 |
The Arab world is in denial.
Posted on 04/10/2003 3:33:42 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
They finally decapitated Saddam Hussein in Baghdad on Wednesday evening, as he stood six metres tall, cast in metal and mounted on marble, in the very heart of Baghdad. His sculpted face was first draped in the star-spangled banner before it was brought low.
For the US, it was a target of opportunity, and one that signaled Washington’s adamantine will to the world. The regime change that the White House had promised and CNN had vowed to bring to viewers live (‘Be the first to know’), is now happening on the streets of Baghdad, amidst the ‘sheer euphoria of the cathartic moment’, as television commentary puts it.
That this sounds a tad hyperbolic, considering that there were at least as many looters as they were those who turned out to cheer the ‘liberating’ M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, is really not of much consequence because everything is unreal about this war.
If Gulf War One was the world’s first televised war, Gulf War Two could well go down in history as the world’s first tele-constructed war, with each broadcasted word and visual deemed a contribution to the US-British war effort.
As Pentagon’s vision melds with television, reality is deconstructed and reconstructed, defined and refined until it takes on the consistency of pre-digested pap and dished out by the ear full and the hour full to audiences around the world, round the clock.
The average American then should be forgiven for believing that this war is nothing but an impressive, 20-day fireworks display on the banks of the Tigris, brought to them courtesy the Pentagon. A trauma-free, roller-coaster ride through Iraq, with fun visuals of Saddam Hussein’s gilded potty thrown in for free.
The myth that smart weapons do not kill innocent civilians —only the bad guys — has all but decommissioned the apparatus of moral outrage in Middle America. None of the visuals that crowd Arab networks, of sobbing fathers hauling the blood-soaked bodies of their six-year-olds to hospitals, of mothers beating their breast in grief, disturbs the peace of suburban homes in San Jose and Jacksonville.
Brief references to casualties come sterilised in phrases like ‘‘mopping up’’ operations or ‘‘precision bombing of targets of opportunity’’.
In fact, if you go strictly by television footage, it would appear that there are two completely different wars being waged in Iraq, a bipolarity that underlines yet again the disturbing disconnect between the Arab street and the West.
It should therefore come as no surprise that even as public anger in West Asia rises steadily, the American public has displayed an uncommon stomach for more. Polls indicate that not only do 77 per cent of all Americans support the decision to go to war, half the US population wants military action against Iran if it continues to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 per cent said that the US should take action against Syria if it is helping Iraq.
The US military juggernaut can thus roll on, unhindered by opposition from the international community, unhampered by Security Council vetoes. The only factor that could have immobilised it — domestic public opinion — has been successfully managed by a combination of soundbites and editing. In this enterprise, what is not seen is almost as important as what is heard.
One of the missing pieces of information is the precise number of civilian casualties that this brutish war has entailed. According to one source, some 1,252 civilians have been killed and 5,103 injured. However, estimations differ widely.
Red Cross personnel have stated that hospitals received hundreds of wounded every day — up to 100 an hour when fighting was at its most intense. Hospital workers in Basra — the site of cluster bombing by British forces — say that they’ve handled 1,000 to 2,000 bodies in the three weeks of war, only some of whom were soldiers, others were women, children and the elderly.
The figure involving US and British military personnel, in contrast, is so low as to be almost negligible — 130 to 150, so far. But then, as those who have studied military history point out, civilian casualties in military conflicts have been on the increase.
In World War I, there was one civilian death for every 20 military deaths. In World War II the ratio had come down to 1:1. By the time Vietnam came along, it was 20 civilians for 1 military death. The latest figures of the Iraq war, with its heavy reliance on aerial bombardment, only shows the trend getting more pronounced.
It will be a while before some conscientious soul puts together a 24-million piece jigsaw and come up with a credible figure for the dead. In the last Gulf War, a 29-year-old demographer in the US Commerce Department called Beth Osborne Daponte tried to do this and almost got fired for her pains.
Daponte’s figures contradicted the stance of then US defence secretary, Richard Cheney, who had just told the world that ‘‘we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred’’ during the fighting ‘‘and may never know’’. Daponte, by sitting with a 1987 volume of the Iraqi census and UN figures, had concluded that 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid and the water system. This figure did not include the 40,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in the conflict. Over time, Daponte has had occasion to refine that figure: According to her, in all some 205,500 Iraqis died in Gulf War I and its aftermath. Her numbers, as she points out, tell an interesting story — that in modern warfare, post-war deaths from adverse health effects account for a large percentage of total deaths. ‘‘In the Gulf War, far more people died from postwar health effects than from direct war effects,’’ said Daponte.
The difference between the earlier war and the present one was that in 1991 it was Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical regime that bore a great part of the responsibility for the holocaust unleashed on the region by having invaded Kuwait in the first place.
This time round, the Bush-Blair duo do not have that alibi, even with their embedded media giving them air support by painting them as ‘‘liberators’’. They have, if they do not know it already, just inherited Saddam Hussein’s old title. It’s they who have become the ‘Butchers of Baghdad’.
|
The Arab world is in denial.
|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!!
This woman obviously doesn't understand that we here in America understand the costs of war, both military and civilian, but it doesn't stop us from doing the right thing.
Perhaps the images of "blood-soaked bodies" and grieving mothers are no more accurate than those of toppled statues and jubilant Iraqi crowds. Why then the sole focus on the negative, the inevitable cost of war, while ignoring its benefits? Why is it your so-called "objective" press is so reluctant to admit any moral value to the coalition effort, yet so quick to defend the depravity of Saddam?
The bias isn't ideological; it's political. There is no philosophical validity to the steady condemnation of this overthrow, since inaction simply tolerates further abuses.
Yes, there is a short-term cost to war. But there is a long-term cost to "peace."
For the record, India is the worlds largest democracy fighting their own islamic terrorists in Pakistan.
Ever wonder why CNN pays no attention to ratings? They pay no attention to domestic ratings. No one else has world ratings.
yitbos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.