|
Literary Review
Selling war and death
|
The war on Iraq was also a battle for the mind of TV viewers. Controlled by the media, the individual can accept the message blindly, or react creatively and critically, says SHELLEY WALIA.
|
IDEOLOGY is firmly embedded in political manifestoes, in genderlects, in sociolects with nothing put across as transparently as it seems. The challenge to the mainstream corporate media, the propaganda offensive, and the psychological war comes from the creative aspect behind individualistic usage of language. This innovative use of language is subject to social conditioning with an ideological underpinning, but any thinking and politically conscious individual aware of the question of freedom, can imaginatively deconstruct social texts in a radical manner. Controlled and coerced by authority and media, the individual either accepts the message blindly and unthinkingly, or reacts creatively and critically because he understands dominance.
The investigation of political ideologies leads to the understanding of the subterranean agenda of a government. Therefore, the study of political ideologies becomes a major focus for political analysis and the understanding of writings that reveal the strategies employed for "manufacturing consent" with the sole aim of self-promotion. Spin doctoring, image management and media manipulation are geared to influence the public opinion for the so-called legitimacy of its state policies. The changing role and nature of ideologies in politics and the exploration of the practical manifestations of ideological frameworks in public policy throws light on the forms of political thinking that take place in a society.
Thus should we believe the fiction of statistics we are daily fed by our leaders? Blatant deception by Tony Blair after the Camp David talks between him and Bush regarding the death of 400,000 Iraqi children owing to Saddam's murderous instincts ignored the real reason for this humanitarian tragedy; the real world is well aware of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by western nations that mainly is the cause of the deaths. The invaders are so self-righteously termed as "coalition forces" whereas they are nothing but Anglo-American with a negligible contingent of 2000 Australian and 200 Polish forces thrown in. As Arundhati Roy points out in a recent interview, "Freedom means mass murder now. In the U.S., it means fried potatoes (freedom fries). Liberation means invasion and occupation. When you hear the words `humanitarian aid', it's advisable to look around for induced starvation. We all know what collateral damage means." The western corporate media is indeed vital to the success of the government. It so tactfully can even sell war and death. The death of civilians in Baghdad is blamed on faulty Iraqi missiles that take of and, instead of hitting the enemy target, fall back into the city. And if civilians die in Basra, they are killed by the Iraqi soldiers to prevent them from running away. As an Indian journalist argues, "But who wants the truth?" All news becomes entertainment, and entertainment news and we live under the cultural and political hegemony of the telescoped image that continuously redefines our unfolding history, and the ideological apparatus of the state machinery. Rhetoric aids in the colonisation of the mind. "Sir Galahad", the British ship carries not only humanitarian aid, as is conveyed by the "embedded journalists" but is partly loaded with "weapons of mass destruction" owned by the coalition forces. And al-Qaeda is not that much of a serious threat as is made out to be; had it been a strong organisation, argues Perry Anderson, "it would have aimed its blows at client states of America in the Middle East, where the overthrow of a regime would make a potential difference, rather than at America itself, where it could not leave so much as a strategic pinprick". A dubious web of deceit invades our living room showing how human communication tools contain intricate and strategically useful narratives that intend to influence the minds of the subject.
Nicholas D. Kristof writing in the New York Times maintains: "Mr. Bush hounds cabinet members to give interviews to Al Jazeera television, a new White House office flatters foreign reporters by spinning them, and the U.S. began Radio Sawa to seduce Iraqis and other Arabs with sirens like Jennifer Lopez. The brilliant system of embedding journalists in U.S. military units includes Arab journalists." "By improving the way you get your message across, you have the ability to save lives," notes Jim Wilkinson, a former White House press official who is running the Central Command's P.R. campaign. Apparently it is only a campaign of the U.S. media to get a worldwide approval. In an expensively constructed press room in Qatar, a black Brigadier General Vincent Brooks gives the U.S. version of the war which is instantaneously translated into Arabic for the benefit of the journalists from Al Jazeera who occupy the front row. The propaganda of Bush is not all that subtle. A man on the street can see through it. As Kristof points out, "Fundamentally, the administration's overseas efforts resemble those of the Chinese Communist Party: excellent effort, lousy execution."
For instance, let us take a look at the doublespeak of American foreign policy. How ideology works becomes clear from the statement made by Antol Lieven, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC: the Bush administration's efforts conform to "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism" through fear of external enemies. The fear is false and the desire to dominate the world is the only motivation. The world seems to have become a more dangerous place to live in for Bush, thus creating a widespread sense of foreboding that goes further than any foreseeable threat from al-Qaeda. Military superiority gives it the confidence of a state apparatus that can enable the country to rule the world without any "peer competitor" or antagonists as well as maintain a particular way of life. It is clear that the Republican ideology here convinces the people of the urgency of a war, which is nothing but a diversionary tactic to supersede the sagging economy with the war effort at a time when the congressional elections are around the corner. Chomsky is of the view that "Ever since the September 11 attacks, Republicans have used the terrorist threat as a pretext to push a right-wing political agenda". It would be naive to believe that the U.S. has any altruistic intentions in its argument of giving democracy to Iraq and liberation to the people from the tyranny of Saddam as well as remove weapons of mass destruction. Clearly the aim is to establish a base in West Asia and even if Saddam was to disappear, the war would still have come.
The imperial ambition of acquiring the rich oil wealth of Iraq as well as its geopolitical strategic worth goes back to the 1940s, and 9/11 has given the U.S. the pretext to execute the long cherished goals. People begin to believe that there is a threat from Iraq, and the administration through media control goes ahead with public approval to destroy Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding the fallout of a terrorist retaliation and the possibility of a nuclear Armageddon. The warning "that U.S. adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as terror, for deterrence or revenge" has gone unheeded. And the threat posed by Saddam is an eyewash considering the depletion of Iraq's economic and military strength over the last decade; in all probability it is the weakest nation in West Asia and the neighbours harbour no worries about any future threat from Iraq. Undoubtedly, Saddam was far more dangerous when Reagan backed him in the past, and now the same recycled Reaganites in the Bush camp want to hound him owing to an altered agenda. And a potential humanitarian disaster has been no deterrence to the war. Chomsky is of the view that war is avoidable, "unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like that justification has come forward".
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Literary Review
|
