Anonymous Comrade submits:

"Which War Are You Watching? The View from Spain"

Dwight Reynolds

The American media's portrayal of the routing of Saddam Hussein as a great
military victory and a step toward world peace is almost incomprehensible
outside of the U.S., for the rest of us have been watching a very
different war. Here in Granada, I regularly watch the Spanish, French,
and British television news and then occasionally look at the CNN and New
York Times webpages. It is often hard to believe they are covering the
same events and the gap between American and global perceptions of this war
will certainly have significant repercussions for some time to come.

In the eyes of non-American media it took the world's most powerful and
wealthiest nation months of planning, the deployment of hundreds of
thousands of troops, and the launching of thousands of missiles at a cost
of tens of billions of dollars to topple one dictator in a country already
crippled by two earlier wars and ten years of international sanctions,
defended by a third-rate army almost entirely bereft of advanced armaments
who put up no coordinated resistance. Not an impressive feat. But -- to
the astonishment of the world -- America sees itself as heroic and
triumphant. Everyone is happy that Saddam is gone, but to portray this as
an impressive feat of arms seems to many people here an amazing act of
self-deception. What would happen if America ever had to face a *real*
army?

The campaign itself, as viewed outside the U.S., was constantly marred by
misjudgments and bad leadership: Brits and Americans killed themselves and
each other in a rash of "friendly fire" incidents; America's "smart
weapons" proved not to be so smart and instead caused horrifying
destruction in marketplaces, buses, maternity wards, and civilian
neighborhoods; the Tomahawk missile system had to be taken offline not
because it was missing its targets but because it was missing the entire
country of Iraq(!) and instead landing in Saudi, Jordanian, and Syrian
territories; the quick advances and welcoming crowds predicted by the
Rumsfeld cabal did not materialize and a panicked American military had to
call for reinforcements of 120,000 new troops after only a few days of
fighting.

The American military was portrayed here as unprepared and badly managed,
without contingency plans for even the most predictable of situations such
as sandstorms, suicide bombers, and lengthening supply lines. The flaws
in this performance were only made more obvious when European news
broadcasts over and over again placed headline stories of various mishaps
and civilian deaths next to the typically immodest statements of Rumsfeld
that American missiles were "the most precise ever seen in human history"
or that "everything is going exactly as planned," or Tommy Franks
announcing the infamous "shock and awe" campaign. More than one European
commentator took advantage of America's hubris to state that the only
"shock" in this war was how badly it was waged and how inured to human
suffering the American people seem to have become.

In one particularly poignant moment on Spanish television, after a series
of unrelenting images of civilian wounded and dead (far more graphic than
would ever be allowed in the U.S.), we were shown a Pentagon spokesperson
referring to understandable levels of "collateral damage." The Spanish
commentator simply looked directly into the camera, shook his head sadly
and mused: "One wonders what type of human being can refer to the death of
a child as "collateral damage."

The disinformation campaign waged by the U.S. government also went badly
awry and European commentators openly began to compare Iraqi and American
sources as being equally tendentious and unreliable: Tariq Aziz has
defected (oops, no he hasn't); Saddam Hussein is dead (oops, no he isn't),
an Iraqi division has surrendered (oops, only seven soldiers have
surrendered), we've captured an Iraqi general (oops, he's not a general or
even a ranking officer)....

When Saddam's media showed footage of Arab volunteers flocking to Iraq to
become suicide bombers, European TV channels showed that footage back to
back with the U.S. military's latest recruitment ads on American television
along with commentary about the increased militarization of both societies.
News programs began to note how many times the Coalition had to reannounce
its gains: "for the sixth day in a row, Coalition sources have announced
that Nasiriya has fallen," "once again the Coalition has announced that
resistance in Basra is under control," etc. The credibility of the
American government all but disappeared and that of the American media
crumbled.

When Iraq showed footage of its American hostages, European channels showed
the footage (not shown in the United States) back to back with Bush's
angry denunciations and his statement that this violated the Geneva
Convention -- followed immediately by American footage from earlier that same
week of its Iraqi POWs and then images of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
The audience scarcely needed the commentator's remarks afterwards about
double-standards and hypocrisy in order to draw the intended
conclusions.

When Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Peter Arnett was fired after his
statements critical of the war, the English newspaper the Daily Mirror
sported a headline something like: American Reporter Fired for Telling the
Truth. News programs in several European countries carried features that
night, and for several days following, about the state of the American
media: How could a reporter be fired for expressing criticism of a
government in an interview?

Commentary by multiple political and academic figures made it clear that
America no longer has a "free press" in the true meaning of the term, for
in America one is not free to express criticism of the war or of the Bush
regime.

Toward the end of the military engagement, American troops fired directly
upon the hotel which housed many of the international journalists still
remaining in Baghdad. That night the rest of the world watched in horror
the film footage of an American tank rolling into position in front of the
hotel, the turret turning to aim directly at the camera, the flash as the
shell was fired, and the destruction and dust as the shell hit just to one
side of the camera. We then watched as people, screaming for help, began
to dig bodies out from the rubble. One of those wounded was a Spanish
cameraman -- we followed him as he was carried out of the building in a
blanket, placed in a vehicle and transported to the hospital, and then we
watched as he died. The Spanish media was in an uproar.

In a series of badly calculated press releases, the Pentagon first claimed
that a sniper had fired from the hotel and that the Americans were
defending themselves. Journalists who had been in the hotel for the
previous 48 hours said that this was untrue: "Another of a seemingly
endless series of American lies meant to justify their stupid and senseless
war." The Pentagon then announced that there had been an unidentified
explosion, perhaps a missile. Finally, a day and a half later, the Pentagon
admitted that American troops had indeed fired directly upon the hotel and
killed the journalists. For every European who had watched the
unmistakable and shocking footage of the American attack two nights earlier
on the news, the prevarications of U.S. authorities were infuriating and
they were certainly not alleviated by the eventual, partial admission of
responsibility.

The day the statue of Saddam was torn down, the great divide between
America and the rest of the world was briefly suspended, and millions
watched to see if America would be wiser, more competent, and more humane
in peace than it had been in war. But within hours the chaos began to
spread and for the next few days one American spokesperson after another
got up in front of the cameras to say that America had no responsibility
for maintaining law and order or for protecting the civilian population
(despite the Geneva Conventions). In a truly shocking development,
Coalition troops did not even move to secure hospitals (see the Geneva
Conventions). Finally, after intense international pressure, first the
Brits and then the Americans admitted that, having launched thousands of
missiles at Iraq, having crippled much of the infrastructure of the
country, and having toppled the previous regime, the occupation forces did
indeed bear some responsibility for maintaining order.

But even after that admission, it became clear that there was no plan of
action and the sacking and burning of many of Iraq's -- and humanity's --
most precious treasures took place, while American soldiers stood by
aimlessly passing the time. Newspapers and news programs throughout Europe
are openly comparing America's role in Iraq to the burning of the great
Library of Alexandria, the Goths' sacking of Rome, and the Mongols' sacking
of Baghdad in the 13th century. In the end, it was only a matter of hours
from the images of the crowds cheering the arriving American troops to
those of the first public demonstrations against the American occupation.
CNN had an interesting spin on this, their headline ran: Iraqis exercise
newly-won freedom of expression to protest against Coalition Forces.

In the end, I think, the difference between the two views of the war (that
of America & Israel versus that of the rest of the world) boils done to a
single question: Were there alternatives? Americans were told by their
media that there were no alternatives and that the only option was for
Americans to get in there and get the job done (= war) and let the rest of
the world be damned. The rest of the world was told by their media that there
were numerous other options (diplomatic, economic, etc.) that would have
involved less death and destruction. So for most people in the world,
every civilian death in Iraq has been an unwarranted murder. For Americans
(or at least some), those deaths have been an acceptable means towards a
rather poorly-defined goal.

What exactly ARE American forces doing there? Disarming weapons of mass
destruction? Eradicating terrorism? Stabilizing Iraq's oil resources?
Toppling Saddam Hussein? Establishing a democracy?

As several editorials here have recently pointed out, if America is aiming
to establish a democracy, it will be doing something that it has not done
for nearly 60 years. For six decades the United States has supported and
maintained dozens of dictatorships, a host of military regimes, a
collection of monarchies, and the Israeli military occupation of the
Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip -- but it's record of supporting
democracies, let alone establishing them, is dismal indeed. Afghanistan,
the nation mostly recently the target of American interventionism,
languishes forgotten, scarcely funded by the Republican regime in
Washington, and certainly a long way from possessing a stable,
democratically-elected government.

In short, there were two very different wars to watch: one almost entirely
military in nature (the American version) and another portrayed in
unrelentingly human terms (the global version). Spain is nominally a
member of the coalition, but 91% of the population here opposes the war
and the largest and most impressive demonstrations against the war have
been held here, massive marches of millions upon millions of people in
nearly every city and town throughout the country. The coverage we watched
in Spain was unflinching in its portrayal of the violence and pain of war.
Here the demonstrations against the war continue and have now been
transformed into protests against the military occupation of Iraq. And, in
a development that may have far-reaching ramifications, more and more of
the placards in the marches say: BOYCOTT AMERICAN PRODUCTS.

This week everything is on hold since it is Semana Santa (Holy Week),
Spain's biggest holiday. The day before the holidays began, however,
was a general strike by university students and labor unions across
the country
protesting the war. Other activities that continue to take place are:
protest marches, concerts for peace, marches on the American military bases
in southern Spain, resignations by politicians in the ruling Partido
Popular in protest of Aznar's position, almost daily attempts to hold "No
Confidence" votes or votes condemning the war in the parliament (but the
ruling party holds an absolute majority so these never actually make it to
the floor for a vote, though they are reported over and over again in the
news), the opposition members of parliament have "No a la Guerra" signs in
front of them at their desks and have called for the closure of American
millitary bases in Spain, one group has tried to file a suit against Aznar
in the European High Court, high-school kids have been holding "die-ins" at
their schools and other public places, there are thousands upon thousands
of NO A LA GUERRA signs fluttering from windows and spray-painted on
buildings, and many people wear pins or t-shirts with that message every
day.

As a result, Spain never actually fought in the war, it only offered verbal
support and air space for American fly-overs. A Spanish hospital ship is
functioning in the Gulf and treating Iraqi wounded and now that the
fighting has all but stopped, Spanish soldiers have actually landed for the
first time to take part in the policing actions.

So such is the view from here in Spain. I will write more about other
aspects of life in a separate message, this one is already too long.
Despite it all, though, on a person-to-person level, Americans are treated
well and no one need fear traveling here. Spaniards are divided and more
than a bit confused when it comes to interpreting the public-opinion polls
that show that the majority of Americans support the war: some simply say
that Americans are a violent people (as demonstrated by their love of guns
and their astonishing rates of murder, violent crime, and imprisonment);
others say that Americans are famous for their lack of knowledge about the
world and their low level of education and that their support comes mainly
from not having suffered themselves the tragedy of war on their own soil.
A third school of thought was expressed to me rather succinctly the other
day by the owner of the music shop where I take my guitar lessons: "I don't
believe the polls. I don't think Americans really do support the war, no
people can be in favor of war -- but they don't really see the war, do they?
They just believe what the American media tell them."

Let us hope there are better days ahead for all of us.

Dwight F. Reynolds, Director

Centro de Estudios de la Universidad de California

Colegio Mayor Isabel la Catolica

Universidad de Granada

c/ Rector LÛpez Arg¸eta, 8

18001 Granada, Spain