ELECTION IN A TIME OF UNCERTAINTY

It is coming down to crunch time in the U.S. presidential election, and the nation is in the grasp of incredible uncertainty. The mind numbing occupation of Iraq still continues, and neither of the two leading candidates will say exactly when this insanity will end; only ambiguous time tables , or time horizons, are floated out there, with caveats of “when conditions on the ground make withdrawal possible” or “when the mission is brought to completion”.

For John McCain it is all about winning, or at least not losing. A part of the Arizona Senator believes that with enough fire power, boots on the ground, and bribery of important local militias, the situation can be made manageable.

For Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator tries to assume the moral high ground by saying he was against this war from the start. But as veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk has noted: “what does Obama want to do with his soldiers once he withdraws them from Iraq? He’s going to send the poor devils back to Afghanistan, that graveyard of foreign armies where the Taliban were so utterly defeated in 2001 that they are now stronger than ever.”

Uncertainty has become the lay of the land. The economic troubles, so exacerbated by petrol inflation, has lead to massive job loss, home evictions and bankruptcies. What were once seen as aberrations, have now become standard signs of the spiraling down economy. The main response from Senator McCain to the oil crisis is to drill drill drill! Senator Obama speaks of a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, and even mentioned swift boat funder T. Boone Pickens, who said: “this is a crisis we can not drill our way out of.”

How any of these suggestions will lower the price of gasoline is any body’s guess. The higher the price of gasoline, the more the profits of Big Oil increase. Exxon-Mobil’s recent quarterly earnings were the largest in history. Senator Obama mentions this, but how he would be able to get taxes on Big Oil through the legislature remains to be seen.

Then there is the business of the election itself. The McCain campaign have made it their number one focus to try an impugn Obama’s character as much as possible, by any means necessary, so as to plant xenophobic seeds of doubt that they hope will grow in the minds of the electorate, until they become convinced that the ambitious graduate of Harvard Law is not “one of us” and not ready to lead.

It has also been noted that black Americans are uneasy about Barack Obama’s candidacy. Not because they don’t support him, they do. But there is an uncertainty among plenty of folks, who have difficulty imagining him actually accomplishing this historic task, and fear their hearts will be broken, by hook or crook, or something even worse.

One thing that seems to have disappeared is the idea of any kind of landslide victory. That is why some democrats say that Senator Obama should choose Senator Clinton for the vice presidential ticket. Hard core Obamakins would howl of course, but they may just have to get over it.

Historically it should be remembered that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were not good friends, when he was picked as JFK’s running mate. And it should also be remembered, that with Lyndon on the ticket, Kennedy won the state of Texas. Without winning that state, in that very close election, John Kennedy would have never become the President. It just might be that Senator Obama faces a similar dilemma in this election.

It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton won the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, among others. She proved to be strong among older white women in those states. These are votes that Barack Obama will certainly need, in the event of a very close election.

This all may seem strange to those who bought into the idea of a new kind of politics. But Senator Obama has proven, with many recent reversals in policy, to be in fact, a flexible, pragmatic politician. Conventional wisdom has it that he will pick for VP a governor or senator from a state that seems to be in play. But many of the people glowingly mentioned by the mainstream news are somewhat unknown to the general public. By contrast, everybody knows Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

SOME MATTER MORE - WHEN 47 VICTIMS ARE WORTH 43 WORDS

sent in by: kddove

JULY 22, 2008
SOME MATTER MORE - WHEN 47 VICTIMS ARE WORTH 43 WORDS

Bad Form
In his classic work, Obedience to Authority, psychologist Stanley Milgram observed:

"There is always some element of bad form in objecting to the destructive course of events, or indeed, in making it a topic of conversation. Thus, in Nazi Germany, even among those most closely identified with the 'final solution', it was considered an act of discourtesy to talk about the killings." (Milgram, Obedience to Authority, Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.204)

The same "bad form" is very much discouraged in our own society. One would hardly guess from media reporting that Britain and America are responsible for killing anyone in Iraq and Afghanistan, where violence is typically blamed on "insurgents" and "sectarian conflict". International "coalition" forces are depicted as peacekeepers using minimum violence as a last resort.

In reporting the November 2005 Haditha massacre, in which 24 Iraqi civilians were murdered by US troops, Newsweek suggested that the scale of the tragedy "should not be exaggerated". Why?

"America still fields what is arguably the most disciplined, humane military force in history, a model of restraint compared with ancient armies that wallowed in the spoils of war or even more-modern armies that heedlessly killed civilians and prisoners." (Evan Thomas and Scott Johnson, 'Probing Bloodbath,' Newsweek, June 12, 2006; http://www.newsweek.com/id/52312/page/1)

The truth was revealed in a single moment of unthinking honesty by a senior US Army commander involved in planning the November 2004 Falluja offensive and convinced of its necessity. He visited the city afterward and declared:

"My God, what are the folks who live here going to say when they see this?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/ weekinreview/04burns.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all)

The answer was provided by physician Mahammad J. Haded, director of an Iraqi refugee centre, who was in Falluja during the US onslaught:

"The city is today totally ruined. Falluja is our Dresden in Iraq... The population is full of rage." (http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-awad100305.htm)

In July 2005, the Independent commented on US actions in Iraq:

"The American army's use of its massive fire-power is so unrestrained that all US military operations are in reality the collective punishment of whole districts, towns and cities." (Patrick Cockburn, 'We must avoid the terrorist trap,' The Independent, July 11, 2005)

In April 2004, the Daily Telegraph reported the disgust of senior British army commanders in Iraq with the "heavy-handed and disproportionate" military tactics used by US forces, who view Iraqis "as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life... their attitude toward the Iraqis is tragic, it is awful." (Sean Rayment, 'US tactics condemned by British officers', Defence Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, April 11, 2004)

Burying The Bride
The anonymous commanders' comments generalise to both British and American media reporting.

In July, Afghan investigators in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, told the AFP news agency that they had been shown the "bloodied clothes of women and children" killed in a July 6 US air strike. The attack was reported to have killed 47 civilian members of a wedding party, including 39 women and children, with nine wounded. The head of the team, Burhanullah Shinwari, deputy speaker of Afghanistan's senate, said: "They were all civilians and had no links with Taliban or Al-Qaeda." (http://afp.google.com/article/ ALeqM5joXBRRzFwxSG_I-Ucf34VMr379hQ)

Around ten people were reported still missing, believed buried under rubble. It is now estimated that 52 people were killed - the same number that died in the London suicide attacks of July 7, 2005. Another member of the team, Mohammad Asif Shinwari, said there were only three men among the dead and the rest were women and children. Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire reports that eight of the victims were between 14 and 18 years of age. (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/ Anotherweddingpartymassacre_July62008.html). The US military initially claimed only "militants" involved in mortar attacks had been killed.

A separate investigation into a July 4 strike in the northeastern province of Nuristan found that 17 civilians had been killed there. The coalition claimed they had killed several militants who were fleeing after attacking a base. But an Afghan official again confirmed that the victims were "all civilians." (http://afp.google.com/article/ ALeqM5joXBRRzFwxSG_I-Ucf34VMr379hQ) Afghan authorities said the dead included two doctors and two midwives who had been attempting to leave the area to escape military operations.

Air Force Times reports that allied warplanes are currently dropping a record number of bombs on Afghanistan. For the first half of 2008, aircraft dropped 1,853 bombs - more than they released during all of 2006 and more than half of 2007's total. But this only hints at the true extent of the slaughter. The figures do not include cannon rounds shot by fighters or AC-130 gunships, Hellfire and other small rockets launched by warplanes and drones, and assaults by helicopters. Air Force Times comments:

"In close-quarter firefights where friendly soldiers could be wounded if bombs are used, cannon fire and missiles are often the preferred alternative." (Bruce Rolfsen, 'Afghanistan hit by record number of bombs,' Air Force Times, July 18, 2008;
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news /2008/07/airforce_bomb_oef_071708/)

The response of the UK press to these latest atrocities is a case study in censorship by omission.

On July 12, the Guardian devoted 307 words to the attack on the wedding party. The killing of 39 women and children was not considered front page news - the story was buried on page 30. (Mohammad Rafiq Jalalabad, 'US air strike killed 47 civilians, says Afghan government,' The Guardian, July 12, 2008)

On the same day, a 490-word article in the Times focused on the fate of nine British troops injured when a US helicopter accidentally targeted them in a "friendly fire" incident. Six of the nine soldiers have since returned to duty, with three still receiving medical treatment. While 447 words were devoted to this story, the article concluded with two sentences totalling 43 words on the killing of the Afghan civilians:

"However, 47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, an Afghan government investigation has concluded. The nine-man investigation team found that only civilians were hit during the airstrike." (Dominic Kennedy and Michael Evans, 'Friendly fire inquiry to investigate messages from troops,' The Times, July 12, 2008)

At time of writing there have been five mentions of the 47 deaths in UK national quality newspapers.

Media reports on Western victims of terrorist or insurgent attacks typically provide detailed information on the names, backgrounds and personal histories of the victims. When the first female British soldier, Sarah Bryant, was killed in Afghanistan on June 17, the media poured forth details about her life. The BBC website showed pictures of Bryant's wedding and devoted an article to moving tributes from her husband, father, mother, commanding officer, unit commander, friends and colleagues. A friend of the family described Bryant: "A hundred per cent feminine, very pretty, very unassuming, a natural person, very happy - the sort of person that when she was in a room, it lit up." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/uk_news/7463470.stm)

Bryant, recall, was a combatant. The depth of focus changes for Iraqi and Afghan non-combatant victims of US-UK violence. In a BBC online article, Martin Patience reported the July 6 attack:

"Regional officials said the casualties were attending a wedding party and that the bride had been killed." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7502137.stm)

We wrote to Patience (July 14), noting that he had reported that the bride had been among the victims. We asked him why he had not mentioned that fully 39 of the victims were women and children. He responded:

"I accept your point about not mentioning women and children, although, in my defence, the story was linked to the new story and I didn't necessarily want to repeat the details." (Email to Media Lens, July 14)

We wrote back:

"Thanks for your response, I appreciate it. But something doesn't add up. How often did the media provide us with the personal details - name, gender, photo, education, work lives, loved ones, aspirations - of the victims of the July 7 bomb attacks in London? [See here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/ uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm] The July 6 atrocity in Afghanistan has been reported a tiny handful of times in the press. Why would you be concerned about repeating the fact that almost all of the victims were women and children?" (Email, July 14)

We received no further reply but, to its credit, the BBC did subsequently publish an excellent piece on the July 6 attack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7504574.stm

Patience had earlier reported: "the latest claim of civilian casualties puts yet more pressure on the Afghan authorities and international forces to get it right when carrying out operations." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7492195.stm)

The reference to the need for "international forces" to "get it right" might sound like neutral language. But imagine if a journalist had commented in August 1990 that claims of civilian casualties had put "yet more pressure on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces to get it right when carrying out operations in Kuwait." The bias suddenly becomes very clear.

Militants And Mistakes
On July 12, Leonard Doyle of the Independent reported:

"The UN said last month that nearly 700 Afghan civilians had lost their lives in Afghanistan this year, about two-thirds in attacks by militants and about 255 in military operations." (Doyle, 'US to investigate air strike that killed 47 Afghan civilians,' The Independent, July 12, 2008)

From this, we were presumably to understand that the "militants" are not conducting "military operations", and Afghan government/"coalition" forces conducting "military operations" are not "militants".

The point being that "militant" is a pejorative term used by journalists to suggest illegitimacy. In June 1999, the BBC reported that "Kosovo Albanians have been welcoming the return of armed KLA soldiers." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/369239.stm) KLA insurgents fighting Serbian forces were supported by the West and were regularly described as "soldiers" rather than "militants" or "insurgents". The British media have similarly referred to the "Chechen resistance" fighting the Russian army. Ironically, British and American journalists also commonly referred to Afghan forces fighting the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as "resistance fighters" and "freedom fighters" (See our media alert: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/ 07/071120_invasion_a_comparison.php). The use of such terms is of course inconceivable in US-UK reporting of the current occupation.

On the rare occasions when US-UK atrocities are discussed, they are invariably described as blunders rather than crimes. On July 13, Alastair Leithead commented on the BBC's evening news:

"It's these mistakes that cost the US the support of the [Afghan] people."

In September 2004, the BBC's Nicholas Witchell reported on BBC TV news from Baghdad:

"As is so often the case in this conflict it's the Iraqi civilian population which suffers the greatest loss of life - either as a result of mistakes by the Americans, or, far more frequently, of course, as a result of the bombs and the bullets of the insurgents." (Witchell, BBC1, 18:00 News, September 30, 2004)

The bias could hardly be more transparent - we kill civilians only by "mistake", our enemies do not. Noam Chomsky comments:

"The more vulgar apologists for U.S. and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that, while Arabs purposely kill people, the U.S. and Israel, being democratic societies, do not intend to do so. Their killings are just accidental ones, hence not at the level of moral depravity of their adversaries." (Noam Chomsky, 'Terrorists wanted the world over.' February 26, 2008; http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174899)

As Chomsky notes we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. When Israel's High Court authorised intense collective punishment of the people of Gaza by depriving them of electricity, when Bill Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998 in Sudan supplying half the country's drugs, and when Bush and Blair invaded Iraq, the devastating consequences for civilians were predictable, but ignored.

Certainly it is reprehensible to kill with intent. But is it any better to kill without intent when the likely consequences for our victims are so irrelevant that they do not even enter our minds? The point being, as Chomsky writes, that Western elites really do appear to regard Third World peoples "much as we do the ants we crush while walking down a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such consideration." (Ibid)

When we assemble the different pieces of the media jigsaw puzzle, clear patterns emerge. Western victims are presented as real, important people with names, families, hopes and dreams. Iraqi and Afghan victims of British and American violence are anonymous, nameless. They are depicted as distant shadowy figures without personalities, feelings or families.

The result is that Westerners are consistently humanised, while non-Westerners are portrayed as lesser versions of humanity.

SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

INSANITY'S HOLY LADDER

By: Thebeerdoctor

First there is the banality of the news: US STEPS UP AIR STRIKES IN BASRA. A glib announcement to be sure, sandwiched between celebrity gossip and the latest political drool pool. It seems so abstract, so distant. President Bush proclaims this to be a defining moment. Everybody is “aiming to make sure that we have enough of a presence to make sure that we’re successful in Iraq.”

What is considered successful in Iraq is something only the commander-in-chief and his handlers can define. But something that needs no further definition is the terror and horror wrought on the Iraqis from these air strikes. Any concern about the moral ambiguities of such actions, becomes simply an argument over whether those found in the smoldering rubble, were civilians or combatants. One thing is certain, whatever their political status, they are all equally dead.

There is something about the inherent vicious cruelty of the Bush occupation doctrine that most people in the United States do not want to comprehend.

“This is a test and moment for the Iraqi government, which strongly has supported Prime Minister Maliki’s actions, ” George Bush instructed. Tell that to the forty or so policemen who surrendered their weapons to Sheik Salman al-Feraiji, representative of Moktada al-Sadr, in exchange for an olive branch and a copy of the Quran. They explained that they could not fight their brothers in the Mahdi army.

“They’re fighting some pretty tough characters,” George Bush noted, while explaining US support of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s crackdown on Shia militias. “People who kill innocent people to achieve objectives. And yes, there’s going to be violence, and that’s sad.”

This statement was not as dead pan glib as the vice president’s So? But equally distressing. Here is certified proof that war, or as in this case, occupation, is in itself a form of terrorism. But the people orchestrating this debacle refuse to admit this, they would rather, look at the big picture, where the inhumanity of deliberate deception becomes abstracted to a sound bite blur: Things are getting better in Iraq, I don’t care what anybody says. The surge is working. This is freedom’s defining moment.

Working for whom is the real question here. This is certainly not the case for the ordinary Iraqi who struggles to find clean water and electricity, and avoid becoming collateral damage from some misguided precision air strike. How would an ordinary US citizen feel if our cities were occupied with helicopter gun ships hovering about? One of the chief demands of the fiery radical cleric, as he is referred to here, is for the occupiers to get the hell out of his country. If the roles were reversed, and the United States was occupied, Moktada al-Sadr would be considered a fiery patriot.

“It’s still a dangerous, fragile situation in Iraq, ” President Bush cautioned. Apparently the surge is working, just not quite as well as they thought.

Using military rationalization to justify this horrendous conflict, makes the candidacy of Senator John McCain a precarious choice for president. Despite the news media excusing his foreign policy gaffes, the last thing this country or world needs is an uninformed leader, when attempting to repair the broken hornets nest that is Iraq. But this is pointless to bring up with those who subscribe to the we are not going to cut and run like they did in ‘91 mantra. The ever elusive goal of victory remains the raison d’etre, even if that involves a systematic eradication of empathy. What a peculiar form of Christianity. The holy mission of bringing democracy to the people of the world, is said to be President Bush’s plan from God. He is resolved to bring them liberation, even if it kills them, one or all.