http://www.creators.com
http://www.salam.org/iraq/media-eagerness.html
The Disturbing Eagerness for a Bloody Attack
Norman Solomon, Creators Syndicate
In the days since Saddam Hussein's pledge of full
cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors led President Clinton to
cancel air attacks at the last minute, a strong wave of
frustration has swept through American news media.
The pattern is all too familiar, the refrain goes. Yet
again, after a tense confrontation, the U.S. government ended up
taking yes for an answer from Iraq's cunning despot.
Many commentators have griped about the cost of mobilizing
and then not attacking. Each time the United States sends a fleet
to the Persian Gulf, the buildup costs another $1 billion or so.
What good is repeated deployment of enormous firepower if it
isn't used?
Quite a few pundits sounded very disappointed -- as if a
long-desired ice cream cone was near their lips and then went
splat on the sidewalk.
Two days after President Clinton proclaimed that "Iraq has
backed down," the most influential newspaper in the nation's
capital -- The Washington Post -- filled its opinion page with
caustic reactions from three prominent syndicated columnists.
Clinton has again proved that he's a wimp, George Will
observed from the front lines of his word processor. The
commentator warned against restraint: "U.S. forces should quickly
destroy any site, such as a presidential compound, that
inspectors are prevented from examining."
Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer wrote that "Clinton was given
an extraordinary opportunity to strike a massive blow against
Saddam. He flinched." Krauthammer briefly noted that "the
military's estimate of casualties from an initial strike" was
"10,000 Iraqi dead" -- but who cares? Uncle Sam should strive to
"disarm, disrupt and destroy Saddam's regime. A relentless air
campaign had a good chance of doing that."
Liberal Richard Cohen was not to be outdone in the blood-
thirst department. "Both countries backed down -- one the world's
only superpower, the other a Third World country, short of
everything but gall," he declared. "Something is out of balance
here. The Clinton administration waited too long to act. It
needed to punch out Iraq's lights, and it did not do so."
Hypocrisy abounds, but never mind that. With U.S. support,
Israel has violated numerous U.N. resolutions while maintaining
its occupations of the West Bank and Gaza as well as Southern
Lebanon. Running weapons facilities that have produced about 200
nuclear warheads, Israel still refuses to allow any international
inspection.
The United States invokes the sanctity of the United Nations
when useful but ignores that world body whenever convenient --
and reserves the right to unilaterally attack Iraq whether the
U.N. likes it or not.
Often, the paramount U.S. media concerns have been framed in
macho terms. Recent news coverage focused on a question that led
off a front-page New York Times article: "Who blinked?" Many
American journalists lamented that Clinton did not entirely stare
down Saddam Hussein.
The New York Post scornfully editorialized that Clinton had
not been able to "act like a man." The newspaper, owned by Rupert
Murdoch, added that "whenever circumstances have demanded that
this president rise to the occasion and really be president, he
has failed the United States and the world."
Frustrated as they were by the lack of military
consummation, cable TV networks and other media outlets were soon
able to replace the faded specter of a bloody high-tech assault
with audio recordings of Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky.
Of course, the telephone tapes couldn't quite be touted as
new -- the printed transcripts had been released several weeks
earlier -- but more nuances were available. The Associated Press
echoed the widespread hype by reporting that the 22 hours of
tapes "gave America its first chance to hear Ms. Lewinsky's
voice." AP explained that "what was new Tuesday was the emotion
and inflection."
And so it goes. "Emotion" is supposed to matter greatly in
some contexts. In others, such as past and future U.S. missile
attacks on Iraq, the emotions -- in fact, the lives -- of people
at the other end of U.S. missiles are unimportant.
As consumers of media images, we're offered one insulated
kick after another. We easily slip into spectator mode, vicarious
and detached.
The euphemisms are wrapped in smug bravado and playground
posturing. "A relentless air campaign" is needed. The president
should order the Pentagon to "punch out Iraq's lights."
If necessary, don't spare them. But spare us the grisly
details.
