| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Reality check: the war of words March 30, 2003 Reporter :Graham Davis  It's the first cliché the headline writers trot out when a war starts: "Truth is the first casualty of war." Like most clichés, there is a fair bit of truth in it, if you'll excuse the pun. During the Vietnam War, the daily US military press briefings, known by journalists as the ‘Five o’clock Follies,’ were so far from the truth that they became the laughing stock of America. Casualty figures were understated when they were American, and overstated when they were Vietnamese.Even though the war in Iraq has only been going for ten days, the US military media briefings have been dubbed the ‘Baghdad Follies.’ It became particularly noticeable early Thursday morning Australian time, when the military spokesman General Vincent Brooks told the assembled media that there was no evidence an American bomb had killed 15 civilians in a Baghdad market. Several days later, the Americans were still arguing that it was an Iraqi missile. No one knows for sure, except someone is lying. On the Iraqi side, of course, it's not any better. Iraqi television, which the US bombed this week, showing pictures of a farmer who allegedly shot down an Apache helicopter with his ancient rifle — and a single shot, to boot. For the coalition, the whole campaign so far has been a reality check — optimism giving way to the realisation that it was going to be a long, bloody war. To be fair, President Bush and the US Commander-in-Chief, General Tommy Franks, both warned it was going to be long and difficult, although the General couldn't help laying it on a bit thick with this line from his first briefing last weekend: "There may well be tough days ahead, but our forces on the field will achieve their objectives."  Graham Davis reports that this war is — more than ever — a psychological operation that amounts to a tug-of-war for ordinary hearts and minds on both sides. Much of it is subtle, he says, like embedding journalists with fighting units so that "they" become "we" when it comes to reporting and everyone is dependent on an information drip. Then there's the Iraqi treatment of prisoners of war — a breach of the Geneva Convention to Western eyes, yet totally unexceptional in a place where torture is routine. Brutality means different things to different people — a cultural gap which explains why the Arab television network, Al Jazeera, showed a 30-second video of two British corpses surrounded by exuberant Iraqis — and thought nothing of it. To them, it was the truth. When Al Jazeera showed grisly images of American dead after battles near Nasariyah, its anchor apologised for the horrific nature of the broadcast, but said: "In the interest of objectivity, we felt we had to share them with you." The British military did not want them to share it with anybody. Then there's the Iraqi claim that US forces used napalm — as they did in Vietnam — to capture a hill near Basra in southern Iraq. Napalm is banned by the United Nations, so if it were true, then this would have caused a sensation ... except for one minor point: the US is adamant that it destroyed its last stocks of napalm two years ago. Part of the misinformation problem arises from the media's demand for round-the-clock coverage — allowing little or no time to check any claims by the military. And even when such claims are refuted — either by reporters on the ground or in military updates — that information tends to stick — as in the case of the battle to control the deep sea port of Umm Qasr. US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, told the media that coalition forces were in control of Umm Qasr.  But it simply wasn't true. coalition forces were still encountering stiff resistance, and their leaders were maintaining the pretence. In fact, even now, the coalition has yet to fully consolidate its hold over Umm Qasr — the worst example so far of false claims from the coalition in this war. But there are others, like the claims last weekend that Iraq's second largest city, Basra, had fallen. Even now, a week later, coalition forces are struggling to take control of Basra.And what of claims first made by the British about a popular uprising in Basra against Saddam Hussein's forces? Well, even now, no one knows whether such an uprising took place, one allegedly suppressed by the Republican Guard with appalling civilian casualties. At week's end, there were more bitter arguments, more grounds to question what both sides are saying in this conflict ... this time over what happened to two dead British soldiers. According to an enraged British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, they were executed in cold blood. Not so, say the equally infuriated Iraqis. And so it goes ... all this in the first full week, and then some, of the war — with many weeks and months, perhaps, to come. As Graham Davis puts it: "Brace yourself for shock and awe in the War of Words as well as on the battlefield itself." |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
