Winning War with Words
Thursday, April 10, 2003, was a historical day for Americans when jubilant Iraqis with the help of the US forces wrenched down the status of Saddam Hussein, a symbolic and military victory for Bush administration who started the war in Iraq surrounded by much scepticism and controversy.
Undeniably, much accolades for the surprising swift victory went to the modern forces, the pinpoint accuracy of the bombs, the commanders’ real-time view of the battlefield, the well-coordinated branches of the armed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) and special operations. Equally merited, I believe, are the “public relations” departments of Bush Administration and Pentagon – they are the unsung heroes who fought the war not with bullets or bombs but “words”.
One should not underestimate the potency of “words”, “public relations” or “propaganda” in winning war. 300 BC Chinese military strategist Sun Tze could not stress more when he wrote, “The way (propaganda) is what brings the thinking of the people in line with their superiors. Hence, you can send them to their deaths or let them live, and they will have no misgivings one way or the other.” (Carr, pp73). Napoleon Bonaparte had no misgivings when he “closed the number of newspapers in Paris from over sixty in 1799 to four by 1814.” (PSB). German Nazi Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said: “”During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information.” (Cornerstone).
Propaganda is all the more important today given the omnipresence of television and the Internet which reach out to the masses in real time. Goebbels at his time was well aware of these marketing tools when he remarked that “the radio will be for the Twentieth Century what the press was for the Nineteenth,” and “radio is already an invention of the past, since television will probably soon arrive.” (Calvin)
However, in a democratic country with reverence to free speech, the America government does not have absolute control over the media; hence, propaganda takes the form of a double edged sword. The US learnt their bitter lesson in the Vietnam war when public opinion repulsed at the sight of TV footages of “body bags”. Since then, the US has learnt smarter and resorted to other ways to influence the media and of course the masses.
“Embedded” Reporters
In an unprecedented gesture, the US government allowed the new technology of live reporting in the field by “embedding” 600 reporters with the troops. Needless to say, the US got to chose who gets to be one. Not surprisingly, reporters representing French and German media were pitifully few given their government different stance on this war. In addition, questions about the “embedded” reporters’ role and how well they identify with the American’s cause arise since they are subjected to what they can report and not. Flouting this rule will jeopardise the reporter’s “embedded” privilege, a situation most media would prefer not to be in. The sacking of Peter Arnett by NBC for appearing on Iraqi television is just one example. Jack Shafer, editor at large for Slate.com and a media critic, questioned the integrity of one newspaper in one investigative piece, “Is the New York Times breaking the news—or flacking for the military?” Independent reporting has been being compromised.
Euphemism
The use of rhetoric flourishes in war is nothing new but to use it subtly and effectively is the trick. In the deadline paranoid world of journalism, reporters, correspondents, and news anchors suddenly found themselves speaking the same lingoes formulated and spoon-fed by Pentagon. And these lingoes have the power to mould opinion and shape attitude.
Here are some of them:
Operation Iraqi Freedom – A bumper sticker-ready phase carefully chosen and pack a subtle political punch, much superior than the militaristic Desert Storm. It really makes a difference. How would you feel if Pentagon calls it “Operation Iraqi Onslaught”?
Precision weapon – A delicate euphemism for bomb.
Decisive precision shocks – An alternative phrase for bomb, according to General Tommy Franks.
Liberation Not Invasion – A term emphasised by military and political leaders and supporters of the war to describe U.S. aims in Iraq.
Secure Not Capture – A catch-phase often used when any key military spot was occupied.
Serious Consequences – The term used in UN resolution 1441 describing what Saddam would face if he didn’t disarm. Bush and Blair say it is a clear indication that war would follow a failure to disarm.
Weapons of Mass Destruction or Weapons of Mass Terror – A propagandistic terms for the enemy’s weaponry. However, many have pointed out that only nukes are capable of widespread property damage, and there is scant evidence of an Iraqi nuclear capability.
Shock and Awe – An alternative term for Blitzkrieg strategy by which the Nazis quickly captured France and the Low Countries in 1940 by using swift, overwhelming attack that confuses and demoralizes the enemy into rapid submission. However Nazi gave Blitzkrieg a bad name, shock and awe is chosen.
Coalition Forces or Coalition of the Willing – Primarily U.S. forces and British forces. Yes, there are some non-Americans among the more than 250,000 soldiers in the Iraq campaign – 200 Poles, 150 Norwegians and 70 Albanians, for instance. But most of the advertised 48 members of America’s “coalition of the willing” did not contribute military personnel and 15 of them are not prepared to be named. So much for coalition.
Friendly Fire – Screw-up big time, own forces accidentally killing each others.
Softening up the Republican Guards – A less gory term that means let’s shoot those Suddam’s lapdogs.
Unintended Consequences – An abstract term for civilians killed in the war.
Regime versus Government – You have a regime, I have a government.
Homicide bomber – Actually means suicide bomber but the Bush administration wanted to strip the noble quality associated with the word “suicide”.
Freedom, Democracy and Justice – Must-have words in any political speeches. George Orwell put it so succinctly, “The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.” (Orwell, 1946).
Leo Kee Chye
Posted By
leokeechye@gmail.com
Categories
History, Sociology
Tags
Propaganda, war