HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
War on Truth
by
John Pilger
August
2, 2003
In
Baghdad, the rise and folly of rapacious imperial power is commemorated in a
forgotten cemetery called the North Gate. Dogs are its visitors; the rusted
gates are padlocked, and skeins of traffic fumes hang over its parade of
crumbling headstones and unchanging historical truth.
Lieutenant-General
Sir Stanley Maude is buried here, in a mausoleum befitting his station, if not
the cholera to which he succumbed. In 1917, he declared: "Our armies do
not come...as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." Within three
years, 10,000 had died in an uprising against the British, who gassed and
bombed those they called "miscreants". It was an adventure from which
British imperialism in the Middle East never recovered.
Every
day now, in the United States, the all-pervasive media tell Americans that
their bloodletting in Iraq is well under way, although the true scale of the
attacks is almost certainly concealed. Soon, more soldiers will have been
killed since the "liberation" than during the invasion. Sustaining the
myth of "mission" is becoming difficult, as in Vietnam. This is not
to doubt the real achievement of the invaders' propaganda, which was the
suppression of the truth that most Iraqis opposed both the regime of Saddam
Hussein and the Anglo-American assault on their homeland. One reason the BBC's
Andrew Gilligan angered Downing Street was that he reported that, for many
Iraqis, the bloody invasion and occupation were at least as bad as the fallen
dictatorship.
This
is unmentionable here in America. The tens of thousands of Iraqi dead and
maimed do not exist. When I interviewed Douglas Feith, number three to Donald
Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, he shook his head and lectured me on the
"precision" of American weapons. His message was that war had become
a bloodless science in the service of America's unique divinity. It was like
interviewing a priest. Only American "boys" and "girls"
suffer, and at the hands of "Ba'athist remnants", a self-deluding
term in the spirit of General Maude's "miscreants". The media echo
this, barely gesturing at the truth of a popular resistance and publishing
galleries of GI amputees, who are described with a maudlin, down-home
chauvinism which celebrates the victimhood of the invader while casting the
vicious imperialism that they served as benign. At the State Department, the
under-secretary for international security, John Bolton, suggested to me that,
for questioning the fundamentalism of American policy, I was surely a heretic,
"a Communist Party member", as he put it.
As
for the great human catastrophe in Iraq, the bereft hospitals, the children
dying from thirst and gastroenteritis at a rate greater than before the
invasion, with almost 8 per cent of infants suffering extreme malnutrition,
says Unicef; as for a crisis in agriculture which, says the Food and
Agriculture Organisation, is on the verge of collapse: these do not exist. Like
the American-driven, medieval-type siege that destroyed hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi lives over 12 years, there is no knowledge of this in America:
therefore it did not happen. The Iraqis are, at best, unpeople; at worst,
tainted, to be hunted. "For every GI killed," said a letter given
prominence in the New York Daily News late last month, "20 Iraqis must be
executed." In the past week, Task Force 20, an "elite" American
unit charged with hunting evildoers, murdered at least five people as they
drove down a street in Baghdad, and that was typical.
The
august New York Times and Washington Post are not, of course, as crude as the
News and Murdoch. However, on 23 July, both papers gave front-page prominence
to the government's carefully manipulated "homecoming" of 20-year-old
Private Jessica Lynch, who was injured in a traffic accident during the
invasion and captured. She was cared for by Iraqi doctors, who probably saved
her life and who risked their own lives in trying to return her to American
forces. The official version, that she bravely fought off Iraqi attackers, is a
pack of lies, like her "rescue" (from an almost deserted hospital),
which was filmed with night-vision cameras by a Hollywood director. All this is
known in Washington, and much of it has been reported.
This
did not deter the best and worst of American journalism uniting to help
stage-manage her beatific return to Elizabeth, West Virginia, with the Times
reporting the Pentagon's denial of "embellishing" and that "few
people seemed to care about the controversy". According to the Post, the
whole affair had been "muddied by conflicting media accounts". George
Orwell described this as "words falling upon the facts like soft snow,
blurring their outlines and covering up all the details". Thanks to the
freest press on earth, most Americans, according to a national poll, believe
Iraq was behind the 11 September attacks. "We have been the victims of the
biggest cover-up manoeuvre of all time," says Jane Harman, a rare voice in
Congress. But that, too, is an illusion.
The
verboten truth is that the unprovoked attack on Iraq and the looting of its
resources is America's 73rd colonial intervention. These, together with
hundreds of bloody covert operations, have been covered up by a system and a
veritable tradition of state-sponsored lies that reach back to the genocidal
campaigns against Native Americans and the attendant frontier myths; and the
Spanish-American war, which broke out after Spain was falsely accused of
sinking an American warship, the Maine, and war fever was whipped up by the
Hearst newspapers; and the non-existent "missile gap" between the US
and the Soviet Union, which was based on fake documents given to journalists in
1960 and served to accelerate the nuclear arms race; and four years later, the
non-existent Vietnamese attack on two American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin
for which the media demanded reprisals, giving President Johnson the pretext he
wanted to bomb North Vietnam.
In
the late 1970s, a silent media allowed President Carter to arm Indonesia as it
slaughtered the East Timorese, and to begin secret support for the mujahedin,
from which came the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In the 1980s, the manufacture of an
absurdity, the "threat" to America from popular movements in Central
America, notably the Sandinistas in tiny Nicaragua, allowed President Reagan to
arm and support terrorist groups such as the Contras, leaving an estimated
70,000 dead. That George W Bush's America gives refuge to hundreds of Latin
American torturers, favoured murderous dictators and anti-Castro hijackers,
terrorists by any definition, is almost never reported. Neither is the work of
a "training school" at Fort Benning, Georgia, whose graduates would
be the pride of Osama Bin Laden.
Americans,
says Time magazine, live in "an eternal present". The point is, they
have no choice. The "mainstream" media are now dominated by Rupert
Murdoch's Fox television network, which had a good war. The Federal
Communications Commission, run by Colin Powell's son Michael, is finally to
deregulate television so that Fox and four other conglomerates control 90 per
cent of the terrestrial and cable audience. Moreover, the leading 20 internet
sites are now owned by the likes of Fox, Disney, AOL Time Warner and a clutch
of other giants. Just 14 companies attract 60 per cent of the time all American
web-users spend online.
The
director of Le Monde Diplomatique, Ignacio Ramonet, summed this up well:
"To justify a preventive war that the United Nations and global public
opinion did not want, a machine for propaganda and mystification, organised by
the doctrinaire sect around George Bush, produced state-sponsored lies with a
determination characteristic of the worst regimes of the 20th century."
Most
of the lies were channelled straight to Downing Street from the 24-hour Office
of Global Communications in the White House. Many were the invention of a
highly secret unit in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, which
"sexed up" raw intelligence, much of it uttered by Tony Blair. It was
here that many of the most famous lies about weapons of mass destruction were
"crafted". On 9 July, Donald Rumsfeld said, with a smile, that
America never had "dramatic new evidence" and his deputy Paul
Wolfowitz earlier revealed that the "issue of weapons of mass
destruction" was "for bureaucratic reasons" only, "because
it was the one reason [for invading Iraq] that everyone could agree on."
The
Blair government's attacks on the BBC make sense as part of this. They are not
only a distraction from Blair's criminal association with the Bush gang, though
for a less than obvious reason. As the astute American media commentator Danny
Schechter points out, the BBC's revenues have grown to $5.6bn; more Americans
watch the BBC in America than watch BBC1 in Britain; and what Murdoch and the
other ascendant TV conglomerates have long wanted is the BBC "checked,
broken up, even privatised...All this money and power will likely become the
target for Blair government regulators and the merry men of Ofcom, who want to
contain public enterprises and serve those avaricious private businesses who
would love to slice off some of the BBC's market share." As if on cue,
Tessa Jowell, the British Culture Secretary, questioned the renewal of the
BBC's charter.
The
irony of this, says Schechter, is that the BBC was always solidly pro-war. He
cites a comprehensive study by Media Tenor, the non-partisan institute that he
founded, which analysed the war coverage of some of the world's leading
broadcasters and found that the BBC allowed less dissent than all of them,
including the US networks. A study by Cardiff University found much the same.
More often than not, the BBC amplified the inventions of the lie machine in
Washington, such as Iraq's non-existent attack on Kuwait with scuds. And there
was Andrew Marr's memorable victory speech outside 10 Downing Street:
"[Tony Blair] said that they would be able to take Baghdad without a
bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both
those points he has been proved conclusively right."
Almost
every word of that was misleading or nonsense. Studies now put the death toll
at as many as 10,000 civilians and 20,000 Iraqi troops. If this does not
constitute a "bloodbath", what was the massacre of 3,000 people at
the twin towers?
In
contrast, I was moved and almost relieved by the description of the heroic Dr
David Kelly by his family. "David's professional life," they wrote,
"was characterised by his integrity, honour and dedication to finding the
truth, often in the most difficult circumstances. It is hard to comprehend the
enormity of this tragedy." There is little doubt that a majority of the
British people understand that David Kelly was the antithesis of those who have
shown themselves to be the agents of a dangerous, rampant foreign power.
Stopping this menace is now more urgent than ever, for Iraqis and us.
John Pilger is a renowned investigative
journalist and documentary filmmaker. This year, Pilger was named the winner of
the Sophie Prize, one of the world's most
distinguished environmental and development prizes. He was also named Media Personality of the Year, at this
year's EMMA awards. His latest book is The New Rulers of the World
(Verso, 2002). Visit John Pilger’s website at: http://www.johnpilger.com