Are events or media myths driving history in Iraq, asks Ramzy Baroud* In the weeks and months preceding the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, various US officials informed the already baffled public that the forthcoming war would be marred with tactical misinformation for the sole purpose of derailing Iraq's war stratagems and ultimately protecting the lives of American soldiers. This ushered in the infamous return of "embedded journalism", which unsurprisingly derailed whatever little integrity both the government and corporate media still possessed. Upon their arrival and subsequent takeover of Baghdad airport, shortly after the onset of military operations, US forces set up a radio station targeting the greater Baghdad era, with the sole purpose of disseminating half-truths -- even outright lies -- to contribute to the psychological warfare already underway in various parts of the country. The British army, too, embarked on similar projects in the south. Meanwhile, the regions dominated with a Kurdish majority in northern Iraq as well as parts of Iran were also hubs for propaganda, spreading the party line of myriad groups, each with its own ideological references, affiliations and self-seeking financiers. While many are familiar with the deadly "incidents" that led to the death and wounding of scores of journalists in Iraq, few are aware of the takeover and meticulous restructuring of official Iraqi television by American media experts with the help of friendly Arab media, a key ally coming from Lebanon. In a very short time, Iraqi television ceased exalting ousted President Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party, and commenced exalting the US occupation and its faithful partners. This impressive propaganda network was relatively, but temporarily, hampered by a few obstinate media outlets which were swiftly silenced, either through intimidation or by being completely thrown out of the country, ironically accused by American and Iraqi officials as being purveyors of propaganda. Considering all of this, getting unfiltered truths and unblemished facts past the country's borders -- literally and figuratively -- is a most arduous task. In thoroughgoing interviews with people who departed Iraq at various stages following the invasion, I am always left with an instant feeling of bewilderment; yet conversely, with a stronger conviction that the hundreds of media outlets operating from Iraq or disseminating information about Iraq are, sometimes unwittingly, propagating either exaggerated or completely fabricated narratives. Even those who are well intended and who wish to present an objective assessment of the situation in Iraq fall victim to a quandary. On one hand, most of the information available as the basis for one's story is produced by, sanctioned by, or cleared by the US military. The inevitable element of propaganda makes such information questionable at best. On the other hand, due to the lack of alternative information (except for facts provided by independent and respected journalists), one is left with the unhappy alternative of merely scrutinising the official and prevailing narrative in an attempt to extract facts out of contradictions and inconsistencies. The real peril in all of this is that public opinion is, to a great extent, shaped and manipulated by the official account, semi-official interpretations (those of ex-military men-turned-experts and official and corporately-funded think-tanks) and mainstream media oversimplification. Such trickery is regrettably prevalent and has established a solid narrative of what Iraq is and why, thus stipulating all sorts of answers to its problems. Interestingly, those answers almost always foresee a sustained American military presence in the country, which also happens to be the ultimate objective of President Bush and his administration. For example, it is now regarded as an uncontested fact that the disgruntled Sunni population in areas that form an imaginary geographic "triangle" in the centre of Iraq fuels the so-called insurgency. A parallel triangle takes on a different form, uniting the remnants of Baath Party loyalists, Islamic terrorists and fleeing Afghani and foreign fighters. We are also told that the reason behind Sunni fury was their loss of power and status following the toppling of Saddam, since the latter is a Sunni himself who supposedly favoured the Sunni Arab minority over the country's Shia majority, who are merely fighting for what is rightfully theirs, according to the edicts of democracy. Thus the US military occupation (often referenced as the "American presence") in Iraq becomes an imperative to protect the country's fresh democratic experience that restored order in favour of the country's Shia majority, whose democratically elected representatives are in fact the ones appealing for a deferral of any military withdrawal. The Bush administration, keen on nurturing democratic experiences everywhere, duly complies, since the national interests of the democratically elected governments of Iraq and the United States willingly converge. It's such a mockery that so few in the US media (excluding online media and some alternative radio) manage to break away from the above construct, which bears little or no resemblance to the truth; that those even wishing to disapprove of the administration's policy in Iraq often do so while accepting the above assertions as the parameters of their critique. To argue that Saddam's brutality applied to any group or individual that dared challenge his reign, whether Sunni or Shia; that the resistance in Iraq is, for the most part, a determined response to an illegitimate and deadly war and occupation; to challenge the authenticity of the claim specifying one group as majority and another as minority; to question the entire edifice of claims that classify the current political establishment in Iraq as democratic in the first place, or to argue that the relationship between the US military administration and the Iraqi government is not that of equals; to do any of that is to risk being dismissed as a loony. To be taken seriously, one must adhere to conformity, however flawed, and renounce common sense, however evident. It is still mind-boggling how the complex Iraq narrative can be reduced to the utterly oversimplified and proverbial bad guys vs good guys. It's even more perplexing how the discourse is often altered and modified to make yesterday's villains today's welcomed friends and allies. The media's role in moulding this discourse is most dubious. The falsification campaign, which was set into motion prior to the war, to help fashion a fitting and self-serving narrative of Iraq, its past and present continues unabated. It will carry on as long as people continue to unknowingly seek misinformation and half-truths from corporate media and government. Only by challenging this narrative, can a wider and more realistic understanding of the war, its complexities and its true objectives be attained. Only then can the public reclaim its rightful role in challenging the US administration's misguided discourse, wasteful wars and iniquitous propaganda. * The writer is a Palestinian-American journalist.
