Skip to content or view screen version

Spinning to war on Iraq

pasted from The Guardian | 04.03.2002 15:54

1) Watch out for the propaganda offensive
2) We're still bombing Iraq!

Andrew Murray
Monday March 4, 2002
The Guardian

Spin may be proving an increasing embarrassment for the government at home. But its New Labour practitioners must be hoping they can still turn a trick when it comes to events abroad. And with the prime minister showing every sign of joining in with George Bush's war of revenge against Iraq, the British public is in for a sustained propaganda offensive to soften it up for what threatens to be a bloody and dangerous conflict.
It will take several months before the projected US invasion to bring about "regime change" in Iraq can begin. At every step along the way, ministers will try to make the case that an attack on Saddam Hussein is the only way to spare civilisation untold dangers. The prime minister was at it yesterday, warning that the Iraqi government had weapons that threatened the world.

But can those continually caught fibbing over everything from public spending increases to who is doing what favour for whom be trusted when it comes to war and peace? It would pay to be sceptical. Iraq, in particular, has already been the subject of a prolonged campaign to transform its image from the domestic despotism it is into the worldwide menace that it isn't.

The US has its own agenda for attacking Iraq, mainly because the installation of a pliant government in Baghdad - friendly to Israel and big oil and indifferent to the Palestinians - is a prerequisite for a wider Washington-approved settlement in the Middle East.

Immediately after September 11, former CIA director James Woolsey was dispatched to Europe by Washington hardliners to knit together evidence linking the Iraqi government to the attacks on New York and Washington. Months of digging have left him empty-handed. Last week, Mr Woolsey was reduced in the Wall Street Journal to repeating the mantra that the Baghdad regime was "evil", a category which apparently relieves the prosecutor of any obligation to adduce further proof orarguments.

Another major spin operation last October tried to tie Saddam into the anthrax letters sent to media organisations and public figures in the USA. The allegation made the headlines, while the truth - that the letters were the work of a lone psychopath in New Jersey, probably a one-time US government scientist - was buried in the small print weeks later.

Al-Qaida and anthrax have both now been discarded as too fragile reeds to sustain the projected attack on the evil axis. Instead, we are back to "weapons of mass destruction". This has served as the rationale for the Anglo-American bombing of Iraq, carried on almost continuously now for more than three years. Never mind that years of intensive UN inspections found no evidence of an Iraqi capacity to produce and deliver such weapons, whatever its intentions. Scott Ritter, ex-deputy head of the UN inspectors, has declared Iraq "effectively disarmed".

New Labour already has a dismal record with anti-Iraq spin, even by its own debased standards. Robin Cook, as foreign secretary, made much of the story of an Iraqi teenager supposedly imprisoned since the age of five for throwing stones at a portrait of Saddam, only to be forced to backtrack once it became clear the boy did not exist. There has been a string of such intelligence-inspired whoppers, from tales of babies thrown out of incubators to beheaded prostitutes.

None of this is to deny the brutal nature of the Iraqi regime. However, 10 years of US and British sanctions and bombardment have clearly done nothing whatsoever to shake its foundations. Instead, Anglo-American policy has heaped new miseries on the Iraqi people, including the deaths of upwards of half a million children, according to United Nations estimates.

The attack being prepared for later this year will add mightily to that toll. Tony Blair knows he is virtually alone in the world in supporting Bush's war, now it can no longer be presented as having any connection with September 11. Growing numbers of people in Britain want a halt to this "war on terror". Afghanistan, mourning its own civilian dead, is further away from stability and tranquillity than ever, while the roots of anti-US terrorism have been nourished. Nothing has been achieved beyond a major extension of Washington's strategic power, from Georgia to central Asia to the Philippines.

Those in power want this war, so we should remember that whatever they say about their intended victim over the coming months is, to put it at its most generous, not necessarily going to be true. US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld's disinformation department has been ostensibly shut down, but its spirit surely lives on.

·Andrew Murray is chair of the Stop the War Coalition.

pasted from The Guardian
- e-mail: apdmurray@hotmail.com

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

in his boots

04.03.2002 23:52

From "Springtime, Taxes, and the Attack on Iraq", Richard A. Muller, February 7 2002, Techreview.com.
 http://www.techreview.com/articles/muller020702.asp

These are just the final paragraphs but the rest is interesting.

"Do you believe that Saddam has stopped developing nuclear weapons? Does anybody? Some people ask for hard evidence that he is doing so. The implication is that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Others question the assumption that Saddam is guilty simply because he refuses inspections, saying that this is denying him due process. Shouldn't we assume innocence, until proven guilty? Doesn't Saddam have rights too?
I'm not going to answer those questions. My role is not to advise, but to predict.
On September 11, the U.S. was attacked. Now imagine that you are President Bush. You know 3,000 people were killed by terrorists with no warning, with no demands, just out of the blue. You know that Saddam was once, a few years ago, caught in the process of trying to build an atomic bomb. You know that he burned Kuwait out of spite. You know that he ejected the inspectors over three years ago. Can you take the risk that Saddam is not developing nuclear weapons again? The horror of September 11 was great, but it was nothing compared to the potential devastation of a nuclear explosion.
Of course, you (Mr. or Ms. President) will first demand that inspections resume. You may even give a deadline. Will Saddam accede? Maybe, and then the crisis will end. Whew! But if he doesn't, what will happen? I think the answer is obvious. It has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with past grievances (Iraqi agents allegedly tried to assassinate George W. Bush's dad when he was visiting Kuwait in 1993). It has nothing to do with the reports from Iraqi defectors (they could be lying). It has to do solely with the responsibilities of the U.S. President, as he (and many U.S. citizens) perceive them to be.
It is as predictable as the coming seasons, and as taxes. The U.S. is going to attack Iraq."

mushroom


I like saddam hussein

05.03.2002 00:54

shut up 'mushroom'! What, america's 'enemies' aren't allowed to arm themselves? That's international law is it? They said everyone HAD to have them so that no one would use them. Anyway you(american? - I bet you are) started it.

nadine


Weapons Inspections

05.03.2002 08:40

I believe that America has been developing nuclear weapons, and as that nation has a history of attacks against others they should be subjected to UN weapons inspections to ensure that they comply with international law in future.
If they don't agree perhaps we should bomb them.

Al


Nadine, Al.

05.03.2002 21:53

Nadine:
>> shut up 'mushroom'!
No. If nothing else, I have to ask you what particular human qualities Saddam Hussein has which causes you to like him. I personally dislike George Bush (really, I do: his support for the death penalty and the way he looks mentally taxed when trying to walk at the same time he's chewing gum are definite negatives) and am just curious what makes Hussein a personally attractive head of state.

>> What, america's 'enemies' aren't allowed to arm themselves?
America's enemies are perfectly entitled to arm themselves, just as every country is entitled to act in its national interests. But America now looks at Iraq and sees a country which is known to have been very close to having nuclear weapons in the past, and they feel poses a threat to them. They will act consistent with their national interests, which is what any country would do.

>> That's international law is it?
I'm sure it is not. But 'international law' is, and always has been, a nonsense. You and I probably both live in countries where there is the Rule Of Law. This means that there are laws with courts and prosecutors and policemen and lawyers to enforce them. But it doesn't work like that between countries. Countries operate in a way much closer to how people lived in societies before the Rule Of Law was invented - more like a collection of clans and extended families with no formal system of laws (or one which is so distant and weak nobody pays it any attention) but lots of feuds and friendships and tenuous agreements. In this system 'law' is enforced by people ganging up with their friends and going round to beat up whoever has hurt them (or they think will hurt them), and who your friends are and who owes you favours is far more important than the merits of your legal case. That is sad but I think it's true. Look: invading Iran and Kuwait was probably against 'international law' as well, but observe the very different reactions. Iran was an international nobby-no-mates at the time so nobody helped it. But Kuwait had many friends, and they turned up to give Iraq a solid beating for hurting their friend. It'll be a long time before 'international law' is meaningful.

>> They said everyone HAD to have them so that no one would use them.
They never said anything like that. They said that as long as nuclear weapons exist they'll make sure they keep hold of theirs to discourage others from using nukes against them.

>> Anyway you(american? - I bet you are) started it.
I am not American. What, specifically, did the Americans start?

Al:
>> they should be subjected to UN weapons inspections to ensure that they comply with international law in future.
America has on several occaisions been subjected to rigourous weapons inspections. Cast your mind back to the Cold War. Remember all those treaties about how many planes, tanks, missiles and so on the Americans and Soviets agreed they were each allowed to have. Those treaties were enforced by inspections and inspectors. Imagine that: both the USSR and the USA allowed inspectors from their enemy to count aircraft and tanks and missiles and verify that the agreed-on numbers had been destroyed. Maybe Mr Hussein could learn a thing or two from that.

>> If they don't agree perhaps we should bomb them.
I can't stop you, but I'd certainly advise against it.

mushroom