Paul
and Nimrod tell a tale of U.S. initiated disinformation overseas leading to
disinformation here in the U.S. I don't exactly share their concerns, and here's why.
First, if U.S. reporters "faithfully relay summaries" of the forged
broadcasts to U.S. readers, they are not doing their jobs. Every reporter knows
that broadcasts
in Iraq are a function of the Iraqi government. There is no free
press in Iraq.
Thus, if broadcasts are anti-Iraq, or in any way questioning the Iraqi leader,
the reporter had better be looking for an alternative explanation. There are
some Kurdish and Communist opposition media outlets, primarily in the north
of Iraq, and the United States has supported these efforts, including providing funding.
Thus, words of opposition in Iraq are most likely to be viewed--even by U.S.
media representatives--as the words of the United States.
Second, it seems that U.S. reporters and news publications are happy to buy
disinformation when it comes directly from the horse's mouth. Remember Gulf
War I and the wonderful accuracy of U.S. weapons? Remember how few
Iraqi's--especially innocent ones--died? Let's not forget coverage of Gulf War
I, where reporters were shepherded
around by U.S. military personnel and whose reports were checked by military
censors before they were filed? Is this somehow more of a danger than such
direct censorship or media "buy-in" to U.S. propaganda efforts? Probably not.
Third, this kind of disinformation
is nothing new. It happened in
Vietnam
(other interesting stuff here);
we did it in WWII,
too, both at home and abroad, and in Gulf
War I. In most cases, our journalistic brothers in the
"traditional" press have been able to keep government propaganda
spread to foreign people separate from true representations of the atmosphere in
a country with which we are at war. Why should we expect something different
here? We probably should not expect anything different from what has happened in
the past, unless we're worried about media complicity (which is something
to worry about as I've argued above, but is not particularly exacerbated by the
allegations regarding U.S. hijacking of radio frequencies in Iraq).
My point is this: disinformation is going to happen, on both sides. In
Afghanistan, the U.S. dropped leaflets making the case in the native tongue that
Osama had abandoned and betrayed the Afghan people, as well as other
arguments. Did anyone report that these leaflets were printed by Afghans? Not
that I saw . . .
In conclusion, let me say that we should be careful in crafting criticisms of
the current bullying
administration. Stretching facts beyond their logical conclusions and making
radical claims are techniques that are likely to lend credence to the
administration's charges that nothing it does is going to be approved by
anti-war sectors in the academy and the general public. We should keep our
arguments focused on true dangers, here and abroad.
We have plenty to complain about in relation to the media, the Bush administration, and Iraq; we don't need to yell wolf when everyone already knows the wolf is there.