Iraq and the Western Media: Sleepwalking through slaughter
Following a week in which TV and newspapers reported the US military’s illegal use of chemical weapons in Iraq, and the employment by the US-backed Iraqi government of torture chambers and paramilitary death squads(1), one might be forgiven for thinking that the media is carrying out the essential task of relaying the information necessary for us to be able to assess our government’s policies. In fact, it is the media’s near total failure to report on the bloodshed caused by our side in the ongoing conflict that keeps many current US-UK government officials in their jobs, if not out of the International Criminal Court on charges of committing war crimes. The reality is that gruesome atrocities continue to be committed by the occupying powers in Iraq, and that these pass with little or no mention in the mainstream media on either side of the Atlantic. As such the media are accessories to these crimes, standing as they do between the criminals and accountability.
Of course, the obstacles facing journalists attempting to report the situation in Iraq are real enough. Veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk (whose work, in the context of the mainstream media, is exceptional in every sense) describes some of the challenges: “When I travel outside Baghdad by road it takes me two weeks to plan it, because the roads are infested with insurgents, checkpoints, hooded men and throat-cutters. If I go to see someone in any particular location, I give myself 12 minutes, because that is how long I reckon it takes a man with a mobile phone to summon gunmen to the scene in a car. So, after 10 minutes I am out. Don't be greedy. That's what reporting is like in Iraq."(2)
In September 2004, Farnaz Fassihi of the Wall Street Journal told friends in an email that “Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest…. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, … can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, …. can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't…… my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive”. Despite its obvious relevance, the fact that reporting from Iraq is so compromised is not something that the media are always keen to broadcast. Fassihi’s email was leaked and, as right-wing bloggers accused her of bias and demanded her recall, the Wall Street Journal quickly announced that she would be going on vacation, and there she remained until after the US presidential election.(3)
Threats to the safety of journalists in Iraq are by no means posed by Iraqis alone. Last month, David Schlesinger, the Reuters global managing editor, wrote to Senator John Warner, head of the US Senate armed services committee, to tell him that the conduct of US forces towards journalists in Iraq is "spiralling out of control" and preventing full coverage of the war reaching the public(4). Schlesinger referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by US forces in Iraq". He said that his and other reputable international news organizations were concerned by the "sizeable and rapidly increasing number of journalists detained by US forces". Such detentions were prompted by legitimate journalistic activity such as possessing photographs and video of insurgents.
Schlesinger told Warner that "By limiting the ability of the media to fully and independently cover the events in Iraq, the US forces are unduly preventing US citizens from receiving information”. One need hardly mention that this does the US-UK governments no harm, given the disastrous state of the occupation. (5)
Once what is left of the story from Iraq reaches the west, having dodged bullets, kidnappers, suicide bombers and the occupying military, it must then overcome perhaps its most formidable obstacle: the filter of the mainstream media. For in truth, what is in short supply is not information from Iraq so much as willingness on the part of the media to convey that information to us; and recent reports of the US military’s use of chemical weapons do not count as evidence to contradict this.
On 16 November 2005, BBC website World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds began his analysis of the debate over the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah by saying that “The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah last year … has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare”.(6) It is true to say that the Pentagon’s admission has opened this debate in the mainstream media. Elsewhere, the debate was opened up somewhat earlier. Eyewitness accounts of the US military’s conduct in Fallujah, all but ignored by the BBC, began to emerge almost immediately after the US attacked the city last November.
On 26 November 2004, independent journalist Dahr Jamail relayed several eyewitness accounts of war crimes committed by US forces, predating Reynolds’ article by almost a year. Amongst them, Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, told Jamail that US forces had used “'weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud,…Then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them.' He said pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns. Phosphorous weapons as well as napalm are known to cause such effects.” (7)
In March 2005, al-Jazeera reported that: "Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujahh." The official reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city." Fallujah residents described how they had seen "melted" bodies in the city, indicative of usage of napalm, a lethal cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that incinerates the human body". (8)
Elsewhere, documentary film-maker Mark Manning conducted videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqis who had witnessed the assualt on the city first-hand. Later, in an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, Manning recounted how he, “had heard numerous reports that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium.” (9)
These were not the only war crimes committed in Fallujah, but again, it would take more than the world’s major news corporations to bring them to our attention. Instead, it was left to people like Dahr Jamail, who relayed eyewitness accounts via his website, for anyone who was able or interested enough to discover it. Jamail interviewed a doctor from Fallujah who had fled to Jordan and spoke only on condition of anonymity:
“During the second week of the siege [US troops] announced that all the families have to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy,” he says.
"“We documented this story with video-a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting ‘Now!’ in English, and shooting started everywhere.”
The family was all carrying white flags, as instructed, according to the young man who gave his testimony. Yet he watched his mother and father shot by snipers-his mother in the head and his father shot in the heart. His two aunts were shot, then his brother was shot in the neck. The man stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he was shot in the side.
“After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm,” continues the doctor, “So after awhile he raised his hand and they shot his hand.”
A six year-old boy of the family was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was then shot.
“Anyone who raised up was shot,” adds the doctor, then added again that he had photographs of the dead as well as photos of the gunshot wounds of the survivors.”(10)
The interviews conducted by Mark Manning contained similar horror stories. Eyewitnesses gave "grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops.”
In March this year, independent watchdog Medialens, asked the BBC whether these specific allegations of US atrocities, in particular the use of banned weapons, were being investigated. The response was that "The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case." But when asked precisely which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of coalition forces in Fallujah, including the above evidence of war crimes, Medialens was ignored.
Meidalens pressed the BBC news to explain why it had paid little attention to the repeated allegations of atrocities, or to the evidence of the use of banned weapons in Fallujah. This time the BBC responded at length, saying that it was aware of the claims and was continually investigating the events in Fallujah, hampered though it was by its movements being restricted for security reasons, and also mentioning a lack of independent verification (as though a plethora of eyewitnesses could be dismissed en masse as not being “independent”). In addition, it said that a BBC correspondent had been embedded with the US Marines and “over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed”.
Medialens asked the BBC to justify the claim that it had "total access to the military operation, at all levels". The response was that “total access meant that [the correspondent] was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into. He was embedded at battalion level but, for instance, he did show up several times (and film) at the colonel's morning meeting with senior staff, where orders were given out. Most importantly, [the correspondent] also attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion, at which there were slides and folders with "Top Secret" stamped all over them”.
Medialens questioned whether this was really quite the same thing as having “total access to the military operation, at all levels". It asked for evidence to support the assertion that the BBC had attended the only eve of battle briefing for the battalion. The BBC’s response was brief: “Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose”. (11)
No doubt any number of survivors from Fallujah could have explained to BBC executives the “useful purpose” of reporting their experiences to British voters and taxpayers.
Finally, almost a year later, the Pentagon was forced to admit that banned weapons had in fact been used in Fallujah, which gave the BBC the permission it needed to discuss the subject. The story had been dragged into the public eye, not for the most part by the mainstream media, but by the tenacity of independent writers and activists who unearthed, investigated and pursued the story until the occupiers were forced to admit their crimes. The BBC and the rest of the media largely assumed the role of spectators, as the use of banned weapons moved from being the justification for deposing Saddam to being the acknowledged modus operandi of the occupying forces. Meanwhile, in the absence of an admission from official sources, accounts of civilian massacres remain strictly off limits. (12)
With so many of the occupation’s crimes airbrushed from the record, the way was clear for the suppression of the ultimate human cost of invading Iraq: the civilian death toll. Last October, a report on the subject produced by a group of leading research organisations was published in The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected science journals. The report used tried, tested and accepted methodology for calculating “excess deaths” caused by conflict. Its conclusion was that the death toll at that time was likely to stand at around 100,000.
As the writer and activist George Monbiot noted in a recent article, “the study was either ignored or torn to bits [by the US-UK media, who], described it as “inflated”, “overstated”, “politicised” and “out of proportion””.(13) In the absence of any scientific basis for these claims, other justifications had to be found. An editorial in The Independent claimed that the Lancet findings had been reached “by extrapolating from a small sample… While never completely discredited, those figures were widely doubted”. When Medialens asked for the basis of this description, the paper’s senior leader writer on foreign affairs said, “personally, I think there was a problem with the extrapolation technique…..[the sample] seemed small from a lay perspective”. In fact, the sample was standard for this kind of research, but in the media, the “lay perspective” of journalists was allowed to carry the day, dismissing the findings of mere scientists. Thus, the Washington Times felt qualified to describe the report as “a cynical ‘study’ of deaths in the Iraq war”, used by the Lancet in an attempt “to influence the U.S. presidential election” campaign, which was ongoing at the time the report was released. God forbid that the voting public in the world’s greatest democracy should be in any way influenced by the death toll in a war started by their elected government.
During an extensive study into coverage of the Lancet report, Medialens received such insights into the merits of the study as “I find the methodology a bit doubtful…” from Observer editor, Roger Alton and “I have a feeling (and I could be wrong) that the report may be a dud” from pro-war columnist David Aaronovitch. Neither Alton nor Aaronovitch are epidemiologists. During correspondence, facilitated by Medialens, with various journalists, Les Roberts, a world renowned epidemiologist and lead author of the report, was able to swat away each amateur criticism of the study with embarrassing ease. In exasperation, Roberts noted “It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces”. Indeed, an earlier study by Roberts into deaths caused by civil war in the Congo had been cited by Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and almost every major newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic, none of whom challenged either the methodology or the result. (14)
In any case, the damage was done. Unlike the widespread criticisms of the report, Medialens’ findings, and Robert’s refutations, did not appear in leaders or high profile articles across the mainstream media. When British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that the Lancet study’s estimate was “not based on standard methodology for assessing casualties” (15) – an outright lie – he was able to do so in some comfort largely thanks to the favourable atmosphere created by the media, and its legions of amateur epidemiologists. The tens of thousands of corpses created by his government’s actions would present no impediment to Straw’s continuing career in politics.
Nor would Tony Blair be unduly troubled by the costs of his “humanitarian intervention”. The Prime Minister was able to tell Parliament last year that “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey” of casualties from the conflict.(16) After all, Blair could be reasonably assured that most of the people who heard this would not have read the leaked email of Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi, in which she said that “[the death toll is] so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them”. Nor would they, in all likelihood, have read Robert Fisk’s corroboration of Fassihi’s claim: "The Ministry of Health, which is partly run by Americans, will not give out any figures for civilian casualties; staff are just not allowed to give us these figures…When I went to the city morgue in Baghdad one day nearly four weeks ago, I arrived at 9am and there were nine violent death corpses there…By midday there were 26 corpses. When I managed to get access to the computer system of the mortuary, I discovered that in July 1,100 Iraqis had been killed in Baghdad alone…Multiply that across Iraq and you are talking about 3,000 a month or more, which means 36,000 a year…So these figures claiming 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties are not necessarily conservative at all. But no-one wants to report on this.”(17)
Since the Iraqi Ministry of Health is, according to these two independent sources, not reporting civilian casualties, it is unsurprising that Tony Blair would like us to rely on them for the overall figures. The Prime Minister points out that the Ministry of Health takes its figures from “a survey from [Iraqi] hospitals”. In doing so he can be reasonably assured that most of us will not know that his US allies make a point of targeting hospitals as centres of “insurgent propaganda” when attacking recalcitrant Iraqi towns and cities such as Fallujah and al-Qa’im.(18)
In July this year, pictures of the bloodied victims of the London terrorist bombings filled the print and broadcast media. Those images reappear with some frequency to this day. Yet, in spite of the fact that our elected governments started an illegal war of aggression that has killed, according to the best estimates available, well over 100,000 people, pictures of our own bloodied victims, interviews with them and descriptions of their experiences, are all but absent from the western media. To this day, massacres continue to be committed in places like Fallujah, Haditha and al-Qa'im out of sight of the western voters; the only people capable of holding the perpetrators responsible.(19) Standing as they do between the criminals and accountability, the media can only reasonably be described as acting as an accessory to war crimes.
Given the abovementioned atrocities committed by the occupiers, the fact that there is widespread popular anger in Iraq toward the occupation, which in turn feeds the armed resistance, can come as no surprise. (20) By concealing these atrocities the media helps reinforce the notion that the presence of the occupying military is the solution to, rather than the principal cause of violence in that country. Thus, even at the liberal edge of the US-UK media, The Observer can advise us not to “cut and run [from Iraq] at the moment of [its] greatest need [which] would not only be cowardly but deeply immoral”; The Guardian can soberly opine that “No one is arguing for an immediate pull-out” from Iraq; and the UK government’s “human rights envoy” Ann Clwyd can say, presumably with a straight face, that “We have been trying to train the Iraqis in human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs. We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche”.(21) Thanks to the media, our enlightened governments can continue to attend to the deficient “Iraqi psyche” with judicious use of torture chambers, chemical weapons, massacres of civilians and assaults on hospitals. All this continues safely out of sight of the western public, who may go on believing in the good intentions of their governments without ever becoming confused by the facts.
Notes:
Of course, the obstacles facing journalists attempting to report the situation in Iraq are real enough. Veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk (whose work, in the context of the mainstream media, is exceptional in every sense) describes some of the challenges: “When I travel outside Baghdad by road it takes me two weeks to plan it, because the roads are infested with insurgents, checkpoints, hooded men and throat-cutters. If I go to see someone in any particular location, I give myself 12 minutes, because that is how long I reckon it takes a man with a mobile phone to summon gunmen to the scene in a car. So, after 10 minutes I am out. Don't be greedy. That's what reporting is like in Iraq."(2)
In September 2004, Farnaz Fassihi of the Wall Street Journal told friends in an email that “Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest…. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, … can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, …. can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't…… my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive”. Despite its obvious relevance, the fact that reporting from Iraq is so compromised is not something that the media are always keen to broadcast. Fassihi’s email was leaked and, as right-wing bloggers accused her of bias and demanded her recall, the Wall Street Journal quickly announced that she would be going on vacation, and there she remained until after the US presidential election.(3)
Threats to the safety of journalists in Iraq are by no means posed by Iraqis alone. Last month, David Schlesinger, the Reuters global managing editor, wrote to Senator John Warner, head of the US Senate armed services committee, to tell him that the conduct of US forces towards journalists in Iraq is "spiralling out of control" and preventing full coverage of the war reaching the public(4). Schlesinger referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by US forces in Iraq". He said that his and other reputable international news organizations were concerned by the "sizeable and rapidly increasing number of journalists detained by US forces". Such detentions were prompted by legitimate journalistic activity such as possessing photographs and video of insurgents.
Schlesinger told Warner that "By limiting the ability of the media to fully and independently cover the events in Iraq, the US forces are unduly preventing US citizens from receiving information”. One need hardly mention that this does the US-UK governments no harm, given the disastrous state of the occupation. (5)
Once what is left of the story from Iraq reaches the west, having dodged bullets, kidnappers, suicide bombers and the occupying military, it must then overcome perhaps its most formidable obstacle: the filter of the mainstream media. For in truth, what is in short supply is not information from Iraq so much as willingness on the part of the media to convey that information to us; and recent reports of the US military’s use of chemical weapons do not count as evidence to contradict this.
On 16 November 2005, BBC website World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds began his analysis of the debate over the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah by saying that “The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah last year … has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare”.(6) It is true to say that the Pentagon’s admission has opened this debate in the mainstream media. Elsewhere, the debate was opened up somewhat earlier. Eyewitness accounts of the US military’s conduct in Fallujah, all but ignored by the BBC, began to emerge almost immediately after the US attacked the city last November.
On 26 November 2004, independent journalist Dahr Jamail relayed several eyewitness accounts of war crimes committed by US forces, predating Reynolds’ article by almost a year. Amongst them, Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, told Jamail that US forces had used “'weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud,…Then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them.' He said pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns. Phosphorous weapons as well as napalm are known to cause such effects.” (7)
In March 2005, al-Jazeera reported that: "Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujahh." The official reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city." Fallujah residents described how they had seen "melted" bodies in the city, indicative of usage of napalm, a lethal cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that incinerates the human body". (8)
Elsewhere, documentary film-maker Mark Manning conducted videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqis who had witnessed the assualt on the city first-hand. Later, in an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, Manning recounted how he, “had heard numerous reports that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium.” (9)
These were not the only war crimes committed in Fallujah, but again, it would take more than the world’s major news corporations to bring them to our attention. Instead, it was left to people like Dahr Jamail, who relayed eyewitness accounts via his website, for anyone who was able or interested enough to discover it. Jamail interviewed a doctor from Fallujah who had fled to Jordan and spoke only on condition of anonymity:
“During the second week of the siege [US troops] announced that all the families have to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy,” he says.
"“We documented this story with video-a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting ‘Now!’ in English, and shooting started everywhere.”
The family was all carrying white flags, as instructed, according to the young man who gave his testimony. Yet he watched his mother and father shot by snipers-his mother in the head and his father shot in the heart. His two aunts were shot, then his brother was shot in the neck. The man stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he was shot in the side.
“After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm,” continues the doctor, “So after awhile he raised his hand and they shot his hand.”
A six year-old boy of the family was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was then shot.
“Anyone who raised up was shot,” adds the doctor, then added again that he had photographs of the dead as well as photos of the gunshot wounds of the survivors.”(10)
The interviews conducted by Mark Manning contained similar horror stories. Eyewitnesses gave "grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops.”
In March this year, independent watchdog Medialens, asked the BBC whether these specific allegations of US atrocities, in particular the use of banned weapons, were being investigated. The response was that "The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case." But when asked precisely which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of coalition forces in Fallujah, including the above evidence of war crimes, Medialens was ignored.
Meidalens pressed the BBC news to explain why it had paid little attention to the repeated allegations of atrocities, or to the evidence of the use of banned weapons in Fallujah. This time the BBC responded at length, saying that it was aware of the claims and was continually investigating the events in Fallujah, hampered though it was by its movements being restricted for security reasons, and also mentioning a lack of independent verification (as though a plethora of eyewitnesses could be dismissed en masse as not being “independent”). In addition, it said that a BBC correspondent had been embedded with the US Marines and “over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed”.
Medialens asked the BBC to justify the claim that it had "total access to the military operation, at all levels". The response was that “total access meant that [the correspondent] was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into. He was embedded at battalion level but, for instance, he did show up several times (and film) at the colonel's morning meeting with senior staff, where orders were given out. Most importantly, [the correspondent] also attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion, at which there were slides and folders with "Top Secret" stamped all over them”.
Medialens questioned whether this was really quite the same thing as having “total access to the military operation, at all levels". It asked for evidence to support the assertion that the BBC had attended the only eve of battle briefing for the battalion. The BBC’s response was brief: “Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose”. (11)
No doubt any number of survivors from Fallujah could have explained to BBC executives the “useful purpose” of reporting their experiences to British voters and taxpayers.
Finally, almost a year later, the Pentagon was forced to admit that banned weapons had in fact been used in Fallujah, which gave the BBC the permission it needed to discuss the subject. The story had been dragged into the public eye, not for the most part by the mainstream media, but by the tenacity of independent writers and activists who unearthed, investigated and pursued the story until the occupiers were forced to admit their crimes. The BBC and the rest of the media largely assumed the role of spectators, as the use of banned weapons moved from being the justification for deposing Saddam to being the acknowledged modus operandi of the occupying forces. Meanwhile, in the absence of an admission from official sources, accounts of civilian massacres remain strictly off limits. (12)
With so many of the occupation’s crimes airbrushed from the record, the way was clear for the suppression of the ultimate human cost of invading Iraq: the civilian death toll. Last October, a report on the subject produced by a group of leading research organisations was published in The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected science journals. The report used tried, tested and accepted methodology for calculating “excess deaths” caused by conflict. Its conclusion was that the death toll at that time was likely to stand at around 100,000.
As the writer and activist George Monbiot noted in a recent article, “the study was either ignored or torn to bits [by the US-UK media, who], described it as “inflated”, “overstated”, “politicised” and “out of proportion””.(13) In the absence of any scientific basis for these claims, other justifications had to be found. An editorial in The Independent claimed that the Lancet findings had been reached “by extrapolating from a small sample… While never completely discredited, those figures were widely doubted”. When Medialens asked for the basis of this description, the paper’s senior leader writer on foreign affairs said, “personally, I think there was a problem with the extrapolation technique…..[the sample] seemed small from a lay perspective”. In fact, the sample was standard for this kind of research, but in the media, the “lay perspective” of journalists was allowed to carry the day, dismissing the findings of mere scientists. Thus, the Washington Times felt qualified to describe the report as “a cynical ‘study’ of deaths in the Iraq war”, used by the Lancet in an attempt “to influence the U.S. presidential election” campaign, which was ongoing at the time the report was released. God forbid that the voting public in the world’s greatest democracy should be in any way influenced by the death toll in a war started by their elected government.
During an extensive study into coverage of the Lancet report, Medialens received such insights into the merits of the study as “I find the methodology a bit doubtful…” from Observer editor, Roger Alton and “I have a feeling (and I could be wrong) that the report may be a dud” from pro-war columnist David Aaronovitch. Neither Alton nor Aaronovitch are epidemiologists. During correspondence, facilitated by Medialens, with various journalists, Les Roberts, a world renowned epidemiologist and lead author of the report, was able to swat away each amateur criticism of the study with embarrassing ease. In exasperation, Roberts noted “It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces”. Indeed, an earlier study by Roberts into deaths caused by civil war in the Congo had been cited by Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and almost every major newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic, none of whom challenged either the methodology or the result. (14)
In any case, the damage was done. Unlike the widespread criticisms of the report, Medialens’ findings, and Robert’s refutations, did not appear in leaders or high profile articles across the mainstream media. When British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that the Lancet study’s estimate was “not based on standard methodology for assessing casualties” (15) – an outright lie – he was able to do so in some comfort largely thanks to the favourable atmosphere created by the media, and its legions of amateur epidemiologists. The tens of thousands of corpses created by his government’s actions would present no impediment to Straw’s continuing career in politics.
Nor would Tony Blair be unduly troubled by the costs of his “humanitarian intervention”. The Prime Minister was able to tell Parliament last year that “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey” of casualties from the conflict.(16) After all, Blair could be reasonably assured that most of the people who heard this would not have read the leaked email of Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi, in which she said that “[the death toll is] so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them”. Nor would they, in all likelihood, have read Robert Fisk’s corroboration of Fassihi’s claim: "The Ministry of Health, which is partly run by Americans, will not give out any figures for civilian casualties; staff are just not allowed to give us these figures…When I went to the city morgue in Baghdad one day nearly four weeks ago, I arrived at 9am and there were nine violent death corpses there…By midday there were 26 corpses. When I managed to get access to the computer system of the mortuary, I discovered that in July 1,100 Iraqis had been killed in Baghdad alone…Multiply that across Iraq and you are talking about 3,000 a month or more, which means 36,000 a year…So these figures claiming 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties are not necessarily conservative at all. But no-one wants to report on this.”(17)
Since the Iraqi Ministry of Health is, according to these two independent sources, not reporting civilian casualties, it is unsurprising that Tony Blair would like us to rely on them for the overall figures. The Prime Minister points out that the Ministry of Health takes its figures from “a survey from [Iraqi] hospitals”. In doing so he can be reasonably assured that most of us will not know that his US allies make a point of targeting hospitals as centres of “insurgent propaganda” when attacking recalcitrant Iraqi towns and cities such as Fallujah and al-Qa’im.(18)
In July this year, pictures of the bloodied victims of the London terrorist bombings filled the print and broadcast media. Those images reappear with some frequency to this day. Yet, in spite of the fact that our elected governments started an illegal war of aggression that has killed, according to the best estimates available, well over 100,000 people, pictures of our own bloodied victims, interviews with them and descriptions of their experiences, are all but absent from the western media. To this day, massacres continue to be committed in places like Fallujah, Haditha and al-Qa'im out of sight of the western voters; the only people capable of holding the perpetrators responsible.(19) Standing as they do between the criminals and accountability, the media can only reasonably be described as acting as an accessory to war crimes.
Given the abovementioned atrocities committed by the occupiers, the fact that there is widespread popular anger in Iraq toward the occupation, which in turn feeds the armed resistance, can come as no surprise. (20) By concealing these atrocities the media helps reinforce the notion that the presence of the occupying military is the solution to, rather than the principal cause of violence in that country. Thus, even at the liberal edge of the US-UK media, The Observer can advise us not to “cut and run [from Iraq] at the moment of [its] greatest need [which] would not only be cowardly but deeply immoral”; The Guardian can soberly opine that “No one is arguing for an immediate pull-out” from Iraq; and the UK government’s “human rights envoy” Ann Clwyd can say, presumably with a straight face, that “We have been trying to train the Iraqis in human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs. We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche”.(21) Thanks to the media, our enlightened governments can continue to attend to the deficient “Iraqi psyche” with judicious use of torture chambers, chemical weapons, massacres of civilians and assaults on hospitals. All this continues safely out of sight of the western public, who may go on believing in the good intentions of their governments without ever becoming confused by the facts.
Notes:
(1) On the illegality of the use of white phosphorus see George Monbiot’s letter to the Times, plus commentary, on the Medialens message board 17 November 2005
Also on white phosphorus see “White phosphorus: weapon on the edge”, Paul Reynolds, BBC News website, 16 November 2005
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm). On the Iraqi government interior ministry’s torture chambers, see “Abuse reports fuel Iraqi tensions”, Jim Muir, BBC News website, 16 November 2005
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4443126.stm). On the use of death squads see “Frontline police of new Iraq are waging secret war of vengeance”, Peter Beaumont, The Observer, 20 November 2005
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,
1646743,00.html). As the Washington Post reported, these militia are often “trained and equipped by the United States and Britain”. See “Militias on the Rise Across Iraq”, Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru, Washington Post, 21 August 2005
1646743,00.html). As the Washington Post reported, these militia are often “trained and equipped by the United States and Britain”. See “Militias on the Rise Across Iraq”, Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru, Washington Post, 21 August 2005
The use of paramilitary death squads by the new Iraqi government follows in the best traditions of US-backed client regimes in the third world, particularly in Latin America. For background, see the website of the pressure group “School of Americas Watch”
(http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8) and, for the results of the School’s education, see chapter 2 of Noam Chomsky’s “What Uncle Sam Really Wants”, 1993
(2) “Mouse Journalism is the only way we can report on Iraq – Fisk”, Matthew Lewin, Press Gazette, 13 October 2005,
(3) “From Baghdad: a Wall Street Journal reporter’s email to friends”, Farnaz Fassihi, Common Dreams, 30 September 2004 (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0930-15.htm). “The End of News”, Michael Massing, The New York Review of Books, 1 December 2005.
(4) “US forces ‘out of control’ says Reuters chief”, Julia Day, The Guardian, 28 September 2005 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1580244,00.html).
(5) Although Mark LeVine, professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of California, recently pointed out that, whilst the anarchy in Iraq is widely assumed to be an unmitigated disaster for the occupiers, one should not be blind to the benefits they may accrue from, or their willingness and ability to take advantage of, the lawless situation as it stands. See “Where Chaos is King”, Mark LeVine, TomDispatch, 25 October 2005
(6) Reynolds, “White phosphorus: weapon on the edge”.
(7) “’Unusual weapons’ used in Fallujah”, Dahr Jamail, Dahr Jamail’s Iraq Dispatches, 26 November 2004
(8) “US used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health Ministry”, al-Jazeera, 3 March 2005 (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216).
(9) “Diving into Falluja”, Nick Welsh, Santa Barbara Independent, 17 March 2005
(10) “Stories from Fallujah”, Dahr Jamail, Dahr Jamail’s Iraq Dispatches, 8 February 2005 (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/
000196.php).
000196.php).
(11) “The Generals love Napalm”, David Cromwell, ZNet, 30 March 2005 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7555).
(12) “Chemical Weapons Used in Iraq”, George Monbiot, UK Watch, 15 November 2005 (http://www.ukwatch.net/article/1194).
(13) “Bringing out the Dead”, George Monbiot, Monbiot.com, 8 November 2005 (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/08/bringing-out-the-dead/).
(14) “Burying the Lancet – Part One”, Medialens, 6 September 2005 (http://www.ukwatch.net/article/983). “Burying the Lancet – Part Two”, Medialens, 6 September 2005 (http://www.ukwatch.net/article/985),“Burying the Lancet – Update”, Medialens, 12 September 2005 (http://www.ukwatch.net/article/1009).
(15) Cited in “Burying the Lancet – Part One”, Medialens.
(16) Cited in “Bringing out the Dead”, Monbiot.
(17) Fassihi, “From Baghdad: a Wall Street Journal reporter’s email to friends”. Lewin “Mouse Journalism is the only way we can report on Iraq – Fisk”.
(18) “Falluja’s Health Damage”, Miles Schuman, The Nation, 24 November 2004 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=schuman).
(19) For example, on Fallujah, see “Remembering the First Siege of Fallujah”, Omar Kahn and Dahr Jamail, ZNet, 14 February 2005. On Haditha and al-Qa'im, see “Censoring the Carnage”, Antiwar.com, 24 June 2005, (http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=6425).
(20) “Secret MoD Poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops”, Sean Rayment, 23 October 2005, The Daily Telegraph
On the occupation being the principal cause of most of the violence in Iraq see my “How to Withdraw from Iraq”, 17 October 2005, UK Watch (http://www.ukwatch.net/article/1091).
(21) “Don’t Betray Iraq”, Leader, The Observer, 20 November 2005
“Signposting the Exit”, Leader, The Guardian, 21 September 2005
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1574802,00.html), Ann Clwyd was speaking on BBC Newsnight, BBC 2, 17 November 2005. Transcript via Medialens website at http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1197).
posted by David Wearing at 9:23 PM
13 Comments:
Hi Diarist,
I've just seen George Monbiot's lastest article on Fallujah, and it is a little curious. He argues that there is no evidence of WP use against civilians (which I'm not entirely sure about), and then later states "It is hard to see how you could use [thermobaric] weapons in Falluja without killing civilians." Curiously he doesn't say the same thing about WP weapons. Both appear to be used indiscriminately in urban areas, so I don't really see the difference.
I don't think you mentioned it in your article, but it has also been reported that UK troops used WP in Basra.
I take your point. Monbiot notes that Thermobaric weapons are "a fuel-air explosive [that] can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation", so presumably their wider and greater impact means that it is safer to say that their use affected civilians than is the case with the less-deadly/indiscriminate WP. That's how it appears to me on first read of the article anyway.
Monbiot seems to be concerned that if we focus on the RAI documentary and it is subsequently discredited (citing someone with "a biology degree" doesn't enhance its credibility) then the story will go down along with it. Instead he urges us to concentrate on the hard evidence that we do have, which is entirely right and sensible.
Thanks for the tip off on the Telegraph story. I'd missed that.
I agree that we shouldn't just concentrate on the RAI story (at the very least it provided a "hook" so that the other evidence could be brought to light again, which is exactly how GM used it). But I'm not sure that WP is any less discriminate -- WP is deployed (as far as I know) as a large white cloud that that can drift about with the wind, and anyone who happens to be inside isn't going to live very long, or at the very least will sustain severe burns (including to the lungs).
I should also add that this isn't the first time Monbiot as slipped up. He was criticised by the Media Lens editors (on their message board) for his previous Fallujah article. He wrote: "We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to kill them." I'll let you figure out what is wrong with that.
Plainly I'm not the person to give a definitive analysis of the tech specs of these two weapons, so I can only give you the impression I get from reading the same accounts you've seen. Perhaps WP, which is certainly not discriminate as you point out, is nevertheless a less devastating weapon generally. Monbiots' point on sticking to what you know still stands.
On your second para, I might be revealing myself as being incredibly dense but I'm not sure that I'm immediately struck by what's wrong with that quote. Were those not the reasons that we were given by our governments for invading Iraq? Have you got a link to the post on the message board? I'd like to see it.
I agree that we should stick to what we know, and that was kind of my point: Monbiot didn't. He speculated in the second case but not the first. He could have at least been consistent, but maybe I'm just being picky.
Here is the link to the Media Lens item. Unless they are mistaken, and I'd appreciate a link if you have one, the second reason (liberation) was never given as a case for war -- it was only wheeled out after all of the others were shown to be bunk.
Your point's taken. As I say, it seems to boil down to the nature of the weaponry.
Its true that liberating the Iraqis was the reason given for the invasion only once the wmd case was seen to have evaporated, but this is being a bit harsh on Monbiot. I doubt that he disputes the point, and whether the quote contradicts it depends on how its read.
With regard to what Monbiot wrote, and regardless of what he knows or meant, I think the ML editors make an important point: "It's important that this secondary reason for war - now being presented as the main reason all along - is not used to rewrite history." A not dissimilar rewriting of history occurred with Kosovo and was a largely successful deception, as has been commented on also by Media Lens. (Quote from that link: "The media response was to exactly reverse cause and effect suggesting that bombing was +justified+ as a way of halting the flood of refugees it had in fact created.") We should not be making it easy for the government/media to get away with such deception.
Very fine and dandy to be here and discussing the point of media manipulation or downright abrogation of its duty. I believe it was Murdoch that said "News... ? The news is what I say it is." Now Sky "News" has Clinton's apologist James Rubin spin doctor for the zionist agenda "anchoring" the evening "show". There is apparently no more news, simply this arch spinner's slant on daily events ad libbed and injected in a mind nuumbing droning drawl. Now that's where the masses get their "facts" and believe me they ain't disputing such niceties like the resident intellectuals here caught up in the semantics of George Monbiot's discussion of war crimes within warcrimes etc..
Give me a loudmouthed thug like Sluggo O Reilly over a smarmy justifier of war crimes like Rubin anyday.
Nagging doubt - I realise that its an important point. Just that I very much doubt that Monbiot disputes it.
Anonymous - thanks for your contribution.
I write only to congratulate you on an excellent exposé. I have followed medialens closely now for two years and wonder how long it will take for the ordinary public to be informed by the mainstream media of these horrific events.
Another major media coverup is the 9/11 issue: we have been calling for an independent investigation for now over four years, to no avail as yet. In this connection we have collated hair-raising information published in the Spanish press at:
http://www.amics21.com/911
It is a Spanish site (Fallujah and Iraq news is covered in depth http://www.amics21.com/faluyah), though the above-cited pages are bilingual, Spanish/English. We welcome comments.
sally@amics21.com
Thank you very much for covering the subject of media complicity --it restores faith in the human spirit. They will be exposed, one day.
thanks for your comments, Salialioli. I'll take a look at the site
Diarist
Good article that, I think, paints a pretty accurate picture. However you seem to forget that most conflicts have 2 sides. There is no mention of atrocities inflicted by the insurgents who admitted earlier in the conflict that they had obtained chemical weapons from some of Saddam's stores post invasion.
Picking up on a few points, to quote from an Iraqi ministry "that the Americans used mustard & nerve agents" without any concrete proof is a little poor. Knowing the effects of deployment of such weapons, and the fact that American troops were involved in street fighting, US soldiers would have been in full MOPP gear; this was certainly not the case giving strength to the case that they did not employe such weapons. In addition I do not believe that they would have such weapons in their arsenal as the Chemical Weapons Convention is strictly enforced by the superpowers.
As for the other weapons there are a lot of semantics involved. The Americans can claim they don't use Napalm; napalm contains benzene as an active agent. They've updated the product to use kerosene instead to reduce the longer term environmental damage - and effects on their own troops - but it still has the same effect.
Thermobaric weapons such as fuel-air explosive kill by blast and heat and are not deemed as chemical weapons per se. They are nasty by no more so that an explosive bomb, a machine gun, or a bullet to the back of the neck.
Finally the use of DU rounds does not count as a use of nuclear weapons as no fissile material is involved - the fact that they are highly toxic and leave behind low level radioactive contaminants is another matter; they also harm the troops on the deploying side as well - part of Gulf War syndrome.
I personally don't agree with the war and believe that the americans are in breach of the Geneva convention on a number of counts. However there seems to be a case of throwing as much at them and seeing how much can stick without substantive evidence to back it up. Burnt bodies is evidence of high temperature fires, not napalm or WP. I also believe that the insurgents are guilty on many counts but we seem to be less concerned with reporting these breaches. War brings out the worst in the people fighting it and we seem to have that situation here.
We need to be careful in our reviews of these situations and to be highly objective otherwise we just end up fuelling the mass-media feeding frenzy. It would be nice if we pursued all such cases worlwide rather than those in the spotlight. Abuse still occurs in places such as China, Burma and even Brazil, but as these are not political hot potatoes, they recieve less attention.
Thanks again for a very interesting piece and keep up the work; I like to have a good think now and then.
Matt - thanks, I’m grateful for your comments. However, I’m disappointed to see that you’ve apparently misunderstood both the point of the article and my reasons for writing it. Perhaps I should clarify, beginning from the most basic level.
I’m a citizen of the UK who, like every other citizen, enjoys a fairly large degree of political freedom with which to influence how my society, in the shape of my government, acts collectively. There are serious limits to this freedom, and other, greater forces shaping government policy, but my freedoms are real enough and so, therefore, is my share of responsibility for my government’s actions and their predictable consequences.
The fact that you're responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions, not the actions of other people, is the simplest of moral truisms, and for anyone familiar with the concept of hypocrisy, this point is well understood. So whilst its true that there are other actors in the Iraq conflict, and its true that horrific crimes and abuses are also committed elsewhere in the world, it is absolutely wrong to say that we should devote equal attention to those other crimes as we do to our own. To do so would be to ‘balance’ our moral responsibilities with rank hypocrisy. It is not for us to commit crimes, and yet to denounce others for their wrongdoing. Our first concern, if we are not hypocrites, is for the consequences of our own actions and for those outcomes that we can affect through our actions. It is for that reason that I concern myself first with the effects of British foreign policy, in this case its contribution towards the situation in Iraq. If we can’t raise ourselves to even the basic moral level of accepting our own responsibilities then we have no business condemning the crimes of China, Burma, Brazil or anyone else.
Actually, there is one sense in which we should be concerned by the actions of Iraqis involved in the conflict, be they anti or pro government forces, whilst still adhering to the simple ethical principle of attending to our own crimes in the first instance. As the Nuremberg judges made clear, launching a war of aggression is the "supreme international crime" because it contains with it the "accumulated evil" of all the crimes committed within that conflict. This includes those crimes that followed in wake of the illegal invasion, as a reaction to it and/or in the conditions created by it. In the sense that we started the Iraq war, unprovoked and under no threat, we are therefore responsible for all the horrors of that war, including those committed by the insurgents.
Working from the elementary principle of concentrating on our own crimes in the first instance, this article's concern was to highlight how the western media has consistently failed to report vast amounts of evidence relating to the effects of our actions towards Iraq. This failure on the media's part impedes our ability to assess the effects of our actions and take responsibility for them, as we are able to do in our relatively free and democratic societies.
I hope the above addresses some of your concerns on the article’s general focus. You go on to make a number of specific points about the nature of weaponry used or alleged to have been used by coalition forces.
You say "to quote from an Iraqi ministry "that the Americans used mustard & nerve agents" without any concrete proof is a little poor".
I beg to differ. Recall Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi’s claim that "The Ministry of Health, which is partly run by Americans, will not give out any figures for civilian casualties; staff are just not allowed to give us these figures…”, a claim corroborated in a separate article by Robert Fisk. Plainly when an official from that ministry breaks ranks and makes allegations of this nature it is newsworthy, which is why al-Jazeera ran the story. In the light of what we have leant since then its newsworthiness has only increased. So why were these claims apparently not reported or investigated by our own media? After all, if the allegations proved true, we would bear responsibility for some very serious crimes.
For clarity, though the point is made plain elsewhere in the article, I have amended the sentence "These were not the only war crimes committed in Fallujah...", to read "These were not the only accounts of war crimes committed in Fallujah...".
You say "I do not believe that [the US] would have such weapons in their arsenal as the Chemical Weapons Convention is strictly enforced by the superpowers."
Quite a statement. Note that the convention bans the use as a weapon of "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm....". So firing White Phosphorus at enemy troops to flush them out of their positions, activity to which the US has admitted, is banned under the convention. So far from strictly enforcing the convention, the US admits it has taken actions which directly contravene it. This is entirely consistent with the open contempt for international treaties and obligations that is now overtly a matter of US policy. Its also worth noting that even during the Clinton administration “the US was the only country to insist on exemption from certain inspections and tests when the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997”. (See Noam Chomsky – “Hegemony or Survival” page 232 for references)
You say, "The Americans can claim they don't use Napalm…".
They can but they don't. Here's a quote from an article in the The Independent on Sunday, 10 August, 2003 entitled 'US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq':
""We napalmed both those bridge approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.""
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7555
This is one story that did make it into the mainstream press, but failed to generate any real follow up or gain the prominence it undoubtedly deserved in overall media coverage.
You say, “Thermobaric weapons ….[are no more nasty than] an explosive bomb, a machine gun, or a bullet to the back of the neck.”
This is spurious, to say the least. Needless to say that each individual victim of these various methods of killing winds up as dead as the next. The point about thermobaric weapons is their wide impact, indiscriminate nature, and the fact that they were used in civilian areas.
You say, “the use of DU rounds does not count as a use of nuclear weapons as no fissile material is involved - the fact that they are highly toxic and leave behind low level radioactive contaminants is another matter; they also harm the troops on the deploying side as well - part of Gulf War syndrome.”
Thanks for the information, but I’m not sure what your point is here since I did not claim that DU rounds were the same as nuclear weapons.
You conclude by saying that “We need to be careful in our reviews of these situations and to be highly objective otherwise we just end up fuelling the mass-media feeding frenzy.” citing a lack of “substantive evidence"
As the article amply demonstrates, there has been no mass-media feeding frenzy. Nor is there, as you suggest, any lack of “substantive evidence" that the occupying coalition has committed various war crimes and atrocities in Iraq.
Hope this answers your points
Post a Comment
<< Home