the arriving American troops to those of the
first public demonstrations against the American occupation. CNN had
an interesting spin on this, their headline ran: Iraqis exercise
newly won freedom of expression to protest against Coalition Forces.
In the end, I think, the difference between the two views of the war
(that of America & Israel versus that of the rest of the world) boils
done to a single question: Were there alternatives? Americans were
told by their media that there were no alternatives and that the only
option was for Americans to get in there and get the job done (= war)
and let the rest of the world be damned. The rest of world was told
by their media that there were numerous other options (diplomatic,
economic, etc.) that would have involved less death and destruction.
So for most people in the world, every civilian death in Iraq has
been an unwarranted murder. For Americans (or at least some), those
deaths have been an acceptable means towards a rather poorly defined
goal:
What exactly ARE American forces doing there? Disarming weapons of
mass destruction? Eradicating terrorism? Stabilizing Iraq's oil
resources? Toppling Saddam Hussein? Establishing a democracy?
As several editorials here have recently pointed out, if America is
aiming to establish a democracy, it will be doing something that it
has not done for nearly 60 years. For six decades the United States
has supported and maintained dozens of dictatorships, a host of
military regimes, a collection of monarchies, and the Israeli
military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip - but
its record of supporting democracies, let alone establishing them,
is dismal indeed. Afghanistan, the nation mostly recently the target
of American interventionism, languishes forgotten, scarcely funded by
the Republican regime in Washington, and certainly a long way from
possessing a stable, democratically elected government.
In short, there were two very different wars to watch: one almost
entirely military in nature (the American version) and another
portrayed in unrelentingly human terms (the global version). Spain is
nominally a member of the coalition, but 91% of the population here
opposes the war and the largest and most impressive demonstrations
against the war have been held here, massive marches of millions upon
millions of people in nearly every city and town throughout the
country. The coverage we watched in Spain was unflinching in its
portrayal of the violence and pain of war. Here the demonstrations
against the war continue and have now been transformed into protests
against the military occupation of Iraq. And, in a development that
may have far-reaching ramifications, more and more of the placards in
the marches say: BOYCOTT AMERICAN PRODUCTS.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 