|
Any
time there is war or an occupation of another country,
propagandists or their media surrogates require language
that mollifies, exculpates and hides the grim reality
or sordid deeds. In an attempt to gain a deeper understanding
of what is really happening in Iraq, this glossary
elucidates the terminology commonly used in the media.
Its aim is to enable us to peer through the linguistic
fog.
There
is a fundamental problem with such a glossary. The
propagandists will coin terms to exculpate or palliate
aspects of the occupier’s activities, and aspects
of the occupation whose mention cannot be avoided.
However, propagandists loathe referring to the uncomfortable
and repugnant aspects of the occupation or war. For
example, it is very clear that the US military will
not publicize lists of Iraqi civilian deaths (NB:
they compile some lists, but these aren’t made
public [1]). Iraqi hospital officials are “discouraged”
from compiling lists of civilian casualties and granting
journalists access to morgues. The list of “forbidden”
compliant media topics is rather long, but a subset
is presented below.
Finally,
the justifications for the war against Iraq, and the
subsequent occupation, have changed over time, and
the third list below documents the justifications
proffered by the American occupiers to date. This
growing list is the graveyard of justifications.
The
Glossary
| Abused
terminology |
Translation |
| Al-Qa’ida |
Bogeyman
Rex.
There
was no link between Al-Qa’ida and pre-2003
Iraq, and even now, the US can’t point
to evidence of an Iraqi connection.
|
| Ambassador |
Proconsul.
It
is rather odd to call Paul Bremer an ambassador;
the man even wears army boots!
|
| Anti-Iraq
forces |
Catchall
Opposition – (and clear example of doublespeak).
“Soon
after the Occupation, the United States and
its allies—military and ideological—referred
to the Iraqi resistance as ‘foreign elements’
‘terrorists’ or ‘former loyalists
of the Saddam regime’. This phraseology
has now become redundant and US military spokesman
are now referring to the guerrillas as ‘anti-Iraqi
forces’ as if to suggest that the US,
British, […] and Polish troops represent
Iraq but the Iraqis who resist the occupation
are anti-Iraqi.”
—Tariq Ali, “The Iraqi Resistance:
a New Phase”, CounterPunch, April 10,
2004.
Referring
to many groups conveys the impression that a
significant segment of the population is ganging
up against the US, and this is counter to the
propaganda claim that the opposition is a “small
minority”. Furthermore, Americans, including
Bush, are notorious for not knowing who is who
in a country. So, forget the details, and go
for a catchall group!
|
| Avenge |
Kill
100X of theirs for each one of ours.
“Iraqi
history is already being written. In revenge
for the brutal killing of four American mercenaries
— for that is what they were — US
Marines carried out a massacre of hundreds of
women and children and guerillas in the Sunni
Muslim city of Fallujah. The US military says
that the vast majority of the dead were militants.
Untrue, say the doctors. But the hundreds of
dead, many of whom were indeed civilians, were
a shameful reflection on the rabble of American
soldiery who conducted these undisciplined attacks
on Fallujah.”
—Robert Fisk, “By endorsing Ariel
Sharon’s plan George Bush has legitimised
terrorism”, The Independent, April 16,
2004.
NB:
the principle of avenging the occupier’s
losses by collective punishment is a war crime.
In Lidice during World War II, Germans killed
at least 172 civilians to “avenge”
some of their own, and this was considered a
war crime. In Fallujah, the killing of four
mercenaries has resulted in “hundreds”
of Iraqi civilians killed. Ariel Sharon would
approve.
|
| Baathist
loyalists |
Another
convenient bogey group.
If
the US rejects “Islamic” groups,
“Baathists”, … who is left?
NB: “Baathists” could be either
the nationalists who the CIA
helped assassinate in the 1960s or the ones
who joined the thugs who killed the former group.
The persecuted Baathists (those who opposed
Saddam) may have a legitimate grudge against
the US, the others were the US’s SOBs.
“Evidently,
the CIA
helped bring Saddam Hussein’s thuggish
party to power and fatally weakened the prospects
for Iraqi democracy. Some reliable sources believe
that more than ten thousand were killed and
more than a hundred thousand arrested in the
coup and the bloody weeks that followed, described
by historians Peter and Marion Sluglett […]
as ‘some of the most terrible violence
hitherto experienced in the postwar Middle East’.”
—Hanna Batatu, “CIA
Lists Provide Basis for Iraqi Bloodbath”,
1978.
|
| Barrel
of the gun |
Whose
guns?
“Last
week, in the middle of the growing chaos in
Iraqi cities, Bremer savagely denounced groups
‘who think power in Iraq should come out
of the barrel of a gun’. He was not apparently
referring to the US and British armed forces
who seized power in Iraq (and put him into his
powerful post) entirely and exclusively by sustained
use of the barrels of thousands of guns…”
—Paul Foot, “The beam in Bremer’s
eye”, The Guardian, April
14, 2004.
|
| Casualties |
American
casualties of course.
Casualties used to refer to both dead and wounded.
The Pentagon’s reporting of “casualties”
only pertains to the fatalities; the wounded don’t
count in its grisly accounting. |
| Ceasefire |
War
by other means.
“With
the ‘ceasefire,’ large-scale bombing
was rare. With a halt in major bombing, the
Americans weren’t attacking with heavy
artillery but primarily with snipers.”
—Raul Mahajan, “Report from Fallujah
– Destroying a Town in Order to Save it”,
April 12, 2004.
|
| Civilian
contractors |
Mercenaries.
There
are more mercenaries in Iraq today than there
are British soldiers – an estimated 40,000
“security contractors”. The ads
in back section of Soldier of Fortune,
the trade magazine for literate mercenaries,
indicate boom times for the profession.
|
| Cleanse |
Massacre.
“It
is critical that we cleanse the Iraqi body politic
of the poison that remains here after 35 years
of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian rule.”
—Dan Senor (assistant to the US proconsul),
April 12, 2004. Commenting on the US Marine
attack against Fallujah and Najaf.
NB:
Fallujah and Najaf were known for their opposition
to Hussein, hardly a “poison”. |
| Coalition |
“token
hangers-on” (John Pilger, Apr. 1, 2004)
“Coalition”
only when it suits the Americans. When it comes
to reporting casualties, only those of the US
military are reported. When it comes to apportioning
juicy contracts, US companies get the lion’s
share. What do the “coalition” members
think about this? The British are complaining
that they aren’t even consulted –
they dearly would like to play second fiddle.
|
| Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) |
American
Occupation Authority.
“Coalition”?
Only when it suits them. Provisional? It is
starting to look rather permanent.
|
| Democracy |
One
warlord, one vote.
Hand-picked
satraps willing to sign off on the occupation
of Iraq, the plundering of its resources, and
the construction of several military bases.
It
is rather odd that while the US calls on the
Middle East to “democratize”, it
was actively involved in overthrowing the democratically
elected gov’t of Haiti. Here the US armed,
trained and funded an armed gang led by death
squad leaders to mount the coup. So much for
respect for democracy; in the American version
even death squad leaders may apply.
|
| Devastating
intellect |
Ebullient
accolades
“Bremer
was described in a special Financial Times
profile last week as ‘an imposing figure
with a devastating intellect’.”
—Paul Foot, “The beam in Bremer’s
eye”, Guardian, April 14, 2004.
It
will be rather amusing to see what the FT will
say when Bremer is replaced. The countdown for
the sacking of Bremer has begun, and John Negroponte
has already been slated as his likely replacement.
Negroponte’s experience in running the
contras against Nicaragua, and his years as
proconsul in Honduras give him impeccable credentials.
He is another “intellect that devastates”.
|
| Elections |
Sometime
in the future when Iraq is ready for democracy.
The
Americans want “stability” first,
and then, after a sufficiently long trial period,
there may be “elections”. Of course,
the US remains the sole arbiter of whether or
not Iraq is “stable.”
|
| End
of major combat operations |
May
1, 2003, the start of the occupation of Iraq. |
| Extremist |
Anyone
opposing the American occupation. |
| Eye-raq |
Iraq.
Even
after several years obsessed with Iraq the president
and most of his entourage mispronounce the name
of the country.
|
| Flashpoints |
Cities
where Iraqis have risen against occupation.
“Flashpoints”
is the BBC’s
favorite term when referring to the conflict
in Iraq. When referring to the Israeli occupied
territories it uses “hotspots”.
Contrast this with the BBC’s
language used a month ago when referring to
the armed gang mounting a coup against a democratically
elected government in Haiti. Here “towns
rose against Aristide’s oppressive rule.”
Never mind that death squad leaders and people
accused of mass crimes led the rebels in taking
over cities, brutalizing the population.
|
| Foreigners |
Look
who is talking!
“
‘Meanwhile, a U.S. Marine commander said
not all the fighters in the Iraqi city of Fallujah
are Iraqis.’ Lt. Gen James Conway, the
Marine commander in Fallujah, said there are
some foreign fighters in Fallujah — and
he indicates they may have been there for a
while.”
—BBC
Online, April 7, 2004.
Someone
should point out to the gentleman that he is
a foreigner too. And is it a justification to
attack a city?
“
‘Foreign fighters’ were now in the
battle, according to the US Secretary of State
Donald Rumsfeld. The US media went along with
this nonsense, even though not a single al-Qa’ida
operative has been arrested in Iraq and of the
8,500 ‘security detainees’ in American
hands, only 150 appear to be from outside Iraq.
Just 2 per cent.”
—Robert Fisk, “A war that was founded
on lies and illusions has one simple truth:
Iraqis do not want us”, The Independent,
Apr. 9, 2004.
|
| Gathering
threats |
Creating
threats.
“Mr
Bush also said that the lesson of those attacks
had been that America had to deal with ‘gathering
threats’ before they came to fruition,
a policy that catalysed the US-led invasion
of Iraq.”
—BBC
Online, April 14, 2004.
American
policy is not so much about responding to “gathering
threats”, but rather one of “sowing
and reaping the threats.”
|
| Handover
of power |
Cosmetic
rebranding of the occupation |
| Hearts
and Minds |
Mr.
Niceguy only if there is stability.
“Winning
hearts and minds from behind the safe walls
of Saddam’s palaces, or in an armoured
vehicle, is impossible. Yet given the level
of risk, we may be now moving to a turning point
in the conduct of operations. If the insurgency
provokes the coalition forces, then the steady
progress to a peaceful democracy in Iraq will
be halted. Without a clear, agreed political
process, army commanders will argue for priority
to go to the safety of their own troops.”
—Tim Garden, “Coalition forces fight
a losing battle to win the peace”, The
Guardian, April 6, 2004.
“To
win hearts and minds, America needs to turn
on the lights, provide clean water, give people
jobs and impose law and order. But hardly any
of this has happened because Bush administration-connected
firms such as Halliburton and Bechtel have stolen
the vast majority of the money allocated for
such tasks.”
—Christian Parenti, “Autopsy of
a Failed Occupation”, AlterNet.org, April
14, 2004.
|
| Improving |
Things
are actually getting worse.
One
of the justifications for the continued occupation
is to help Iraq emerge as a prosperous country.
Unfortunately, things are only getting worse.
Almost a year of occupation and most of the
country doesn’t have electricity, the
health system has almost collapsed and so on.
Of
course, if one questions what is happening on
the ground, then one becomes a “naysayer”.
|
| Iraqi
Governing Council (IGC) |
Satraps
in waiting.
On
April 10th, one IGC
member complained that they had not been consulted
on the American onslaught against Fallujah and
Najaf. So much for “governing” or
“council”.
|
| Kill
or Capture |
Dead
or alive.
Wild
west terminology utilized by CentCom
spokesmen when stating their intentions in finding
the cleric Moqtada Sadr. NB: Sadr’s father
is highly revered in Iraq, and the family is
renowned for its opposition to Hussein. Of course,
this ramboism is acceptable due to the inherent
anti-Islamic prejudice of the occupiers –
to them, the cleric is a mere “raghead”.
|
| Nation
building (aka Peace building) |
Building
neo-colonial institutions.
“What
the imperialists term ‘nation-building’
or ‘peace-building’ refers to the
need to construct and uphold a political and
social regime in the ‘post-war’,
or more accurately, post-military intervention
scenario. It entails a qualitatively more intensive
modality of engagement characterized by acute
micro-management of the proxy government. According
to the Rand Corporation’s best practices
study, ’nation-building’ is not
primarily about rebuilding a country’s
economy, but about transforming its political
institutions.”
—Alejandro Bendaña (Former Nicaraguan
representative to the UN), “Nicaragua’s
And Latin America’s ‘Lessons’
For Iraq”, FocusWeb.org, April 8, 2004.
“[The
Office of the Secretary of Defense] recently
took unqualified possession of the emerging
American way of war, and began supplanting the
traditional grammar of war with a new one. However,
this new grammar-which focuses on achieving
rapid military victories-was equipped only to
win battles, not wars. Hence, the successful
accomplishment of the administration’s
goal of building a democratic government in
Iraq, for example, is still in question, with
an insurgency growing rapidly.”
—Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria, “Toward
an American Way of War”, Strategic Studies
Institute, March 2004.
Even
the military find that although having won the
battle they may well lose the war. Obviously,
some are questioning Rumsfeld’s “grammar”.
|
| Not
Flinch |
The
British version of “resolve”.
“I
will not flinch from historic Iraq fight”
—Tony Blair, The Observer, April
11, 2004.
Nothing
like suggesting that others have to continue
fighting. This was appropriately uttered when
Blair was in Bermuda.
|
| Pacification |
Counterinsurgency
warfare.
“By
its heavy hand, and growing Iraqi recognition
of its intention to dominate, the United States
has stoked an insurgency that has been growing
by leaps and bounds. The only Bush administration
answer to this development is the application
of more force. When applied to a revolt deeply
rooted in the civilian population this means
counterinsurgency war, with lavish use of deadly
weapons, and therefore escalating civilian casualties.
So, added on to an initial war of aggression
we are now descending into a war of pacification.
This will involve a further destruction of Iraq
in order to save it — for Western ends
and to save the Bush election campaign.”
—Edward Herman, “We Had To Destroy
[Fill in Country Name] In Order To Save It”,
Swans.com, April 12, 2004
|
| Peacekeepers |
Occupation
troops |
| Radical
cleric |
Convenient
oxymoron. Someone who can galvanize the resistance. |
| Reconstruction |
Getting
the oil to flow.
When
a CentCom
spokesman was recently (April) asked where one
could view a reconstruction project that directly
benefited the Iraqi population, he couldn’t
name one! Most of the reconstruction projects
are centered on the oil industry.
“One
U.S. journalist found that many reconstruction
projects that had allegedly been ‘rebuilt’
had in reality barely been touched. One ‘repaired’
school was overflowing with raw sewage. When
I visited Ramadi and Fallujah in January, people
on both towns were angry about chronic water
and electricity shortages. Power plants, telephone
exchanges and sewage systems all remain looted
and bombed out. According to the NGO CorpWatch,
only 10 percent of Halliburton’s initial
$2.2 billion in contracts has been spent on
meeting community needs.”
—Christian Parenti, “Autopsy of
a Failed Occupation”, AlterNet.org, April
14, 2004.
|
| Resolve |
Pigheaded
stubbornness.
A
distinct unwillingness to recognize that errors
have been made, and that to withdraw conveys
a sign of “weakness”. To withdraw
while conveying a “sign of strength”,
then the US would have to follow Sharon’s
example in withdrawing from Gaza. In the case
of Gaza, this involved transforming it into
a giant prison camp, assassinating leaders,
stopping the delivery of emergency food…
|
| Shia
circle |
New
CNN military analyst terminology.
Just
like the “Sunni triangle” [q.v.],
these terms convey the impression these areas
are tiny and thus no cause for concern. The
people living there are “a small minority.”
There is never a need to mention how many people
live there.
|
| Silent
majority |
Pretense
that most Iraqis support the occupation.
While
the White House is doing its best to allay comparisons
with Vietnam, it chooses to resurrect one of
Nixon’s favorite terms to justify the
continuation of the Vietnam War. Nixon claimed
that the silent majority favored the war. Just
as it was a bogus argument then, it is a bogus
argument now.
|
| Slight
uptick |
Military
terminology for an insurrection.
“Things
are getting worse, much worse in Iraq. Yesterday’s
horrors proved that. Yet just a day earlier,
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, […],
assured us that there was only an ‘uptick’
in violence in Iraq. Not a sudden wave of violence,
mark you, not a down-to-earth increase, not
even a ‘spike’ in violence –
another of the general’s favourite expressions.
No, just a teeny-weeny, ever-so small, innocent
little ‘uptick’. In fact, he said
it was a ‘slight uptick’.”
— Robert Fisk, “Things are getting
much worse. It’s not just a ‘spike’
or an ‘uptick’ in violence”,
The Independent, April 1, 2004.
|
| Small
minority; aka extremists |
Majority
opposed to occupation
“Among
the more laughable assertions of the Bush administration
is that the mujaheddin are a small group of
isolated ‘extremists’ repudiated
by the majority of Fallujah’s population.
Nothing could be further from the truth.”
—Raul Mahajan, “Report from Fallujah
– Destroying a Town in Order to Save it”,
April 12, 2004.
|
| Sovereignty |
Neo-Colonization.
“Today
the Free Press is refusing to look beneath the
claim of an intention to grant ‘sovereignty’
and to transfer power to Iraqis on June 30th,
to see the ways in which a US military presence
and veto power and constraints on the Iraq constitution
and law would give this country continued domination.”
—Edward Herman, “We Had To Destroy
[Fill in Country Name] In Order To Save It”,
Swans.com, April 12, 2004
|
| Stability |
A
quiet occupation.
When
Iraqis submit and are silent about their lot,
and when the media stop reporting it, then Iraq
may be deemed “stable”.
“Stability”
is also a justification for continued occupation
– if the US forces leave, then anarchy
will break out, and “even the Iraqis don’t
want that.” This overlooks the fact that
most Iraqis already live without security, electricity,
clean water, proper jobs, press freedom…
To call this situation anarchic would give anarchy
a bad connotation.
|
| Success |
Causing
an insurrection or a high body count.
“The
chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff [Gen.
Myers] said Thursday that the deadly insurgency
that flared this month is ‘a symptom of
the success that we’re having here in
Iraq’ and an effort to undermine the country’s
transition to self-government.”
—Sewell Chan, “General Calls Insurgency
in Iraq a Sign of U.S. Success”, Washington
Post, April 16, 2004.
Echo
from Vietnam: the General sharpened his teeth
in Vietnam where a high body count was considered
a “success”.
Echoes
from Gaza:
“…
this operation was a great success.”
—Ariel Sharon, Oct 2002, commenting on
the bombing of the Khan Yunis refugee camp where
a one-ton bomb dropped by a F16 killed 14 and
wounded 80 Palestinians.
|
| Sunni
triangle |
CNN
terminology for another small minority.
“And,
as the attacks against US forces increased around
Fallujah and other Sunni Muslim cities, we were
told this area was the ‘Sunni triangle’,
even though it is much larger than that implies
and has no triangular shape.”
—Robert Fisk, “A war that was founded
on lies and illusions has one simple truth:
Iraqis do not want us”, The Independent,
Apr. 9, 2004.
The
use of words like “triangle” has
much to do with the “military experts”
who draw lines on maps for the BBC
or CNN. See Shia circle.
|
| Terrorism |
The
violence of the resistance.
When
US generals and Rumsfeld complain about violence
against US troops, the label “terrorism”
sounds increasingly hollow. NB: violence against
a fully armed occupation force is not
terrorism.
|
| Thugs
& terrorists |
Demonizing
the bogeymen.
“Donald
Rumsfeld claims that the resistance is just
a few ‘thugs, gangs and terrorists’.
This is dangerous wishful thinking. The war
against the occupation is now being fought out
in the open, by regular people defending their
homes and neighbourhoods – an Iraqi intifada.”
—Naomi Klein, “An Iraqi intifada”,
The Guardian, April 12, 2004.
|
| Trafficability
problem |
The
Iraqis travel to other cities in Iraq.
Term
used by a CNN military analyst
to refer to the possibility that Iraqi resistance
fighters may join the pilgrimages to travel
to other “flashpoints”.
“With
the pilgrimages we have a trafficability problem.”
— Kelly McCann, Military Annalyst, CNN,
April 11, 2004.
|
| UN |
Occupation
with blue window dressing.. |
| Unshakable
resolve |
Weaponized
obtuseness |
| Vietnam |
Yes,
quagmire.
“[President
Bush] dismissed as ‘false’ comparisons
between the fighting in Iraq and the bloody
Vietnam War which embroiled the US three decades
ago. ‘I also happen to think that analogy
sends the wrong message to our troops and sends
a wrong message to the enemy,’ he added.”
—BBC
Online, April 14, 2004
It
is not an issue of “message”, it
is an issue of evaluating what this war was
about, and what the American occupation of Iraq
is trying to accomplish. Resistance to the creation
of an American-subservient regime implies that
the analogy with Vietnam is useful.
The
comparison with Vietnam has more to do with
references to quagmire but little else. However,
there are many differences, and a striking one
dealt with the logic of continuing both wars.
In the case of Vietnam, there was an ongoing
ideological and realpolitik logic to the pursuit
of victory. What is different about Iraq, and
the American public in particular, is the lack
of resentment/reaction once the paper thin justifications
for war were debunked.
|
| Volunteer
army |
Professional
army |
Some
“forbidden” propaganda topics
The
list of media neglected topics is long. There are
innocent sounding items like the temperature in Iraq
that are suddenly “suspended” during the
summer. Knowing that US troops work in conditions
that seriously endanger their health and safety are
similarly being suppressed. What happens to the Iraqi
population in similar conditions is rarely mentioned.
The parallel to Vietnam is worth noting; while there
was some mention of the effects of Agent Orange on
American military, there were an insignificant number
of reports on the effects on the local population.
In Iraq, the same media-reporting syndrome is prevalent.
| Media
Neglected topics: |
Explanation |
| Gulf
War syndrome |
Recently
it was found that some soldiers already have been
afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome. This syndrome
killed more soldiers after the 1991 war
than during the hot war. Will this happen again? |
| Iraqi
prisoners or “detainees” |
No
lists are kept or made available to family members
of prisoners – they don’t know if
the person is a prisoner or has “disappeared”.
The same thing happened during Hussein’s
era. Source: May-Ying Welsh, FlashPoints.net,
April 13, 2004. |
| Iraqi
casualties |
This
is certainly a revealing gem:
“As
the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city
of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been
one of the only news networks broadcasting from
the inside, relaying images of destruction and
civilian victims – including women and
children. But when CNN anchor
Daryn Kagan interviewed the network’s
editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday –
a rare opportunity to get independent information
about events in Fallujah – she used the
occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the
civilian deaths were really ‘the story’
in Fallujah.”
—FAIR,
April 14, 2004.
|
| Depleted
Uranium – affecting Iraqis. |
There
has been some mention of DU effects on US soldiers,
but no in-depth investigation of the effects on
Iraqis. |
| Nature
of diseases afflicting Iraqis |
Iraqi
doctors are dealing with an epidemic of water
borne diseases, and have trouble coping with this. |
| The
school curriculum |
Old
textbooks are out, or at least the photo of Hussein
removed. Several odd groups are supplying books
of unknown provenance or with a dubious message. |
| Temperature
in summer |
Last
year the summertime temperatures in Baghdad were
censored in the US Free Press. Are temperatures
in excess of 50C somehow provocative? |
| Torture |
Some
Iraqis have been killed while in US custody, and
their bodies showed signs of torture. So, has
the US hired former regime torturers or are they
employing their own? |
| Remuneration
of soldiers and pensions |
Scant
attention is given to the remuneration of soldiers
and their spouses. Some of the spouses of the
soldiers survive on food stamps! The pension or
compensation paid to the survivors is pitiful. |
| Electricity
or water supplies |
There
are no statistics on the capacity availability
of the electrical or water supply systems. |
| Oil
production |
How
many millions of barrels are being pumped, and
what is happening to the proceeds? Who is auditing
this? |
| Assassination
of intellectuals |
There
is a spate of assassinations or kidnappings of
well-known intellectuals. The warnings/threats
against such people appear in the US-funded newspaper.
What is behind this? |
| Cost |
Last
year estimates for the cost of the occupation
ran at US$4bn/month. Given that there is active
resistance, what is the cost now? |
| The
Israelization of US military tactics |
Israelis
boast that the US is applying its tactics in Iraq.
Given that several of these practices amount to
war crimes, then what are the implications for
the US? Is the US implementing “targeted
assassinations”, torture, house demolitions…?
And why not employ the real thing – getting
Israelis to fight this war? |
| Increasing
oil prices. |
While
the war was also meant to safeguard oil reserves,
why has the price of oil risen? |
| The
mercenary industry |
Elite
soldiers around the world are abandoning their
units and joining the mercenary operators in Iraq.
The British note that it costs US$3m to train
one of its elite troops (SAS),
and they are upset that they have been recruited
by the merc-companies. On average, soldiers working
as mercenaries earn more than 20X their standard
army wages (tax free). So, are the national armies
going to be replaced by the corporate mercenary
armies? |
The
Graveyard of Justifications
The
list of justifications for the war and the subsequent
occupation keeps expanding. Every time a justification
is demolished, another one is produced. Here is a
brief list of justifications that have been demolished,
and a few that are rarely discussed.
| Justification
| What
happened to it…
|
| WMD |
Safely
disposed of. |
| Terror |
Bogus
from the beginning. If anything, US actions are
causing terrorism. |
| Freedom |
“Two
nights ago, this most dangerous man, George
Bush, talked about ‘freedom in Iraq’.
Not ‘democracy’ in Iraq. No, ’democracy’
was no longer mentioned. ‘Democracy’
was simply left out of the equation. Now it
was just ‘freedom’ — freedom
from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections.
And what is this ’freedom’ supposed
to involve? One group of American-appointed
Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed
Iraqis. That will be the ‘historic handover’
of Iraqi ‘sovereignty’. Yes, I can
well see why George Bush wants to witness a
‘handover’ of sovereignty. ‘Our
boys’ must be out of the firing line —
let the Iraqis be the sandbags.”
—Robert Fisk, “By endorsing Ariel
Sharon’s plan George Bush has legitimised
terrorism”, The Independent, April 16,
2004.
|
| Democracy |
See
“freedom”. |
| Stability |
US
actions are provoking the opposite |
| Liberation |
Only
liberating the oil production. The occupation
clearly indicates that Iraqis will be under an
American yoke for some time. |
| Support
our troops |
We
don’t hear this one anymore. This was a
pretext to get those opposed to the war to shut
up during the war. |
| Religious
tolerance |
“We
are locked in an historic struggle in Iraq.
Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more
than the ‘power of America’ that
would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious
tolerance would be snuffed out.”
—Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.
This
statement was uttered the same week the Americans
sought to “kill or capture” the
cleric M. Sadr.
|
| The
Iraqis wanted the Americans to intervene |
There
are an increasing number of polls trying to prove
that Iraqis were in favor of the war or are doing
“better” now (even without electricity).
The value of these polls is dubious, and even
so, it is clear that Iraqis want the Americans
to leave. |
| Oil |
Although
this motivation reigns supreme, it is curious
why the Free Press barely manages to question
the Bush regime about this. And why would the
US have to conquer Iraq to be able to buy oil? |
| Military
bases and “power projection” |
There
are seven military bases planned at present. |
| Supporting
Israel |
Finally,
Philip Zelikow, a Bush advisor, revealed that
the US-Iraq war was launched to “protect
Israel”. The Free Press did not follow up
on this, nor have questions arisen why Israelis
aren’t fighting this war. “Israel:
America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle
East” is starting to ring rather hollow
(especially at US$6bn+/year). |
| Corporate
interests |
With
few exceptions, the role of the large American
corporations in promoting the war has not been
investigated. |
More
Glossaries!
Tracking
the doublespeak is an amusing way to understand the
state of the American empire. Having written a few
of these, and having compiled hundreds of propaganda
terms, the following patterns about this language
emerge.
- The
terminology changes constantly. When propagandists
discover a contradiction in the terminology yielding
negative connotations, the terms will be immediately
renewed. An interesting example is the naming of
the grotesque wall surrounding portions of the West
Bank. Initially, it was named “separation
fence” – with an emphasis on fence,
indicating something fragile and moveable. The “separation”
part was unfortunate because it implies “apartheid”,
and for propagandists this was anathema. The replacement
term was “security fence”. And now the
Israeli propagandists are pushing “terrorist
prevention security fence”… The last
one is over the top, too long and transparent –
it will be replaced.
- Another
curious aspect of this emerging terminology is the
willing participation of “journalists”
in propagating the propagandist’s favored
terms. For example, the BBC’s
James Reynolds’ states: “It used to
be called the security fence but officials felt
that the name did not work abroad. So now the barrier
has a new official name ‘the terrorism prevention
fence’ ” [2]. No worries, from now on
this “journalist” will parrot the latest
terminology concocted by his Israeli handlers.
- It
is evident from the “talking points”
generated by various media consultants that new
terminology is tried out on focus groups, and much
attention is paid to its “framing”.
When circumstances change, or a term becomes transparent
to a public, it will be replaced soon.
- One
would expect an educated public to resist the abuse
of language and the intended manipulation, and that
such propaganda would not be effective. Maybe subtlety
would be required to not arouse hostility among
the target audience. However, instead of a tendency
towards subtlety, we witness the opposite! Propaganda
terminology even borrows from colonial/imperial
terminology of yesteryear. Propagandists don’t
even worry about having American policies labeled
as “imperialism”. Part of the reason
for this has to do with the self-referential nature
of news media. That is, a statement read by a reporter
from the White House lawn is considered news. The
terminology used has little to do with conditions
on the ground in, say, Iraq. When people are not
aware what is happening in Iraq, the terminology
used can even mimic colonial jargon – it doesn’t
seem to matter.
- It
is surprising how the propaganda jargon generated
by the US in Iraq resembles the terms Israeli propagandists
have used over the years. There are many “civilian”
terms used to cover over a military occupation.
For example, Israelis used “civil administration”
to refer to the military occupation; the Americans
use similar civilian terminology in Iraq. Both Israel
and the US attempt to portray their occupations
as benign and even enlightened (nation building,
reform, etc.). On the military front, the US is
recycling Israeli doublespeak at the same time that
it is adopting the dubious and often bankrupt Israeli
tactics. One awaits the use of “targeted assassinations”,
“administrative detentions”, and so
on in Iraq. The tactics are shared, and the terminology
will certainly follow.
| Glossaries |
description |
| Glossary
of Occupation |
Discusses
common terminology used when referring to the
Israeli occupied territories. |
| Glossary
of Warmongering |
Discusses
the terminology prevalent during the months leading
up to the US-Iraq war. |
| A
War Weasel Word Watch |
The
second half of this article discusses the terminology
used during the US-Iraq war. |
Endnotes
[1]
“US Military Keeps Track of Some, If Not All,
Civilian Casualties in Iraq”, MemoryHole.
[2]
James Reynolds, "Sharon prepares barrier defence,"
BBC
Online, Jan. 18, 2004.
Paul
de Rooij is a writer living in London, and can be
reached at proox@hotmail.com (all attachments will
be automatically deleted.)
©2004
Paul de Rooij.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
