WAR-SCARS

Been almost two years since the Americans rained down upon Iraq ... A long and hard journey it has been for the people of Iraq ... The toppling of a government, the death of 100,000 Iraqis, the leveling of the town Najaf, the cruel humiliation of prisoners ... And the continuous threat of death and torture around the corner ... Even though it is the international kidnappings which hog the limelight, it is estimated that over 90% of the kidnapped victims are Iraqis ... And perhaps the most glaring failure of this war is the following fact - A strong, secular (albeit authoritarian) government with no telerance for religious extremism has been converted to a haven for terrorists in the middle east ...

Two years back, when it all started, I was in a small flat in Hauz Khas, Delhi with a cable connection and plenty of free time ... All I would do after returning from office was switch on BBC or CNN and get transported to the world of the Second Gulf War ... I remember following the war to the minutest details, thanks to the "embedded journalism" concept that emerged ... After the statue of Saddam had been toppled down by the American forces, I decided to sit down and capture what I felt about the whole issue ...

Just a month before the US attack began, the 75th annual academy awards, the Oscars, were hosted in the US ... Hence it was appropriate that I name my article "War-Scars" ... It was a cynical take on the Iraqi war, and a very good indicator of my mood at that time ...

Here it is ...



And the War-Scar goes to …

Welcome to the War-Scars … The 75th Annual Hypocrisy Awards!

The War-Scar awards are held every year to acknowledge the magnificient performances in the ever entertaining field of hypocrisy. This year has seen some of the most brilliant performances of all times by the most talented people in the industry.

Let us now celebrate their vision and dreams!


For the category of …

BEST VISUAL AND SOUND EFFECTS

The nominees are …

1. BBC
2. CNN
3. Al Jazeera
4. US Military Press Briefing

The invasion of Iraq added a new dimension to conventional war reporting with the concept of embedded journalists emerging. But what information do they give us? We see US troops constantly on the move through sandy deserts. We marvel at reporters with disheveled clothes and dirty faces giving us their view about the "difficulties" of war. (Honestly speaking, do they have to shout and run out of breath like that?) We see selective coverage of US soldiers waving to little giggling children.

And of course, the unending bombardment of Baghdad, which trivializes the war into a spectacle of bright fireworks. The horrors of war are sanitised and special effects glamourized to reduce war to entertainment. Viewers watch Baghdad burning forgetting that beneath those columns of smoke and mountains of rubble lie charred men, crushed women and mutilated bodies of children.

And the War-Scar goes to … The US Military Press Briefing!! For their absolutely pointless satellite visuals of Iraqi buildings being bombarded, demonstrating the wonders of "precision" bombing by the coalition forces. So named for the "precision" with which they struck down British helicopters in various incidents of friendly fire and blew up two crowded market places in Baghdad nowhere near any military targets. But the US military does everything in style. These press briefings are given from their $200,000 war-briefing studio in Doha exclusively designed by a Hollywood designer.



Let's move over to our next category …

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

The nominees are …

1. "The French Correction" from France
2. "Doppelganger" from Germany
3. "War and Peace" from Russia
4. "Kaho Naa … War Hai" from India

France has been cheered by many for opposing the war, yet its hypocrisy runs as deep as America's. Force is always the last resort it proclaimed in the UN. Then why is the French Army being deployed so constantly in former French colonies that leaves us wondering whether French Colonialism ever ended. If force is indeed the last resort, then why did France destroy the unarmed Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, that protested against French nuclear explosions in the Pacific?

Germany has also protested in the UN about regime change in Iraq. Yet Germany above all stoked the break-up of Yugoslavia, recognizing different segments as different countries. France and other European countries followed suit. This led to a horrible sectarian war that killed over 200,000 people. Regime change in Yugoslavia killed more than would ever die in the Iraq conflict, and France and Germany cannot escape the blame.

Russia has violated all civil rights and bombed Chechnya killing thousands. And yet they swoon at the thought of violence in Iraq. Our motherland India is not far behind. We say that the UN should sanction any war on Iraq. But did we ask for UN permission for our 1971 war with Pakistan? No! It was a purely unilateral action.

These four countries have stuck steadfastly to the theme of our Awards Ceremony - Hypocrisy. And that is why for the first time in War-Scar history we have joint winners!

And the War-Scar goes to France, Germany, Russia and India for using commendable double-talk in their diplomatic efforts.



Behind every successful man is a woman. And behind every unsuccessful man is his lackey to cushion him. The War-Scars never fail to acknowledge these brave souls. Our next category is …

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

And the nominees are …

1. Tony Blair in "The Blair-Bush Project"
2. Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf in "An Officer and a Spokesman"
3. Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks in "The Thin Red Line"

Nelson Mandela dismissed him as the Foreign Minister of the United States of America. Maybe Tony Blair does not deserve the title of "Lackey of the US" that is attatched to him. Maybe he is being deluded by the Americans (ever hungry for support) into joining a war they claim is being fought on moral grounds. Maybe he is just doing what he thinks is right - sending forces into Iraq for their liberation. Maybe the British are not driven by narrow self-interest, unlike the Americans. (This can be seen by their strong call for UN involvement in Iraq after the war). I guess one can never really be sure, can they?

On paper, the British would be able to handle the Iraqis better than the Americans, both on the battlefront as well as off it. Handling the terrorism in Ireland has given them enough experience at urban and guerrilla warfare. And the recent reports of embedded reporters suggest that while the Americans are going around handling civillians roughly, the British have come in after them to clean up their mess. British soldiers are more courteous and genuinely friendly (not just photo-op friendly like the Americans). I recently read reports of a football match being organised between British troops and Iraqi civillians near the town of Basra, where fighting is still going on (The British were beaten 9-3, by the way).

Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, the dynamic and energetic Information Minister of Iraq, has certainly caught everyone's eye. In a war where both the parties have recognised the role of the media as a crucial weapon, Al-Sahaf has managed to weild it to it's full potential. He makes up for Saddam's absence by addressing the media personally almost everyday. Dressed in a smart military suit and spewing propaganda in his halting English, he projects an imposing, yet grandfatherly presence.

And he is never short on rhetoric. He once projected the lengthy American supply line as a "500 km snake", which Iraq would "cut up into little pieces". Drawing a parallel with Vietnam he once stated, "People say Iraq cannot do a Vietnam because there are no trees and bushes. Then let our buildings be our trees and our streets be our bushes". And he has absolutely no qualms when it comes to using strong abusive language against the coalition.


Our last nominee for this category is Brig-Gen Vincent Brooks. A common sight at US military press briefings, Brig-Gen Brooks more often than not ends up deputising for the commander of the US forces, General Tommy Franks. These press briefings rigorously follow a well-defined pattern. First the satellite photos and visuals of Iraqi targets being bombed are shown, with little blue arrows highlighting the American military precision. Then there is a briefing about the position of the ground forces and military personnel in Iraq. This briefing is so superficial that there is almost nothing there that the journos don't already know from their embedded counterparts.

What follows in the Q&A Session is a classic example of American spin in action. All uncomfortable questions are neatly sidestepped, without any attempts of even masking the appearance that they are being sidestepped. All other questions very conveniently lead to the same statements being repeated - How close the coalition forces are to toppling Saddam … How Iraqi soldiers are not following the conventions of warfare … How civillian casualites cannot be avoided … And of course, how Saddam plans to use chemical weapons once the coaltion troops cross the "thin red line".

And the War-Scar goes to … Mohammed Al-Sahaf!! … for his outrageous claims that the coalition forces were 160 kms away from Baghdad, when they were on the outskirts of its airport … and that they were repeating what was done in the movie "Wag the Dog"!



For our next award, we have unanimously chosen the winner, as the others don't hold a candle to this guy when it comes to script-writing …

BEST WRITER (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

Donald Rumsfeld for his script in the movie "One flew past the Republican Guard"

It was the dream script. Shock and Awe tactics of a massive bombardment of the Iraqi capital would "decapitate" the leadership. Saddam and his sons would be killed by the very first bombs to hit Baghdad. An ultra light and sleek military unit would rush to Baghdad in a blitzkreig move to take over the city. On their way they would bypass all other cities, whose streets will be thronged with crowds with flowers cheering their liberators. Iraqi soldiers would surrender by the thousands, unwilling to engage the most technically superior military force on earth.

Within Baghdad, there would be an uprising against the Baath party leaders and the troops would enter and install their own government. The world would hail the triumph of democracy and other rogue nations would tremble in fear. And contracts galore for our firms back home (paid, of course, by the Iraqi oil).

But somewhere, something went wrong. Saddam and his sons survived and showed their resilience. There were no flowers to greet the coalition soldiers, only bullets. Stiff Iraqi resistance staged guerrilla attacks on the military supply lines. By the second week the coalition forces could not claim that even one town was totally under their control. Aid was delayed, and when it did come, it's distribution was a disaster best left forgotten. The weather went against them. And numerous cases of friendly fire and Iraqi civillians dying by the hundreds did not help the coalition cause one bit.

One crucial miscalculation by Rumsfeld was his strong belief that Iraqi troops were just waiting to surrender and civillians just dying to carry arms against their oppressors. Here he made the mistake of listening to his regional sources from Iraq's neighbouring countries, and (supposedly) overruled his generals back in Washington, who insisted on the use of heavy decisive force. Rumsfeld is a great fan of technology, and devised this new plan to override the existing "archaic" plans for warfare in Iraq.

I don't know why the American's think that patriotism is an American patent. Do they honestly think that no other country in the world can have nationalist feelings? Do they think that any country would welcome invading troops from another nation, culture and religion with open arms? Do they think that they can win the "hearts and mind battle" by pounding their hometowns with bombs and mortars? By murdering their relatives and friends by the hundreds?

And they wonder why the rest of the world despises them.




The news networks have scored big time in this year's War-Scar ceremony. Let's take a look at our next category …

BEST DOCUMENTARY FILM

1. Western News Networks for " The Good, The Bad and The Embedded"
2. Arabic News Networks for "The Sound of Rhetoric"

To say that the media is biased is a gross understatement. The mere fact journalists are so enmeshed with the military makes it difficult for them to think objectively. Obviously, if your safety is in the hands of soldiers you will be unwilling to criticise them. Moreover, the coalition military machinery now has a very convenient tool to spread "desirable" bits of information.

Consider the following statements, released by the western media (fed by military leaders), which were ultimately proven wrong.

1. Saddam Hussein was killed after the first bombs hit Baghdad
2. The town of Basra and Umm Qasr were captured and under the control of coalition forces two days into the war
3. There was an uprising against the Iraqi regime in Basra
4. An Iraqi General was captured by the coalition forces
One CNN reporter even referred to the advance of the coalition troops in the first person plural - "we". The BBC and CNN correspondents try their best to make a mockery of press statements released by the Iraqi leaders. Sometimes they deliberately repeat the same phrases in the broken English used by Iraqi leaders. And more often they put their statements in quotes, questioning their very credibility. For example - The Iraqi Government says that "large quantities" of arms were recovered.

And not very far behind is Al Jazeera television giving the pro-Iraqi angle of the war. It proudly showcases American prisoners of war and injured Iraqis. Civilians in hospitals are focussed on to arouse sympathy the world over. There are visuals of Iraqis dancing around Coalition helicopters supposedly shot down by peasants. A few days back two Kenyan truck drivers who were part of a team delivering aid to a town were captured and paraded on Iraqi television, which claimed they were British soldiers.

Two streams of information - One talking about the "American advance towards liberating the suppressed Iraqi people" and the other talking about the "Fierce Iraqi resistance against the infidel invaders". This war just does not permit us to get a full or real picture, mainly because the coverage looks so vulnerable to regional interests. It's true that war reporting cannot be totally objective, but it can at least be humanist.

'Factoid' was the term coined in the Vietnam War to desrcibe the phenomenon of a lie being repeated loudly and long enough to be accepted as the truth. But the audience is far more cynical than it used to be. It is no longer willing to buy the official line, all too frequently parroted by the mass media.

The Academy has decided to award this War-Scar to an un-nominated group - the Web-logs or Blogs, as they are more popularly called. People are increasingly turning to this alternative source of information on the net. 'Embedded' journalism is finding it's counter in 'embunkered' reportage.

Blogs are self-styled chroniclers who keep weblogs on the net. They can be written by one person or many, written in diary style and are complete with typos. This phenomenon started around 9/11 and has grown into the Next Big Thing during this war. Blogs could be civilians from the war zone, former mainstream journalists (now independent), aid workers, and just about anybody who has a sharp personal opinion on global events like the war.

We move to our next category, where one actor has broken all previous records by being nominated in five different movies for the same category!

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING(?) ROLE

George Bush Jr. in Gulf Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clown
George Bush Jr. in Exterminator II - Judgement Day
George Bush Jr. in Honey, I blew up Iraq
George Bush Jr. in West Pride Story
George Bush Jr. in Dictator and I


I had nothing against that guy. He can't take the blame for cogenital stupidity. But when that stupidity is directly responsible for creating a totally avoidable and uncalled for disaster, it's time to draw the line. HOW did someone like HIM get elected to lead the most powerful (if not moral) nation on earth? It does'nt say much about the people who voted him in. Says even lesser for the system that allowed this to happen.

I have a strong feeling that President Bush is a big fan of the movie Chicago. He too believes that you can get away with murder if you just dazzle the world enough. Most Americans remember only that which is dished out by their administration and retailed by their electronic media run by large corporations. It was precisely because Bin Laden had not been captured or killed long after the end of the Afghanistan campaign that Bush tried to sublimate Bin Laden into Saddam Hussein. This was very obvious on the first commemoration of 9/11. The spin-doctors of the White House have done such an effective job that a majority of the Americans now believe that more than half of the hijackers on September 11, 2001 were Iraqis!

What ideals of democracy are they trying to propagate? Rounding up anti-war protestors, finger printing entire communities, pressuring TV channels to take a partisan view, America under George Bush is doing all it can to curb domestic civil rights - and ironically in the name of protecting freedom and liberty. Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, and Madonna have been at the receiving end of things these last few days because of their anti-war stance. Peter Arnett has been labeled unpatriotic - just because he said out his mind on Iraqi television.

This is great material for a debate - For a citizen, which is of greater value - freedom or patriotism?



And we come to the final award for the evening …

BEST FILM

The nominees are …

1. UN-faithful
2. Lawmakers of Arabia
3. Iraqi Pie
4. Rebels Without a Clue



1. UN-faithful

Following the US and British unilateral action in the Gulf, every organisation in the world has experienced serious rifts. Be it the NATO, the Arab League, OPEC, the European Union or the NAM. But none more than the United Nations, whose resolutions and directives US openly defied to do what it felt like doing. What purpose does a multilateral body serve if it is not able to stop an illegal war from taking place?

There are many who see this as the signal for the demise of the UN.There was a time a few decades back that the League of Nations was disbanded and the nations of the world came together to form the United Nations from it's ashes. Ironically it was the US and Britain that made this happen. Now I believe the world is ready for a third generation of league of nations to do what the UN could not. But this would only be possible in a truly multipolar world, one which is not dictated by bullies with might.


2. Lawmakers of Arabia

Bush and his pro-Israeli and power-hungry idealogues have some fancy plans for West Asia and it's people. They are the latest example of those Westerners who feel they have to carry "The White Man's Burden". They are currently focussing on the countries that have or have had nuclear weapons programmes, namely the "Axis of Evil" states - Iraq, Iran and North Korea.The fact that Israel has over 400 nuclear weapons is yet to register with Washington.

The US-British invasion of Iraq is rapidly converting Saddam Hussein into a kind of folk hero. This is what he had always wanted - to be viewed as a champion of the Arab world. Till the attack, he had very few supporters. All this had changed dramatically in the span of a two weeks. Iraqi civillians are rallying around their leader. Hundreds of civillians have been killed and injured. And not a single weapon of mass destruction has so far been found to add credibility to the US claim.

The US venture in Iraq is a major miscalculation not because US goals are incorrect, but because they are being pursued the wrong way. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam will be removed, and the coalition forces will prevail in Baghdad. But would it really be worth the enormous cost of the war? Not just in terms of innocent lives being lost, but a whole nation of proud people being subjugated to the worst kind of humiliation. The inflammation of Arab and Muslim sentiment will lead to terrible 9/11-style terrorist attacks and more Bin Ladens being born every day that this atrocity continues. It would only result in the creation of an unbridgeable gap between the Muslim and the Non-Muslim world.


3. Iraqi Pie

The coalition partners - The US, Britain and Australia - are having a tough time deciding how to divide the post-war Iraqi pie. Those who opposed the war - France, Germany and Russia - are trying to ensure their firms are also part of the multi-billion dollar contracts. The US, however, has taken it upto itself to become the sole authority to grant work. Britain does want a larger UN participation in post-war Iraq, and they think anything else will be illegal.

But so far everything seems to be going to well connected US firms. The first contract (worth $500 million) to put out oil fires went to Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, headed by current vice-president Dick Cheney. US oil majors Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco also stand to gain from a coalition victory. US firms have also been favoured for reconstruction work. In February, USAID secretly "invited" five US corporations to bid for eight contracts worth $900 million. They clarified that this was done since "speed is of the essence in this whole thing."

Ellis Environment Group, which clears debris and removes unexploded bombs, has an "open ended" contract worth $1.2 billion with the Pentagon, which is soon expected to double. Companies like Kraft, which sells dehydrated meals, are set to enjoy a boom as humanitarian effort gets under way. US arms exports may zoom once the war is over. Post Gulf War I, they doubled to $20 billion in 1993, compared to the previous year.

There is absolutely no doubt that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialistic reasons. And they try to convince the rest of the world that they want to "liberate the Iraqi people from the terrible yoke of oppression". It does'nt matter if there are dozens of other countries in the world under similar tyrannies. Doesn't matter if other countries have more links to terrorism than a strongly secular Iraq. Does'nt matter if there exist other rogue countries possessing not just chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear capability too.

What matters is that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world. And if you can't steal their oil directly, destroy their country first and then drain their resources to pay US firms in the name of "reconstruction".


4. Rebels Without a Clue

Millions of anti-war protestors the world over took to the streets on February 15th. But even this opposition to the war is laced with hypocrisy. Where were they when wars without US involvement produced massive slaughter in Africa, Asia and Yugoslavia? Why was there no political pressure on European and US governments to stop the horrendous killings in Rwanda or Yugoslavia? Many protested when Bush Sr. went into Iraq in 1991. But when he withdrew, and Saddam Hussein slaughtered 50,000 Shias in southern Iraq, they staged no protest.

The "international peace movement" is, by and large, anti-American. In theory they oppose violence by anybody, but they stage massive rallies only when the US gets violent. Journalists, academics and moralists yawn with boredom when the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, but explode with outrage if the US send in its marines to Iraq and kills 1000 civillians. US hypocrisy in Iraq is easily explained by narrow self interest, but what about the hypocrisy of those who oppose this war?



I've been confused about something for quite some time now. How do we determine if something is true? Does something become true if the largest number of people believe it to be true? Or is truth what the most powerful person believes? Or maybe there is no real truth in the absolute sense of the word. Maybe opinions, views and beliefs cannot be true or false in a binary fashion. Maybe everything falls somewhere in between, in a grey area with varying shades of black and white.

I harbour no love for what Saddam is doing in Iraq, and I also oppose what the US is doing to Iraq. That is why I can't say if I am "against" the war or "for it". What I can say confidently is that I am against all the hypocrisy surrounding everything related to the war.