One event, two different stories: reality in Iraq is as fluid as the occupying propaganda machine can make it, writes Ramzy Baroud* One event, two different stories: reality in Iraq is as fluid as the occupying propaganda machine can make it, writes Ramzy Baroud One of the earliest philosophers to wrangle with the hazy relationship between language and reality was the Buddhist Nagarjuna. He contended that reality is constructed by language as opposed to language essentially imitating reality. His opinion was but one among many. Not one school of philosophy, whether by conventional Western definition or in broader Eastern school idiom, neglected to tussle over the subject; not that philosophers from antiquity to the present enjoy killing time, but the issue at hand was and remains of key relevance. Take as an example the bloody clashes in the southern Iraqi city of Basra on 19 September, where several Iraqis, including a police officer were killed. Two extraordinary, and entirely contradictory, narratives emerged. One narrative was visual, largely suppressed by US media, and was aired repeatedly on Arabic television channels such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. The visual narrative was of violent clashes between mostly unarmed yet enraged Iraqi protesters and British forces, a British soldier catching fire, blood-stained Iraqi police officers and so forth. There was also the total destruction of an Iraqi police station, almost completely razed after British armoured vehicles moved in to "rescue" two British agents who were arrested by Iraqi police for what was described as "suspicious" conduct. Only one plausible conclusion could be reached: Iraqis see the British forces in Basra as occupiers and the latter behaves as such. The second narrative was different. Here, written and spoken words became indispensable, deployed generously to help construct or deconstruct events. Even considering the unlawful war, occupation and surrounding political context, another way was found to articulate what occurred. Indeed, the British government and military seemed to comment on an entirely different event. Two soldiers were on a "routine" mission, we were told. They were unlawfully detained; transferred to a nearby house that is owned by members of Iraqi militias, which are backed by Iran; that the latter is irate at British efforts to halt Iran's nuclear programme, thus Iranian efforts in destabilising Iraq is the mullahs' way of evading international pressure, etc. Iraqis are not and never were a match for British propaganda, injected by the state and parroted by both British and American media. The official British story defies common sense. Why would the Iraqi authorities that derive their legitimacy from the British and American military presence pose any threat to the lives of two British soldiers? Was that threat so immanent that it required such a fantastic show of force to further humiliate the already scorned Iraqi police and murder several people? Why were British "special forces" disguised in Arabic-style dress? The governor of Basra denounced what he described as a "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" British attack. Local police authorities swore to have apprehended two foreign-looking men, dressed in traditional Arabic clothing, refusing to yield at a checkpoint and opening fire at local police, killing and wounding several, while driving a vehicle that was allegedly laden with "explosives". So what happened? The majority of British and American newspapers, with few exceptions, chose to avoid any critical inquiry into the British government and military account. Rather, they questioned the integrity of the local Iraqi authority and selectively chose to quote the forgiving statements of Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, who classified the entire episode as all- too-common in such times. Further, Al-Jaafari asked the British to stay a while longer to help Iraq win its fight against "terrorists". Meanwhile, crafty media "experts" in fine suits assumed the role of "interpreters"; spinning absurd but damage-limiting rumours about the Iraqi police having been "infiltrated" by Shia militia -- particularly extremists of Al-Badr Brigade and followers of Moqtada Al-Sadr. Media pundits went overdrive in diligently searching for a direct link that would conveniently indict Iran. Language deconstructed what visuals made clear. The desperate attempt of Iraqis to assert a level of sovereignty in their own country became a mega conspiracy, where the aggressor and the victim swapped roles in a twisted sort of way. Once language managed to skew reality in a favourable direction, British Defence Secretary John Reid returned to his personal style of positive diplomacy: "We will not cut and run and we will not leave the job half done. We stand by Iraq when times are tough and we will be a committed friend, not a fair-weather friend." The Iraqi reality, however, is too grim to bear any resemblance to what British and American politicians and media are disseminating. The bloody images, the ever-rising death toll, the mounting insurgency; all are indicative of an occupied country rebelling, where the line between the imperial lord and the subjugated vassal is most clearly drawn. * The writer is a Palestinian-American journalist.
