ON PBS television in the United States recently there was a discussion concerning the report that the Pentagon had planted stories in the Iraqi press. Two men were speaking — one of them, Ralph Peters, was a retired US Army officer and the other was John Schulz, the dean of the College of Communication at Boston University. They were each addressing the issue of the ethics behind the planted stories. It was, to say the least, an interesting conversation.
The military man said with perfect explicitness that in such cases the ends justify the means. He made the point that in order to protect lives in Iraq and to use the media as other parties are using it, it is essential for the US to do as others do and exploit the capabilities of the media.
The college dean said that such methods were themselves a betrayal of the democracy that the US is allegedly attempting to bring to Iraq.
The reply to that was that in a democracy such as the US, a free press is of vital importance but that Iraq is not yet a full-fledged democracy.
Oh, so in other words although the US seems to feel superior to the Iraqi press, which suffered the slings and arrows of having to function under a brutal dictator and his henchmen, it now feels justified in doing exactly what it earlier so vehemently denounced. Do hares and hounds spring to mind?
Listening to the discussion between the two men who disagreed with each other was itself fascinating since it reflected the confusion in the media as to the rightness of wrongness of the war. At one point, when Schulz observed that it was pointless to hide facts since they inevitably came to light, Peters made what seemed a very icy and almost belligerent statement: “In the Middle East, the truth does not always come out.”
I found myself trying to figure out what he was saying and trying to grasp the implications of such logic within the general framework. The US, according to him, is waging a war against dictatorship in order to bring democracy to the region. In addition, we are told that press freedom and independence is fundamental to American democracy. That may be the claim or the premise but what the retired officer is saying seems to be a version of “All’s fair in love and war.” And since we cannot know the man’s feelings towards the Middle East, I suggest we stick to war.
Some would say that most rules do not apply in war; indeed, as has been said, truth is the first casualty of war. The Los Angeles Times quoted Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Services Committee: “Things like this happen. It is a war.” To him, however, I say that this is a war that we have been told over and over is being fought for a “noble” cause — to bring democracy and freedom to a people which certainly deserve both, to free them from oppression and dictatorship. All well and good — the words unfortunately have not been translated into reality and the methods used differ too little from what the people were to be freed from.
If we try to look at the situation from a distance and put together the pieces of information, we can see that everything in this instance was dealt with in a new and different way. We have heard talk of “friendly fire” but we wonder what is so friendly about a fatal bullet snuffing out the life of a journalist. We have seen shocking evidence of what went on at Abu Ghraib and despite international outrage, no one at the top has been punished — or even officially censured.
If, at this point, someone stands up and says that the people of the Middle East should stop whining about this and that and admit that their own countries are guilty of mass abuses and denial of rights, I would answer them as follows.
True, that certainly may be — but their countries were not trumpeting to the world that they were bringing liberty and justice to all or democracy and freedom to anyone, anywhere. If the bringing of democracy to Iraq is still on the agenda, then surely fair and honest treatment of that country’s people is not too much to expect.
If that is not possible because people in the Middle East are “different” and are “not used to freedom,” then I suggest the US turn over a new leaf and call a spade a spade, call things by their right names — or limit the empty rhetoric and electioneering slogans to domestic political campaigns.
