I thought about writing this article a month or so ago, but given the nature of it, and the hysterical xenophobic compulsory patriotism sweeping the American nation, I thought I'd hold off for a while. Now it seems that my patience has paid off, and what was cynical speculation on my part is starting to look like it could be true.
It's about "America's Hero", Private Jessica Lynch.
At the time that her story - one of "heroic rescue" of a "tortured war hero" - came to light, the conversation in our cynical European household turned to the film, Wag The Dog - a story of an American president, waning in popularity, who's advisors hire a film director to help create a fake war, with a non-existent country.
As part of this fake war, they create a war hero, based on someone who actually existed, but they falsify their part in "war".
Now, we return to the Dubya's war. News has reached DMfM headquarters, that someone, either in the current administration, or the army, dressed up the rescue of Private Lynch.
Apparently, the Iraqi doctors at the hospital she was in, have told the BBC that
- The Iraqi army left the hospital two days before the US Army 'rescued' Private Lynch
- That whilst she did have a broken leg and arm, she did not have bullet or stab wounds, and had not been tortured
- She had one the best beds in the hospital
- She had one of only two nurses working there attending her
- The US Army used blank bullets and fake explosions to make things seem more dangerous
- The US Army brought in filmmaker Jerry Bruckheimer as an advisor on staging this over-dramatised rescue
- That when, two days prior to the "rescue", the Iraqi doctors had tried to deliver her back to the Americans, the US Army shot at them, forcing them to turn back
The full BBC report is here.
Of course I very much doubt we'll ever hear this report on US television networks. I mean, in the current administration's enforced culture of compulsory unquestioning xenophobia patriotism, anything that questions anything they do, no matter how dubious, is considered an act of treason.
I know I'm not alone in hating this enforced patriotism, but as ever, the narrow-minded, self-righteous right-wingers seem to be able to talk louder, and over, anyone who dares question the current administration.
What kind of people are in power that they need to fake the news? I know that a lot of people thought Bush's election victory was dubious and a tad fictional, but this is ridiculous. How long can he keep the masses distracted from his fucking up of the US economy?
I think what worries me the most, is the current culture where no-one is allowed to question what's going on. If they do, they're branded unpatriotic.
Land of the free? Yeah, sure, you're free to believe what you're told to believe, free to obey, free to hate foreigners, but just don't try to think for yourself. It's unpatriotic you know!
Posted by Max at May 16, 2003 12:22 AM | Trackback"compulsory patriotism"!!! you totally got that from me! i'm kicking your ass.
p.s. the matrix SUCKED. am i free to say that in these here united states?
Posted by: melanie on May 16, 2003 12:42 AMI did not get that from you. It was a conversation we had where I'd been thinking that, as well you know! Maybe you said it, but I'd already thought it, and possession is nine-tenths of the law!
Sorry to hear about the Matrix. Are you saying I shouldn't see it?
Posted by: Max on May 16, 2003 12:51 AM'Wag the dog' was very popular in our house, mainly for the performance of the Hoffman and the delivery of the 'this is nothing!' lines, rather than the cynical plot. Having experienced such behaviour in business, we don't laugh at cynical humour per se because on some fundamental level we know nothing is beyond some people.
Posted by: Luminous on May 16, 2003 04:36 AMUnfortunately, the account of the Iraqi doctors doesn't make sense either. If no reporters were around (I don't think any were embedded with the rescue group) and the government fully planned on manipulating the story, leaking false reports, etc, there was no reason to use fake bullets or explosions - no reason to send in an overkill team - they could have simply walked in the door and still "wagged the dog" as it were.
That said, I have no reason to doubt the ambulance story - given that soldiers had already been killed by vehicles that would not stop, it is proper that they defend themselves in such uncertain cases and dangerous situations.
Given that the primary activity of the BBC during the war was to sneer everytime the Americans made progress (even though they pronounced it "quagmire"), I'll take the correspondents story with the same grain of salt with which I take much that comes from the Bush White House.
Posted by: andy on May 16, 2003 12:30 PMI thought there were journalists embedded with them when the rescue took place.
And what better story to distract the populace, than the heroic rescue of "one of our own" from the "evil Iraqi doctors"?
The BBC may not be perfect, but it is widely regarded as one of the least biassed news organisations around. Just because they're not kissing Dubya's ass (a la Fox) doesn't mean they're wrong..
Posted by: Max on May 16, 2003 12:57 PMMight want to check Instapundit for a round up of fiskings of the "fake rescue" story. The Beeb may not be perfect, true - but in this case they seem to have either been mislead or are outright lying. Seems also that this story got it's start in the same paper that talked about how US troops failed to protect thousands of items in the Iraqi National Museum (a story which turned out to be patently false).
Posted by: andy on May 19, 2003 06:25 AMWatch your details. In Wag The Dog, the US did not actually go to war with any country; however, the place they said they were going to war with (Albania) does exist. In your news report, you call in non-existent. The US did in fact go to war with them, after the movie came out. During the Monica scandal, Clinton went to war in Albania, but the reports from the region suggested that there was nothing for the US to fight against.
Andy - the BBC is a fairly credible source. Much more credible than US media. You are suggesting because there were no reporters, that gives reason to not use the special effects.
The fact that there were no reporters is more reason to use the special effects. It would not take very much sleuthing for a half way credible reporter to discover the US special effects.
Although US media rarely questions its government, reporters are not going to stare obvious special effects in the eye and go home and lie about it. The effects were for there well produced propaganda film.
If - as you (andy) suggest - US troops had to go in gung ho because of uncertainty, why bring cameras?
There was no need for cameras. The US has sometimes used cameras for obvious victories, but they do use cameras when they do not know what they will find.
The last thing they would want is a US mistake or US soldiers being slaudered in, what would become, an Iraqi Propaganda tape.
Posted by: me on May 21, 2003 08:14 AMI do wish people who comment here would give their real names and/or contact details. It's harder to trust comments left by people who don't want to stand behind them.
That said, the only similarity between Wag The Dog and Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever they're now calling it) that I was trying to draw, was the use of a filmmaker in both.
I wasn't commenting on the reality of Bush's war. I was commenting on the use of Bruckheimer, when Wag the Dog had brought in a filmmaker as well. Life imitating art and all that.
Posted by: Max on May 21, 2003 10:06 AM