Page 198 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

188 Chapter 8

construction, and human rights, only kill civilians by accident in bombing cam-
paigns targeting guerilla forces. The attempt to make this distinction is vital
when considering the argument that the U.S. is promoting democracy, stabiliza-
tion, and prosperity in Iraq.
As opposed to Islarnist groups like Al Qaeda, which directly target civilians,
American forces are said to target only rebel forces, although civilians inevitably
are caught up in the attacks (to a supposedly small degree). The emphasis on
limiting Iraqi civilian casualties has become a major theme driving reporting of
the American invasion, and subsequently, the pacification campaign. The New
Republic editors announced during the 2003 invasion in regards to the alleged
limitation of collateral damage that "this supposedly cold-blooded [Bush] ad-
ministration is making a remarkable, some might even say militarily dangerous,
effort to spare Iraqi lives."34 The New York Times reported the administration's
motives in a similar fashion, as the U.S. sought to "Avoid a in its drive
toward the capital. A major headline from the paper read: "Battle for Baghdad
like War Plan: Kill Enemy, Limit Damage, Provide id.''^ The claims of re-
porters, that the U.S. is concerned with limiting Iraqi casualties, are in accord
with statements of government leaders who speak of limiting collateral damage.
Former Pentagon Spokesperson Victoria Clarke, for example, argued that "We
[the U.S.] go to great lengths to avoid unnecessary loss of [Iraqi] life," and that
"most of our bombs are precision-guided," allowing American leaders to
"choose targets carefully to avoid civilian casual tie^."^^
Despite efforts to portray Iraq as a major security threat, the United States
defeated the Baath regime with minimal resistance. No Iraqi tank was successful
during the 2003 invasion in destroying an American tank, and no American
warplane ever went up against an Iraqi fighter.38 Media rhetoric announcing a
commitment to limiting civilian damage was repeated throughout the early
stages of the war, but also appeared later on as violence escalated against the
growing "insurgency." However, media outlets sometimes contradicted prom-
ises of limiting collateral damage, using language that suggested that Iraq had
suffered greater infrastructure damage as a result of the American campaign.
In reporting on the "fast, furious and relentle~s"~~ invasion toward Baghdad,
U.S. forces found themselves "cruising to ~a~hdad'" and strengthening their
"chokehold" on the city, as they proceeded in the "tightening of the noose"
around the regime and the people of 11-q.~' John F. Burns of the New York Times
reported shortly before the war on the "deep-rooted fear" of the Iraqi people "of
being obliterated in an Armageddon deployed by the world's greatest military
power.'A2 Such rare admissions of the large-scale dangers of American bomb-
ing, however, were not a central theme of wartime media reporting and propa-
ganda.
Sustained resistance to American occupation was to surface shortly after the
invasion, however, as many Iraqis attempted to force an end to the occupation.
As attacks against the U.S. grew, so too did media reporting on the importance
of fighting guerilla resistance. Newsweek summarized that: "defeating insurgen-
cies is very hard. The preferred method down the ages has been extermination-