Kid gloves for Rumsfeld

BY Muralidhar Reddy| IN Media Practice | 29/03/2003

The steady march of the caravan of US led military tanks----destination Baghdad---has been marked by unabashed jingoism in a section of the western media. Some of the coverage by the networks with worldwide reach makes one wonder whether they are reporting or fighting the war!  All kudos to the `embedded` journos risking their limbs and lives and walking alongside the war machines. But as many have confessed in their dispatches, they can report only what they have been permitted to put across. So one can only sympathise but certainly not pick holes in their dis `patches`.

The same benefit of doubt can not be extended to the `star` television anchors as they claim to put the war picture in a `perspective`. And most of them have been overly patriotic. The result is that the bigger picture they seek to present invariably is the one on the radar of Pentagon. What else could be expected when these channels cover it from the angle of us vs them. Us in this case happen to be in capital letters, US and them, `the tyrant Saddam Hussain`. The titles they have chosen speak volumes. `Strike on Iraq` later changed to `war in Iraq` goes the logo of CNN. `Operation Iraqi freedom` goes Fox. Sounds familiar. Well that is the name given to the operation by  the Bush Administration.      

On the sixth day of the relentless bombardment of every conceivable Iraqi `target` President Bush approached the US Congress seeking sanction of $74.5 billion dollars for the `war`. Is it actually a war considering the strength of US coalition and Iraqi `mafia`?  The US television networks reported with emphasis that a tenth of the money would go for humanitarian aid. Does that mean 90 per cent would go towards destruction, of course of the Saddam Empire?

If in the process civilian targets are hit or innocents are killed, it is collateral damage. There was a furious debate in the American press prior to the war about costs but not after it started. At least the anchors who `broke` the news did not raise them.  There was a  great deal of curiosity not debate about the precision bombs particularly after the `shock and awe` display on the second day. As bombs rained on the historic city of Baghdad one of the anchors on Fox, had the audacity to declare that it was a message not just to Saddam but the whole world.

The US Secretary of State, Donald W. Rumsfeld who appears enjoying every moment of last week, proudly told a leading US channel that the bombs were so smart that people of Baghdad were going about their chores as usual. His logic was they have nothing to fear, as the target was the regime and all the weapons it has concealed. Alas at the CENTCOM briefing on March 25 the commander had a message to people of Iraq. Don`t move out. It prompted a reporter to ask whether it meant the coalition would turn indiscriminate.

These networks reported on the fifth day that the precision bombs were 80 per cent accurate. In other words the chances are 20 per cent of the bombs could be hitting the `unintended`. Tragically a bright reporter of the Independent Television network of London, who was killed on the fourth day, seems to have become target of the not so smart bombs.

An interview by Rumsfeld to the American network, CBS minutes after the dramatic capture of the American soldiers by Iraqi forces exemplifies the extent to which some of the channels have associated themselves with the whole military operation. The Defence Secretary made himself available for all the major network, some of the interviews stretching up to one hour, to counter the `impact` of the capture news.      

Here are excerpts from the famous interview conducted on March 23.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, I am told that we have just gotten some pictures that have come in from Al-Jazeera. We`re told that these are Americans in Iraq. I don`t know what else to say about it.

RUMSFELD: I have no idea. There are some journalists that are missing; not journalists that were embedded with our forces but some freelance people who were moving around on their own. Some have been killed and some are missing. And whether they were journalists or coalition forces I simply don`t know. I will say this. The Geneva Convention indicates that it`s not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war. And if they do happen to be American or coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they should be treated.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask our own people. Do we know where those men were? Were they in Baghdad or did we have any information? We do not know where they were. All we know is it just came in on Al-Jazeera.

DAVID MARTIN, CBS News National Security Correspondent: Will the fact that the Iraqis have American prisoners in any way affect American strategy?

RUMSFELD: Oh, no. It can`t. I mean, the plan will go forward. It is proceeding. And it seems to me that showing a few pictures on the screen, not knowing who they are and being communicated by Al-Jazeera, which is not a perfect instrument of communication in my view, obviously is part of Iraqi propaganda. And responding to Iraqi propaganda, it seems to me, is not what the United States armed forces are about.

Rumsfeld got away with so much. The question was about American soldiers and where did the missing journalists` crop up. The Secretary talked about  the Geneva Convention and its violation by Iraqi television by showing captured soldiers. Ironically, hours before these networks were beaming pictures of captured Iraqi `soldiers` (it has been disputed by Saddam regime) with their hands tied and lined up.

The anchor did not bother to even comment leave alone criticise the sweeping statement made by Rumsfeld on Al-Jazeera allowing itself to be used for Iraqi `propaganda`. The network has earned a name for its independence and is banned in some of the Arab countries for its boldness. Since nine-eleven, all the American networks have happily beamed footage from Al-Jazeera. It was Al-Jazeera that broke all news about the war in Afghanistan and aired the Bin Laden tapes. The western networks continue to broadcast footage from Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi Television on Iraq. And yet not a word to correct the impression made by Rumsfeld’s statement. Instead just see what is the priority of the anchor (s). 

MARTIN: Mr. Secretary, before we go any further, I`m told that yesterday you officially became the oldest secretary of Defense in history and since you were once the youngest secretary of Defense, I guess that makes you two-fer, so congratulations.

RUMSFELD: Thank you. I`m told that there was a secretary of war, however, Henry Stimson, who was 78 years old, so he`s got me by a few years.

MARTIN: Well, you`ve turned into a Secretary of War.

RUMSFELD: That`s true.

After about thirty minutes the anchors come to the question of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the supposed reason for the war. This is how it goes.

MARTIN: Have we have we found any evidence yet of weapons of mass destruction?

RUMSFELD: Oh, my goodness, no. It`s what have we been going for 75 hours in the south and the west, and the north and have been fighting a war.

MARTIN: But you have searched some sites?

RUMSFELD: I don`t know that.

MARTIN: You don`t have a team out there in the west that is searching sites?

RUMSFELD: We have lots of teams in the west and lots of teams in the north and large numbers of forces in the south. Are they may very well have information from somebody that said, `Gee, you might go on and look here,` and you`ll find some people and you`ll find some things.

Now on to rocket launchers.

MARTIN: So you have not seen any of the launchers come out or anything like that?

RUMSFELD: I have not heard anything about that.

SCHIEFFER: Would there -- and I guess perhaps you`ve already answered this question -- but I take it you have seen no evidence that they are getting ready to use chemical weapons against our forces?

RUMSFELD: That would not be correct. We have seen intelligence that capabilities are dispersed, and whether it`s true or not, indications that orders have been issued that permit selected commanders to make judgments with respect to that. But whether they will or not, the important thing to remember is Saddam Hussein cannot use weapons of mass -- chemical or biological weapons. He has to get other people to do it for him. And we have to persuade them that they best not do it. That they don`t want to be supporting a dying regime, a regime that`s done, and be hunted down the rest of their lives for having committed those kinds of crimes.

SCHIEFFER: But let me just make sure I understand what you said here. You have seen preparations...

RUMSFELD: We have seen...

SCHIEFFER: ...that they might do that.

RUMSFELD: ...intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they`re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.

SCHIEFFER: David, final question.

MARTIN: Let me just be clear on this. You`ve seen intelligence, but have you seen the weapons themselves?

RUMSFELD: Oh, no, I just answered that question.

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

RUMSFELD: We`re not there.

MARTIN: No, but have you dispersed -- well, those are the sites you that you are searching. But I`m talking about...

RUMSFELD: I didn`t say we were searching sites, you said that.

MARTIN: OK.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, I`m sorry we have to end it right there. But I think we understand what you said here. Thank you so much for joining us.

RUMSFELD: You bet.

Well, CBS has understood. The rest of the world had better understand.

(The transcript of the interview is available on www.cbsnews.com)