Media handling of Iraq

Matter of interests

by pv vivekanand

BRITON Garry Teeley or American Thomas Hamil or any of the dozens of foreigners captured as hostages in Iraq might have given a second thought to what they were doing when they went to post-war Iraq, whether on business or on military contracts or as servicemen committed to obey orders. Some of them might or might not released soon and could be used as bargaining chips by their captors, thus leading to long sagas of the ordeal of their families and friends back home and the embarassment and dilemma of their government that are now occupying large chunks of international agency reports.
It is indeed the routine followed by Western wire agencies, newspapers and other media outlets to focus on any Westerner whenever he or she is caught in a foreign situation of conflict, facing an uncertain fate, all the more so if the individual happens to be American or British as if Western lives are more precious than others.
A human life is a human life, whether American or Iraqi. But is that the rule that the Western media follow in Iraq?
We have been reports describing the four Americans killed in Falloujah last week as "civilian contractors." There was indeed a deliberate effort to suppress the truth that they were nothing but armed mercenaries who were paid top wages to protect convoys carrying supplies to the US military. They understood their job perfectly well; remove anything and anyone who stood between them and their job and that is why they were carrying guns. No doubt, if they were given a chance, they would have mercilessly slaughtered their Iraqi assailants and lived to tell the tale. It was their misfortune — or calculated risk, if you will — that they did not get a chance to open up with their guns and survive. Cest la vie.
Their bodies were mutilated, dragged through the streets of Fallouja and hung up on a bridge. What cruelty, cried the media. Washington was indignant. How could the Iraqis insult and humilate Americans, even if they are dead, screamed American officials. American pride was hit and damaged, said a few others. I have no dispute with any of their assertions. They are American and that is the way they are supposed to feel, speak and behave in such situations. Nor am I going into any debate over how the Iraqis should or should have behaved (it is not for me to tell them that they should respect the Geneva Conventions and treat American or allied soldiers and those who extend logistic support for them with the respect that military uniforms warrant in a situation of war — we don't even know whether the four were wearing military fatigues or civlian clothes). However, it might be an idea for some of the Western media personnel covering Iraq to present a better picture of the sentiments of the Iraqis today as to why the Fallouja incident in the first place and of the motivations of those Iraqis who dragged the American bodies through the streets.
What followed in the American media was also cest la vie — thousands of words about how the killed Americans were loved fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, how committed and skilled they were in their respective jobs etc.etc. Fair enough. Their families and towns need to know about them, remember them. That is the way American life is all about.
But how many of those newspapers, magazines and agencies cared to focus on how life is for an Iraqi today in Iraq?
With a few exceptions, what we read today is mostly dedicated to highlighting that the suffering of the people of Iraq under US military occupation is the result of either local militants fighting the Americans, "foreign terorrists" who have infiltrated into the country ready to do whatever it takes to make the point that they are fighting the Americans for the sake of fighting the Americans anywhere in the world (Iraq happens to be convenient since the US presence there offers some of the best targets of anti-American "terrorists.")
How many media outlets in the West have bothered to see things from the Iraqi, Arab and Middle Eastern perspective? How many of them could appreciate the frustration, despair and suffering of the people of Iraq? Or that the US military had no business ever to be in Iraq, regardless of Saddam Hussein? Or that if the Iraqis were to be "liberated" from Saddam then the most qualified to do so was the United Nations under a transparent mandate? Or that the American action in Iraq could never been seen in isolation from Washington's "strategic" relations with Israel, which is occupying Arab and Muslim land?
Even worse that their failure to understand the Iraqi situation from an Arab and Muslim perspective is their attempt to laugh off the connection between Iraq and Palestine. Some even implied that Israeli assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was exploited as a propaganda stunt by Moqtada Sadr in a bid to rally supporters. Those who make such assertions know very little or feign to know very little about the inseparability of the situations in Iraq and the overall Arab cause, whether in Palestine or elsewhere.
The people of Iraq do not have to do any research and figure out that their natural resources have had something to do with bringing the American military to rule their country, order them around and impose conditions that are not only alien to their culture, tradition and way of life but also aims at serving American and Israeli interests in the Middle East.
Very few reports in the Western press highlight that it is a war of resistance going on in Iraq. The US media have turned to be cheerleaders of the US military, portraying an image of the American occupation authorities as the legitimate government in Iraq and all those challenging them as bloodthirsty terrorists and militants. The latest coinage to describe them is "rebels" — a term that is by and large used to refer to people who are challenging the legitimacy of a government but definitely not indigeous people fighting a war of resistance against occupying forces.
Then there is perceived scenario of "civil war" in Iraq.
The world defines "civil war" as pitting two or more indigenous groups against each other but not a conflict between occupation forces and local resistance.
In Iraq's case, the term does not apply at all at whatever level as long as the Americans remain in the country since they are a foreign element in the equation and thus the conflict is not confined to Iraqis alone and makes it a civil war. Nor is it like the American military maintaining its presence there to separate warring Iraqi groups. It is very much a party to the entire conflict. The US military might be supported by some Iraqi groups, but those groups would collapse the moment Washington calls of the American military involvement in the country. So, who is going to fight whom in Iraq after a hypothetical American withdrawal? Loyalists of Moqtada Sar pitted against forces loyal to Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani or the so-called pro-Iranian groups in the south or the Sunnis or Kurds elsewhere? Or will it be the Kurds against Turkomen in the north? The Kurds against Sunnis in central Iraq? Or the groups that were in comfortable exile while the Iraqis suffered under Saddam taking on those who challenge their quest for dominance in the country? We don't know. But we do know that what is happening in Iraq is no civil war; it is the expression of defiance and struggle of a people who have seen people who posed as their "liberators" turning to be their oppressors with little care or concern for their problems and issues of daily life.
How did it end up that way? Definitely, that was not the way it was designed. Pre-war American intelligence went wrong in assessing Iraqi sentiments on the street and the administration could not care less when the truth emerged since, by then, the US military had secured control of the country. Most of the US media continued with their "patriotic" reporting, but always basing themselves first on their country's misguided "national security interests" and thus egging the administration while smoke-screening the realities on the ground.
And today we hear American officials accusing Arab media of biased reporting if only because they are asking uncomfortable questions and conveying the realities from an Iraq, Arab and Muslim perspective. What a laugh!!!!
Obviously, Washington has a different sets of rules of conduct, objectivity, accuracy and honesty for the American media and Arab media. But that does not mean the Arab media have to abide by the US-set rules and keep a safe distance from exposing the truth of how the Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims feel and experience from the results of American adventurism and quest for dominance.