| Number 392 | November 16, 2007 |
|
Greetings, As promised (for once!), this week's issue consists of more examples of Wartime Propaganda, a collection begun last week. I rarely run so many examples in a row, but there is so much Propaganda emanating from Iraq and Afghanistan that I make an exception in this week's and last week's issues. In fact, there are so many examples that this week's issue is a special, extra-long edition. For those who get the paper version of Nygaard Notes, that means six pages instead of the usual four; for the email readers, it's just longer than usual. The "Quote" of the Week returns this week, which is an advantage of the expanded size. One note before we start: I fear that it is a bit misleading to call these stories from Iraq and Afghanistan "Wartime Propaganda," for two reasons. First, I don't really consider either the conflict in Iraq or the conflict in Afghanistan to be "wars" in the strict sense. They are something else. Occupations, certainly. Colonial adventures, perhaps. The Hot fronts in Cold War II, very likely. And that brings up the second reason that I fear misleading people with this two-part series: In the sense that we have entered a state of more-or-less permanent war—the ludicrous "War Against Terror," which I call "The WAT?!—it could be said that most, if not ALL, of the propaganda we are seeing in the modern period is "Wartime Propaganda." Having said, that, now we can get on with Part II of the Wartime Propaganda series. Propagandistically yours, Nygaard |
|
Since I recently completed a week-long residency in Vermont, talking about media and activism (Thank you, Randolph Area Peace Coalition!) I was especially drawn to a recent statement by Matt Howard. Howard is a Vermont resident, and served two tours in Iraq, attaining the rank of corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is the head of the Vermont chapter for Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.org/) , and was speaking at a recent protest at the Vermont Statehouse in Montpelier. He said: "I ask every red-blooded American today: What would you do if your homeland was savagely invaded and occupied by another country? The Iraqis will continue to resist and fight until the last American has left their homeland. Period. End the violence in Iraq? End the occupation." |
|
I have spoken in these pages in the past about the work of a social scientist Harold Lasswell. In particular I find his 1927 book entitled "Propaganda Technique in the World War" to be useful when observing modern-day Wartime Propaganda. As you read Part II of this mini-series on Wartime Propaganda, you might do well to keep the following words from Mr. Lasswell's book in mind: "So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor" "When the public believes that the enemy began the War and blocks a permanent, profitable and godly peace, the propagandist has achieved his purpose. But to make assurance double sure, it is safe to fortify the mind of the nation with examples of the insolence and depravity of the enemy. Any nation who began the War and blocks the peace is incorrigible, wicked and perverse. To insist directly upon these qualitites is merely a precaution, and its chief effect is to make it more certain that the enemy could be capable of so monstrous a thing as an aggressive war. Thus, by a circularity of psychological reaction the guilty is the satanic and the satanic is the guilty." "A handy rule for arousing hate is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man. Originality, while often advantageous, is far from indispensable." "A point to be remembered by the working propagandist is that Liberal and middle-class people are likely to give their approval to war aims of a political or juristic character." "The collective egotism, or ethnocentrism, of a nation, makes it possible to interpret the war as a struggle for the protection and propagation of its own high type of civilization." "The justification of war can proceed more smoothly if the hideous aspects of the war business are screened from public gaze." Desired propaganda results can be achieved through "the control of emphasis" in the daily news flow: "Underemphasis may be procured in the Press by relegating an item to an obscure column with an inconspicuous headline, by incorporating it into another story, by omitting detail, by contradiction on the part of the writer or ‘witness,' by quotations which cast doubt upon the assertion, and related devices. Conversely, favourable ideas may be given prominent columns, striking headlines, independent treatment, circumstantial detail, impressive corroboration, and ceaseless repetition." |
|
On September 3rd of this year the Star Tribune ran a very brief piece that... Well, it was so brief that I'll just copy the whole thing. Here it is: "After weeks of observing two compounds southwest of Kandahar, U.S.-led coalition and Afghan security forces killed about 25 suspected militants in raids on a Taliban command center, the coalition said. No coalition or Afghan soldiers were hurt." Translation: 25 people were killed because they were "suspected" of something. No evidence offered, nor asked for, at least not in this report. The original story, filed by the Associated Press, tells us that the killing that was done was "aided by airstrikes." So it is doubtful that anyone who did the killing will ever know, or be encouraged to care, if the "suspects" were actually guilty of anything, let alone deserving of a death sentence. I could find no reports in any media of attempts to interview witnesses, families, or anyone who might give a different version of events than—or, for that matter, corroborate—the version given to the obedient media by the anonymous somebody called simply "the coalition." |
|
On August 25th the New York Times ran the headline "In Air Attack, U.S. Soldiers Kill 18 Gunmen." This was "in a poor neighborhood in northern Baghdad." The story, by Sabrina Tavernise, is confusing, as the only citation in the article itself says that "there were 13 dead, including 2 women." I don't know where the headline-writer got the number 18, but whatever the number, the Times never mentioned anything about civilians. The Associated Press, reporting on the same event, mentioned that some anonymous "Shiites claimed some civilians died." At least they mentioned that someone, somewhere, dissented from the official line. But the AP did quote, ostensibly in the service of "balance," one Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, who "said all 18 dead had been ‘identified as hostile' and there was ‘no collateral damage,' the U.S. term for civilian casualties." Again, no evidence was mentioned. Which leads us to the next story... |
|
While the U.S. military may not be counting, or even noticing, the innocent people they are killing in Iraq, USA Today reported on September 27th that "More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces since the insurgency began more than four years ago, according to military statistics released for the first time." The were "provided at USA TODAY's request" by the so-called "coalition" that is occupying Iraq. "There is," USAT reminds us, "no way to independently verify the data." This did not prevent USA Today from putting the number in a banner headline on the front page, however. ("19,000 MILITANT FATALITIES SINCE '03; Military Discloses Stats for First Time") I have said that the most important news in a story can often be found in the last three paragraphs of that story. Sure enough, in the third-to-last paragraph of a November 3rd New York Times story (headlined "Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup") we find Mr. Bush getting into the act with his own body count. The Times reported that "Mr. Bush also took the unusual step of offering a body-count figure, saying that together with Iraqi forces, American troops had killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 ‘enemy fighters' per month since January." That would be about 13,500 through the end of September. Odd. USA Today reported at the end of September that "The [military] statistics show that 4,882 militants were killed in clashes with coalition forces this year, a 25% increase over all of last year." That's quite a discrepancy, with Bush's figures being almost three times the USAT figures. Given a choice between believing the figures of Mr. Bush or the U.S. military, one might want to verify either one before publishing them. Since USA Today itself says that there is "no way to independently verify the data," then one wonders why they are reported at all by anyone who wants to think of themselves as a journalist. Here's another note on this body count stuff: USA Today published the following bizarre paragraph in its "19,000 killed" story: "The U.S. military rarely discusses the numbers of enemy dead, fearful of raising parallels with the Vietnam War when the U.S. military's reliance on ‘body counts' led to allegations of inflated figures because of political pressure to show results." USAT added that "Today, U.S. commanders ... say there is no pressure to exaggerate." (I'm not making this up!) I wondered about that comment about "rarely discussing" the number of enemy dead, so I took approximately one minute to look over some news stories from the corporate press over the last month or so, and I found all kinds of "discussing" of that very subject. Just a tiny sample includes the following statements from major news sources: "In the Sadr City raid, the U.S. military said forces killed ‘an estimated 49 criminals'..." (Associated Press); "The U.S. military in Iraq says about 25 militants were killed and two houses destroyed in a U.S. air strike..." (Voice of America); "About 250 insurgents were killed in the battle." (US Navy news report); "...the military said 19 suspected leaders of the group were killed." (LA Times); and "Coalition forces supported by aircraft killed at least 25 ... members of a radical Shiite Muslim group backed by Iran..." (McClatchy News). Who knows if any of these claims are true (maybe there really is "no pressure to exaggerate")? But to say that the issue is "rarely discussed" borders on hallucinatory. Now have a look at these words from the Associated Press: "NATO's estimate of Taliban killed this month has created skepticism and worry in Afghanistan, with local officials saying that either the militant force has grown bigger than imagined or too many innocent Afghans are being killed." That was published on September 15, 2006. The headline? "Afghanistan Body Count Raises Skepticism." Speaking of skepticism, the AP spoke to "one official with the military command" who said, "We'd rather have a lower figure that we can back up than a higher one that stretches your willingness to trust us." And, speaking of trust, the official "spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue." (!) |
|
Elsewhere in this issue I mention a November 3rd headline in the New York Times that read, "Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup." Those reading that article, I guess, were supposed to forget reports from six weeks earlier, such as the report that ran in my local paper on September 15th . That headline read, "White House Downplays Latest Lack of Progress in Iraq." Unlike the reprint in my local paper, the original story, which appeared in the New York Times, helpfully pointed out that "the White House report [was] released with little fanfare." Oh? All-too-typically, the headline on this story was not the "lack of progress," as it was detailed in the White House report. The headline was that the White House "downplayed" the lack of progress. This is known as "framing" a story. In the original story, the following words appeared: "After a summer of votes, hearings and public debate over whether Iraq was making enough progress on the benchmarks to justify having nearly 170,000 American troops in Iraq, the report seemed an afterthought, as the administration more or less changed the subject." One can only imagine, I guess, a news and information system in which the news organization—and not the subjects of the news!—get to decide what gets "little fanfare" and even when to "change the subject." Honestly, I am not making any of this up. |
|
Iraq seems to be a somewhat less violent place over the past couple of months. The Washington Post reported on November 2nd that "The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006, and the eighth-lowest total in 56 months of fighting." And the Associated Press on November 1st ran the headline "Violence Ebbing in Iraq, Figures Show." Here's Knight Ridder on October 31: "Baghdad Violence, U.S. Deaths Hit New Lows for Year." The question is: Why is this happening? The first answer comes from the Department of "Defense" in an October 2nd press release, which began "The surge of additional forces into Baghdad and other areas of Iraq is working..." They are referring to the additional 30,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq over the first six months of this year. The official line, then, starting about six weeks ago, is that "the surge is working." Now, let's look at the media's explanations for the decline in violence in Iraq: The Washington Post quoted Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno saying that the drop in deaths "illustrates how our operations have improved security since the surge was emplaced..." On October 31st the Christian Science Monitor said that "American defense officials cite recent weapons finds, disruption of bombmaking cells, and the 2007 ‘surge' of US forces as contributing to a dramatic improvement in security in many parts of Iraq..." The Associated Press quoted Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former editorial editor for The Wall Street Journal, who said "I assume it's happening because the surge is working, and working even better than those who advocated it envisioned. This is pretty dramatic." Knight Ridder (KR) quoted Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who said, "The ‘surge' in Baghdad has reduced the level of killings and major violence..." KR was the only major media source that mentioned what I think may be the major factor in the decline in violence: The declaration by Muqtada al-Sadr of a six-month cease-fire on the part of the Mahdi Army, which has been a major enemy of U.S. forces in Iraq. Al-Sadr declared the ceasefire on August 29th, in the wake of fierce fighting in Karbala that killed more than 50 Shiite pilgrims who had come to celebrate a major religious festival. A spokesman for the Mahdi army announced that "during this time, [the Army] would attack neither rival Shia groups nor the US army." KR, I should add, only mentioned the ceasefire in a kind-of backwards way, listing it among the "several interconnected factors" that explain why "A U.S. spokesman said the military wasn't prepared to declare victory." (Declare victory?!) One of those factors, KR said, is that "anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr could call off the cease-fire he declared, which could lead to renewed attacks on American forces." For something to be "renewed" it has to have been suspended, yet the ceasefire was never mentioned by KR in its reports up to that time, except for one report that mentioned that one faction was "ignoring" it. Patrick Cockburn of the London Independent reports that the ceasefire was called because of fears within Iraq that "battles between Shia militias were turning into an intra-Shia civil war." The U.S. media reports, in contrast, as I related last week, that "the United States is preoccupied with trying to manage a civil war" in Iraq. And the Propaganda reached new heights just this week (November 15th) when the Pentagon tried to take credit for al-Sadr's unilateral declaration, claiming that "a ceasefire agreement was made" by the U.S. "with Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in August." So, to recap: The U.S. begins an escalation in January. U.S. casualties go up in April, May, and June. The Mahdi Army declares a unilateral ceasefire in August. September, October and November bring the lowest U.S. casualties in years. The Official Line in response to this? "The Surge Is Working!" If it is true that the death rate is declining in Iraq, no doubt the explanation is complex, and not due to any one factor. That's why it's so amazing to see the U.S. media almost totally ignore a major decision on the part of the official enemy to DE-escalate the conflict. More amazing still is to think about what makes this pattern of thinking so prevalent in U.S. intellectual culture. And here we get back to the two levels of Propaganda and how they work. Recall that the first level, Overt Propaganda, is the specific thing we are supposed to believe. The second level, Deep Propaganda, is the general idea that makes the specific idea believable. The Overt Propaganda that is so eagerly adopted by the U.S. media here is that a specific U.S. policy decision—the "surge"—is primarily responsible for a decline in violence in Occupied Iraq. The Deep Propaganda that makes this idea believable is the notion that the fate of Iraqi society is not in the hands of the Iraqis themselves, but instead is and should be in the hands of the West, and is all a part of the task of bringing democracy and civilization to the ignorant and barbaric Arabs. This is what Rudyard Kipling once famously called the "White Man's Burden." The burden that people of conscience must bear is to liberate ourselves from the racist thinking that makes us vulnerable to this type of Propaganda, the Propaganda that repeatedly brings us to war. |
