The British Army Rebels
Against Propaganda
By John Pilger
06/07/07 "ICH"
- --- - -An experienced British officer serving in Iraq has written to
the BBC describing the invasion as "illegal, immoral and unwinnable" which, he says, is "the overwhelming feeling of many
of my peers". In a letter to the BBC's Newsnight and
Medialens.org he accuses the media's "embedded coverage with
the US Army" of failing to question "the intentions and
continuing effects of the US-led invasion and occupation".
He says most British soldiers regard their tours as
"loathsome", during which they "reluctantly [provide] target
practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties
and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt
to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US
election." He appeals to journalists not to swallow "the
official line/ White House propaganda".
In 1970, I made a film in Vietnam called The Quiet Mutiny in
which GIs spoke out about their hatred of that war and its
"official line/White House propaganda". The experiences in Iraq
and Vietnam are both very different and strikingly similar.
There was much less "embedded coverage" in Vietnam, although
there was censorship by omission, which is standard practice
today.
What is different about Iraq is the willingness of usually
obedient British soldiers to speak their minds, from General
Richard Dannatt, Britain's current military chief, who said that
the presence of his troops in Iraq "exacerbates the security
problem", to General Michael Rose who has called for Tony Blair
to be impeached for taking Britain to war "on false grounds" –
remarks that are mild compared with the blogs of squaddies.
What is also different is the growing awareness in the
British forces and the public of how "the official line" is
played through the media. This can be quite crude: for example
when a BBC defence correspondent in Iraq described the aim of
the Anglo-American invasion as "bring[ing] democracy and human
rights" to Iraq. The Director of BBC Television, Helen Boaden,
backed him up with a sheaf of quotations from Blair that this
was indeed the aim, implying that Blair's notorious word was
enough.
More often than not, censorship by omission is employed: for
example, by omitting the fact that almost 80 per cent of attacks
are directed against the occupation forces (source: the
Pentagon) so as to give the impression that the occupiers are
doing their best to separate "warring tribes" and are crisis
managers rather than the cause of the crisis.
There is a last-ditch sense about this kind of propaganda.
Seymour Hersh said recently, "[In April, the Bush
administration] made a decision that because of the totally
dwindling support for the war in Iraq, they would go back to the
al-Qaeda card, although there's no empirical basis. Most of the
pros will tell you the foreign fighters are a couple of per cent
and they're sort of leaderless... there's no attempt to suggest
there's any significant co-ordination of these groups, but the
press keeps going ga-ga about al-Qaeda... it's just amazing to
me."
Ga-ga day at the London Guardian was 22 May. "Iran's secret
plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq", said the
front-page banner headline. "Iran is secretly forging ties with
al Qaeda elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq," wrote Simon
Tisdall from Washington, "in preparation for a summer showdown
with coalition int- ended to tip a wavering US Congress into
voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say." The
entire tale was based on anonymous US official sources. No
attempt was made to substantiate their "firm evidence" or
explain the illogic of their claims. No journalistic scepticism
was even hinted, which is amazing considering the web of proven
lies spun from Washington over Iraq.
Moreover, it had a curious tone of something-must-be-done
insistence, reminiscent of Judith Miller's scandalous
reports in the New York Times claiming that Saddam was about
to launch his weapons of mass destruction and beckoning Bush
to invade. Tisdall in effect offered the same invitation; I
can remember few more irresponsible pieces of journalism.
The British public and the people of Iran, deserve better.
.
This article was first published by the
new Statesman
http://www.johnpilger.com/ Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
