The Images They Choose, and Choose to Ignore

[GHA EFM]

Unlike Littlejohn, this bloke writes in paragraphs.

 

-----------

Robert Jensen, Electronic Iraq

 

9 April 2003

 

 

It was the picture of the day -- the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad -- and may end up being the picture of the war, the single image that comes to define the conflict. The message will be clear: The U.S. liberated the Iraqi people; the U.S. invasion of Iraq was just.

 

On Wednesday morning television networks kept cameras trained on the statue near the Palestine Hotel. Iraqis threw ropes over the head and tried to pull it down before attacking the base with a sledgehammer. Finally a U.S. armored vehicle pulled it down, to the cheers of the crowd.

 

It was an inspiring moment of celebration at the apparent end of a brutal dictator's reign. But as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has pointed out at other times, no one image tells the whole story. Questions arise about what is, and isn't, shown.

 

One obvious question: During live coverage, viewers saw a U.S. soldier drape over the face of Hussein a U.S. flag, which was quickly removed and replaced with an Iraqi flag. Commanders know that the displaying the U.S. flag suggests occupation and domination, not liberation. NBC's Tom Brokaw reported that the Arab network Al Jazeera was "making a big deal" out of the incident with the American flag, implying that U.S. television would -- and should -- downplay that part of the scene. Which choice tells the more complete truth?

 

Another difference between television in the U.S. and elsewhere has been coverage of Iraqi casualties. Despite constant discussion of "precision bombing," the U.S. invasion has produced so many dead and wounded that Iraqi hospitals stopped trying to count. Red Cross officials have labeled the level of casualties "incredible," describing "dozens of totally dismembered dead bodies of women and children" delivered by truck to hospitals. Cluster bombs, one of the most indiscriminate weapons in the modern arsenal, have been used by U.S. and U.K. forces, with the British defense minister explaining that mothers of Iraqi children killed would one day thank Britain for their use.

 

U.S. viewers see little of these consequences of war, which are common on television around the world and widely available to anyone with Internet access. Why does U.S. television have a different standard? CNN's Aaron Brown said the decisions are not based on politics. He acknowledged that such images accurately show the violence of war, but defended decisions to not air them; it's a matter of "taste," he said. Again, which choice tells the more complete truth?

 

Finally, just as important as decisions about what images to use are questions about what facts and analysis -- for which there may be no dramatic pictures available -- to broadcast to help people understand the pictures. The presence of U.S. troops in the streets of Baghdad means the end of the shooting war is near, for which virtually everyone in Iraq will be grateful. It also means the end of a dozen years of harsh U.S.-led economic sanctions that have impoverished the majority of Iraqis and killed as many as a half million children, according to U.N. studies, another reason for Iraqi celebration. And no doubt the vast majority of Iraqis are glad to be rid of Hussein, even if they remember that it was U.S. support for Hussein throughout the 1980s that allowed his regime to consolidate power despite a disastrous invasion of Iran.

 

But that does not mean all Iraqis will be happy about the ongoing presence of U.S. troops. Perhaps they are aware of how little the U.S. government has cared about democracy or the welfare of Iraqis in the past. Perhaps they watch Afghanistan and see how quickly U.S. policymakers abandoned the commitment to "not walk away" from the suffering of the Afghan people. Perhaps we should be cautious about what we infer from the pictures of celebration that we are seeing; joy over the removal of Hussein does not mean joy over an American occupation.

 

There is no simple way to get dramatic video of these complex political realities. But they remain realities, whether or not U.S. viewers find a full discussion of them on television.

----------

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Just accept that you were wrong, and be big about it, GHA. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 

 

[SteveP]

GHA, unlike Colin I've always been prepared to look at the greater complexities of the situation and I am still pro-war.

 

The arab world is overreacting about America, Casualties of War and, to some extent, Palestine.

 

Firstly I'd be prepared to wage this is one of the lowest overall casualty rates of any war. The precision bombing was not spot on friendly fire occurred, but if you know your history, this has been the most bloodless war of all time.

 

Secondly America is the key issue here. I think the American flag was put up in error and that was realised quickly and seized upon by opportunists. What everyone forgets is that Arabia is full of sovereign states, these states control TV output and they are not going to be exactly pro-democracy, the underlying message is that cruel and ruthless regimes will not be tolerated. Those regimes who oppress their people have been put on notice.

 

I was in Doha this time last year and the Arabian world is very confused, it embraces and hates americanism. America is not the root of all evil it just isn't totally right or wrong and it desperately has to build trust.

 

The arab reaction to the news was disappointment, because they would rather the Americans were seen as villains than Saddam Hussein, because it suits the state run arab media's agenda.

 

Palestine is an excuse for anti americanism, just because there is a very great need for a free Palestine it is not the Americans who have blocked the process. In fact they want to put it right, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this is where Islamic extremeism breeds.

 

The war was swift, just and hopefully will bring about a democratic and stable Iraq. The war is not over certainly a number of hearts and minds need to be won. I don't feel any guilt as someone who thought this was right, just as those people defacing Saddam didn't care who liberated them but just relieved a great evil had been removed.

 

Political essay rant over, waiting to see which bits GHA is going to quote and used against me, I love an argument!

[ESG]

first casualty of war.....

[AFF]

Hi SteveP.

 

How can you possibly say that you look at the greater complexities of the situation and then state that you are 'pro-war' and that it was 'just'?

 

Being trite, do you seriously feel that the world is a safer place today compared to, say, 3 months ago?

 

Your post has all the hallmarks of what passes for U.S. apologism.

 

Hi ESG.

 

I saw the KFC ad on T.V. the other day. You're right on that, too. Well, Top 10 anyway!

[SteveP]

I certainly wouldn't term myself an american apologist, just as I wouldn't term you a Saddam apologist.

 

It was totally just, the regime was a danger to it's neighbours and the rest of the world. Ask a Kuwaiti who has seen missiles coming their way? The arab world sees these people as apologists as well, but truth is Iraq was a huge threat. If asked do I think the USA or Arab world is in denial, I'd say the arab one was a great deal more confused than the US.

 

Then I guess on the just argument the words 'weapons of mass destruction' comes in. I have no doubt they will be found after the UK and USA (along with numerous other culprits) sold them this stuff and it appears to have vanished and not been accounted for. This is obviously because Saddam is such a peace loving guy and wants to rid the world of his weapons.

 

The whole country has had a weight lifted off it's shoulders. Shi'ites are no longer under the political oppression, the Kurds no longer fear the regime and the remainder of the population will also heave a sigh of relief. No one wants to acknowledge this because it is not a self made revolution and the coallition is somehow morally inferior, but then how do you get that when the man has killed over a million people? As I say the Iraqis don't care who free them, they just want a fair deal.

 

The Middle East is a series of political struggles waiting to happen because they do not have elected governments, making them very prone to manipulation or mismanagement. I very much doubt Iran and Syria will be involved in a war, but may be a bit keener to negotiate the next time a demand is made upon them. So with that in mind I would say it was safer, yes.

[Claire!]

A very strong argument there steveP, and I totally agree. I do feel that now is safer than, say 3 months ago, with respect to what Saddam could and possibly would do with any weapons he may have had, or may not have had, but there is still a long way to go.

 

With regards to the American's, well they got there first and liberated Iraq, would people still be ranting and raving on about Americanism if, say, it was another country's army, or even the British army who have liberated Iraq? Probably not as there always seems to be a propergander regarding the Americans, they never seem to come out as the most popular "kid at school" when it comes to non-American views.

 

But there is still a long way to go until this country gets back on its feet. Whether you are pro, or anti war, don't you all think you should all be mature enough to have thought, well the war has started, it will be finishing soon, and well there is going to be a lot of work needed to help the Iraqi people. Has anyone bothered to think like this and maybe help?

 

How many anti-war people, will actually think to help out the Iraqi's? Will they feel sorrow and actually want to do something else to help apart from protest?

 

And what about the pro war people, once "victory" over Saddam is admitted, will they too want to help the people of Iraq?

 

At the end of the day, it is the civilians who need our help, and I really do hope that they get it.

 

 

 

[AFF]

Spoken from the heart, C.Hart. Well said.

 

SteveP. An interesting arguement.

 

So. This Kuwaiti who has seen a missile coming his way. I assume that you're referring to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 10 years ago? Didn't 'we' win that one?

 

The Weapons of Mass Distraction. The U.N. Weapons Inspectors confirmed that Saddam was co-operating immediately before the invasion. The U.S wanted to have a chat with Iraqi scientists in private. After initial objections, that was happening. The U.N. declared that any invasion of Iraq without a 2nd Resolution would be contrary to the Charter.

 

You say "The whole country has had a weight lifted off it's shoulders". Where did you hear that? CNN or Al Arabiya?

 

You think that the world is a safer place?

 

21 out of 22 member states of the Arab League have declared the invasion to be unlawful. Did you hear the leader of Syria or Jordan or the Arab League or someone say that as a result of the invasion, there will be 100 Bin Ladens? How did that sound to you when you were considering the greater complexities of the situation?

 

Oh, by the way. Don't for a moment think that I am a Saddam apologist. I consider that he is/was a bad man. However, I do not consider that this is/was a just war. I don't agree that Bush has any right to invade a country, without sanction of the U.N., because the place is ruled by a bad man. Iraq today, where tomorrow? Syria? Turkey? Jordan? Iran? Saudi?

 

 

[SteveP]

Totally agree C Hart, the was for nothing if the civilians do not feel the change, in essence the war was the easy bit and now the difficulty is going to be restoring infrastructure. The US seemed to have an interim setup coming in with a view to a new Iraqi democratic government. There is a short term vacuum of power which will create more problems and that is going to be the hardest time.

 

AFF I think you know Iraq have been launching missiles against Kuwait a matter weeks ago. There is no doubt they posed a threat. I am sorry, but you don't think the removal of an evil dictator should be seen as a 'weight of the shoulders'?? I don't think the war is just only on the basis that Saddam is a bad man, but the fact he is a threat and we were just to left him there.

 

I think you either ignore or refuse to acknowledge that this regime going is actually a positive, because you are more concerned by our motives.

 

I don't expect the Arab league to see things the same way as I do. It's particularly interesting to note that there's seems to be a number of foreiggn arabs still wanting to fight in Iraq when the Iraqis themselves are quite pleased to see an end to the affair.

 

Why would this happen? The arab world doesn't care about Saddam or the Iraqi people for that matter, they just want to make the Americans seem the oppressors and the agent of Isreal. They would rather be the merchant of doom then see this in anyway positive, there was even disappointment and embarrasment from some quarters that the Iraqis hadn't put up more of a fight, I don't try to understand because it seems like bloody mindedness to me.

 

I would tend to think none of the countries are about to become embroiled. But do acknowledge that Terrorist groups may want to use this as an excuse to kill people, but if wasn't this it would be Palestine again.

 

I think the jobin Iraq isn't finished yet by a long way, but the issue of Palestine has to be sorted very very soon.

[mdetaylor]

AFF - a pleasure as always.

 

However three things:

 

1. Inspections were continuing but access to presidential palaces where the inspectors believed weapons were most likely to be hidden was refused or given only after enough time to hide/move anything suspect. Not saying there was anything only that the inspectors were not being allowed to inspect (the palace carve out was a French idea).

 

2. 21 of 22 members of the Arab league declared the invasion unlawful. This is no great surprise. Although the question of the legality or otherwise of the invasion was no doubt considered and will have influenced decisions, kingdoms such as Saudi did not want the removal of Saddam as it would expose their own subjects to democracy (of some sort) in the middle east - as much as they may not like Saddam and may well have supported his removal they did not want a new democracy that could destablise the region by encouraging others to seek it, Saddam was the lesser of two evils.

 

3. Where next? Looks like an Iraqi civil war if the Turks have anything to do with it, they seem less than impressed that the Kurds have seen this as an opportunity to push for an independent Kurdistan on the Turkish border.

 

I agree about Syria - Rumsfeld is very worrying with his "you gave them a pair of night goggles and few taxi rides, you come next then" attitude. He does seem to be becoming marginalised though.

[SteveP]

I think I am getting too heavy in to this argument at this late stage of the day. I've made my mind up anyway, you don't mind taking up the baton mdet??

[AFF]

Hi SteveP.

 

Aah. The missile strike on Kuwait City. The missile that was launched from the penninsular after the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq had commenced. That one. After the invasion that was declared to be contrary to the Charter by the U.N. and unlawful by the Arab League. That invasion.

 

Those Iraqis. B@stards. How dare they fight back like that.

 

The missile was believed to be an Al Samoud 2. One of the 109 found by the U.N. Weapons Inspectors, 55 of which had been destroyed by Saddam under U.N. supervision prior to the invasion.

 

My concern S, is the consequences of these actions. 300,000 troops sent halfway round the world to invade a country, an action that was declared to be contrary to the U.N. Charter. Contrary to what we were told, the two lunatics had not agreed upon the steps to be taken once Saddam was removed from office.

 

And we are supposed to trust these people?

 

[Edit] Here's one for you SteveP. Who said:

 

"In 1985, blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed"?

[Chubbhead EFM]

It's silly to argue over who was 'right'-the pro-wars or the anti-wars- because people are only going to try and protect their dignity or say 'I told you so'. In reality it makes bugger all difference what any of us think, whatever are views because 1. Politicians aren't listening to us and 2. It is the Iraqis that this is going to affect and not us here in Blighty (unless old saddam decides to get revenge!)

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the war, I say we should just hope that this really IS the liberation of the Iraqi people and hope that Britain and the US don't abandon them but help them to re-bulid their country. Now let's leave it at that before a full scale argument brakes out!

[YELLOW]

Well said Chubbhead!!

[Chubbhead EFM]

Thank you! I'm just getting bored of all this arguing over war, it only leads to the same things being said over and over and over and over...

 

I suggest people write into their favourite newspaper if they have something to say about the war because it will reach a far wider audience. HAHA I'm sounding like a dictator now.

[Rob_the_Saint]

We could make you a moderator Chubbhead, it sounds like you have all the right credentials <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Chubbhead EFM]

I think so! Actually, the reason I'm sounding like a dictator is because I'm actually Saddam Hussein. I'm in hiding though so make sure you don't tell anyone. SSSSSHHH!! (in a 3am Wicked Whisper-style-ee)

[YELLOW]

I have to admit when you didn't post for three days over the weekend, I thought maybe you were Saddam in disguise or that Chemical Ali geezer!!

[Chubbhead EFM]

Yes, I was trapped under some rock when one of my palaces was bombed out! I wasn't really in O'neills on saturday either, I was making a speech on Al-Jazeer to 'my people'(after I'd escaped from the rock of course).

[AFF]

Good morning mdet. A pleasure, indeed.

 

Your point 2.

 

It's no great surprise to me either that the Arab League have declared the invasion unlawful. We should not be too dismissive of something that is of no great surprise, however.

 

Your point 3.

 

Hmmn. From what I gather, in the Northern regions of Iraq there live a bunch of Iraqi people who are Kurds. They suffered great persecution under Saddam's rule and, with U.S. support, armed themselves to fight back. [One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter etc.] They were successful, up to a point, and now 'control' sections of the North of the country, but not, presumably the oilfields.

 

In comes the Coalition of the Willing bringing the downfall of Saddam, freedom from oppression, the destruction of the Weapons of Mass Distraction and, last but not least, democracy.

 

The Kurds say "Thanks for coming Dubbya and Tone. We are here to help. Lets go and sling the bad guys out of Kirkuk, Iraq's 'oil capital' in the North". "No wait" says G.I. Joe. "We don't really want you to go to Kirkuk because ..err.. err.. a neighbouring country doesn't want you to go there and it has 40,000 troops mobilised on the border. You should stay up here in the desert. We think it would be better if we do it".

 

"Sod that" say the Iraqi Kurds, "We're off to do the statue pulling down thing in Kirkuk. You can come if you want.". And they do, aided by U.S. Special Forces, of course. The U.S. gives assurances to Turkey that once Kirkuk has been liberated and the statue has been pulled down, the Iraqi Kurds will 'withdraw' from the Iraqi City of Kirkuk.

 

Now, mdet. tell me. What is that all about?

 

It's re-assuring that the two lunatics properly thought this thing through beforehand otherwise it might have got a little tricky out there.