American and Canadian Media Continue to Fail: Four Nonsensical Conjectures about Iraq
Press Action
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/cummings02022005/
By Jordy Cummings
1. “Iraqis defy Resistance,” “Iraqis defy Violence,” “A Victory” scream the headlines of even antiwar newspapers like the Toronto Star (the second one being from said paper.) In reality, many Iraqis were and are involved with both the resistance, or one facet of resistance or another, as well as being involved with the election. As Patrick Cockburn among others have reported, many, particularly Shia and Kurdish parties, encouraged their members to vote as an “act of resistance” and assumes this would encourage the Occupiers to leave. Many other groups that have been involved with the resistance on all levels, were also involved with the election.
2. “Maybe Bush was right.” This was said by among other phonies, David Corn. The argument is now that it is up to what Corn calls “Those of us who were opposed to the war” to encourage the Iraqis to ask the occupiers to leave. Even if this were the case, which it does not seem to be, it would in no way justify a war that murdered 100,000 civilians, or a war that stole the resources of a rich country. By attempting to salvage a situation, it does not make the bad, i.e. salvageable situation morally justified on its own (i.e. because it is salvageable, which is open to question). By asserting that this is the case, one can say that it was good that someone got into a car accident and then met their wife in the hospital. It is simply binary logic, which sees no ambiguity anywhere, especially the most common type, tragic ambiguity.
Let us just say that the Iraqi government musters up the courage to kick out the occupiers and rescind American economic takeover of Iraqi resources (Order 81, etc.) Let’s say, even, that a near-utopia develops in Iraq, being a beacon and all that...(not likely, but let’s go with it for a second)... Attributing this situation to the actions of an illegal war that killed 100,000 civilians is like stating that since the first world war created the grounds for revolution in Russia, hence, if the revolution was an improvement over Tsarism, then one should thank the warmongers, not participate in a movement against the war, as did Lenin. World War 1 also set the stage for the rise of fascism and Nazism.
In short, nothing good comes out of war, and if something good happens AFTER war, historical factors are important for analysis, but not in terms of any moral or ethical standards. Given the amount of money the rich world has, they could have easily, if they just wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, gone with the “Ukraine option.” No, since these were A-rabs, part of the point of the war was to kill people - at least 100,000 of them. Always wrong.
3. “The Election was meaningless.”—Many people on the left, including some people I respect a great deal state this, despite what has been written by Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and others. It is not surprising, given the boy who cried wolf syndrome, to not trust anything implemented by Uncle Sam. Knowing that in many respects, the elections were a sham, one should still be aware of their ramifications. Of course the occupiers are still in charge, but one cannot underestimate the power of unforeseen side effects. As writes As’ad AbuKhalil:
"Shocking. Amazing. Read all about it. Arabs can actually insert a piece of paper in a box .....the Bush administration was opposed to the elections in Iraq. It was the Grand Dude (Sistani) who insisted on elections, when the US (backed by its collection of unsavory puppet characters) was insisting on “caucuses” in order to guarantee the rule of its puppets. So now the Iraqis have voted: the Shi`ite largely voted because they were ordered by the Grand Dude, and the Kurds were also voting on secession, to form their own independent state. And Iraqis want a break from Saddam’s horrors, and want a break.......And why is the US media treating the events so festively, as if the Iraqis have voted for Bush and his occupation? On the contrary, Sistani has been insisting on elections because he believes that they will put in place a government that would bring an end to the occupation. So the pro-war advocates in this country should not get too excited too soon........If anything, the election can be seen as a form of peaceful resistance to the American occupation, and will empower whatever “government” that will emerge, if it is allowed to emerge that is. Occupation will continue, and opposition (peaceful and otherwise) to the occupation will only increase.” (1/31/2005, Angry Arab News Service)
4. “Allawi Asks US forces to Stay”—This headline, uncritically has appeared in all forms of media, including many Canadian papers that should know better. There are three words that could be added that would make it more reasonable, either “US tells puppet” (Allawi asks US forces to stay,) and “Former CIA agent” (Allawi asks US forces to stay.” That even this could be stated without any dissenting view regarding how puppets are either limited, or actually, to ensure power, do indeed want Imperialists to stay, goes against any standard of journalistic ethics. One quote from, say, Juan Cole, no far-out radical, could have added context to many of these articles.
After apologizing to their audiences for shoddy coverage of the Iraq war, the American papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post should know better. To see this kind of language used by Canadian papers like the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star—both of which opposed the war as internationally illegal, is quite offensive.
Jordy Cummings, editor of Pure Polemics, lives in Toronto and can be reached at yorgos33ca@yahoo.ca.