Reality versus fiction in carnage coverage
Nothing could be clearer from the Iraq horror show than the way US officials and commanders have reserved all rights to use overwhelming force against Iraqis who resist or are anywhere near those who resist the US taking of their country. So far, the bombardment of Fallujah has been undertaken in measured paces. But the message is clear–the US will flatten Fallujah if it so decides.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration spokespeople have in recent days stepped up their blasts against coverage of these events by Al Jazeera and other Mideast-based satellite news services. This report in the New York Times illustrates the limits of freedom inside the new US sphere.
I watched the small clip of Al Jazeera coverage that Nightline broadcast this evening. I felt it was objective in the sense that it spoke for itself. Mostly, this was camcorder footage of what was happening on the ground–bombs, fires, smoke, injured people, people asking why they should be bombed, concern that ambulances were blocked from reaching the hospital.
Oh boy, we better shoot that messenger. The problem for US war managers is that allowing too many people in the region to see the results of the bombardment, the creation of refugees, and the overall domination with superior US firepower gets people mad–and produces cheering for the underdog resistance. But it also causes political problems for the US–and those problems are building up pressure that could explode.
The way the Guardian puts it, “…the ferocious nature of the ‘defensive responses’ and the fact that the fighting was broadcast live on Arabic and western television channels means the gap between the rhetoric of the commanders in Baghdad and the reality on the ground in Falluja appears to widen by the day”.
Here is detail on the stark contrast between the official line and the reality on the ground. First, we have a slice from General Kimmitt’s Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing for Wed. Apr. 28:
“Shortly after 2200, enemy forces attacked coalition defensive positions in Fallujah, again violating the cease-fire agreement. After receiving RPG and direct fire in their defensive positions, the coalition forces called for close air support.
“As shown on the board, at 2230, coalition air assets observed enemy forces in a flatbed truck and a sedan driving from intersection to intersection with their lights off, dropping off and picking up personnel in bundles, a common tactic which we’ve seen used by enemy forces prior to an attack on coalition positions.
“The vehicles were engaged by coalition air assets, resulting in the destruction of the vehicles as well as significant secondary explosions from the ammunition they were carrying. Those secondary explosions continued on for at least 20 minutes.
“Insurgents fled the immediate area and occupied a nearby building. Coalition aircraft fired on the structure in continued support of Marines in contact on the ground. When the rounds impacted the structure, again secondary explosions were also produced, indicating the presence of large amounts of ordnance inside the building”.
As the Guardian suggested, what they really did was very far out of proportion with the actual threat the resistance fighters posed. Kimmitt’s not lying, he’s just understating the bombing and overstating the feeling that such a response is defensive. On its own horrendous terms, this view of the operation is probably quite proper to Kimmitt.
But Juan Cole supplies details in a post that communicates well the reasons why this US aerial bombing of civilian buildings constitutes gross violation of international law.
Cole writes of the AC-130s, “The immense firepower of these warplanes, however, simply should not be being unleashed against the Julan quarter. You cannot do that so precisely that you ensure that innocent civilians are not massacred along with the guerrillas. It is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Although about 1/3 of Fallujans have reportedly left the city, that would leave 200,000 or so inside”.
What Juan Cole writes about the truth of the situation appears in this case to support the Al Jazeera version of events.
Why the attack on the free press? The US does face a problem. General Kimmitt has promised to “pacify” Fallujah, as if that is what is needed to solve all the problems. The cease fire is fiction. It is correctly reported not to be real by Al Jazeera, and this politically undermines the US pacification strategy as they try to soften the city for invasion. Nothing short of a complete rollover would seem to satisfy the US, so this invasion would seem terribly likely.
The whole world is watching.