Because You Never Asked

(5/05)

The chronological landmark that has now become a tradition in these pages --- that is, my annual 2 month stay in the Spanish Mediterranean --- has now begun. When I first started writing these “Escape” essays, now more than 2 years ago, the latest Bush Oil War was in its toddler stage. The naivety of the imperial endeavor had still not been revealed, and the “Yanqui” propaganda machine embodied in the huge media conglomerates acting as the war’s salesmen, were leading us into glorious battle, flags waving, bands playing, the rosy-cheeked lads of freedom and democracy going forth to liberate yet another oppressed people yearning to be free. No matter that nobody had asked them to free them, they knew what was best for them and their oil (oops, I let the “o” word slip in there).

For those of us who could see through the charade, this Goebbels-like war drum was a depressing spectacle beyond our resistance capabilities. An appalling funk of hopeless resignation saturated those lucid moments when our ability to flee or ignore the monster became impossible. It was (is) not a pretty sight, especially when we pause to think of what is happening in the great land of the Fertile Crescent, one of the original sources of modern civilization, now embroiled in a vicious vortex of death and destruction who’s catalytic agent is the insatiable gluttony of the oil diet necessary to feed the obesity of consumptive frivolity at the heart of the American idea of happiness.

It took me 12 days this year before my hunger for some baseball results led me to buy the traditional source of American news while abroad, The International Herald Tribune. After having informed myself of the outrageous success of the White Sox, the continued struggles of the Yankees, and the competitive, still in the hunt dignity of my preferred team, over the next few days I turned my attention to the gringo version of the “news”. What I found could be described as surprising.

As the title of this essay quantifies, this is the third time I’ve written an “Escape” essay upon arriving to Spain. The first 2 entries had similar personalities in that they were used to expose the propaganda subterfuges with which American Big Media sold this war. Contrasting the voice of American war coverage with that found in Europe was not difficult.

Fast forward to the present, now into the war’s third year, and this contrast has begun to lose its clarity. Being that the negativity of the European press has not changed, it soon becomes obvious that something in the American coverage has.

Let’s put it like this: the hard core reality of the disaster we’ve created is making it more and more difficult to find a deodorant strong enough to cover the smell of this turd. Although the mainstream voices of American media will still not touch the “o” word, or
question the morality-legality of what’s been done, there is a dirge-like sobriety in their coverage that had not existed before, an attitude that even slightly suggests the possibility of defeat. It’s something like an overconfident boxer that had never conceived of losing, who now realizes that those “lucky” blows received in the early rounds were no joke, this guy can fight, I took him too lightly, am unprepared … what now?

As I delved into my first sampling of American news coverage in almost 2 weeks, I began to realize that “escaping” the mendacious drumbeat of icky lies and half-truths was no longer a relevant concept. Considering the magnitude of the imperial incursion’s failure, trying to make it look good is becoming a more counter-productive exercise than trying to make sense of it. This is not to suggest that American coverage of the Big Mess has mutated into an objective animal. The propaganda organs of American policy (that is, Big Media), will continue trying to make this oil gambit look feasible, but the negative circumstances of the whole fandango has led to a changing tone of American coverage.

It’s just not that easy to lie anymore.

As I look one year into the future and anticipate my arrival here in Spain, there are 2 things I feel comfortable in predicting: 1) The war in Iraq will still be going on, and 2) it will not be going well for the invaders. This will probably mean the death of this “Escape” series, as the drumbeat of “Yanqui” propaganda is humbled under the weight of the war’s inability to accomplish anything more than increased death and destruction. In fact, “Escape III” is already an outmoded concept.

OK, let’s give a few examples of what has just been discussed above.

One of the headlines on the front page read as follows: “Rice Urges Patience as Iraq Strife Continues”. And then, in a bit smaller print, “In surprise visit, she says political path must represent all”. Without going beyond this headline, one can feel what a hollow exercise in vacuity this article would turn out to be. A “surprise” visit has become the code word for saying the security problem has become so difficult, the days of meticulously staged, photo-op events are over. The absurd meaningless quality of Rice’s statement can best be seen by stating its opposite: “she says political path must represent few”. By saying this, we show how little she said in what she actually uttered.

We come to Rice’s next quote: “We are fighting a very tough set of terrorists who are, it seems, determined to stop the progress of the Iraqi people”. Translation: “These guys are tougher than we thought, and determined to stop us from getting what we want”. But no matter how you say it, the omnipotent swagger of a year or so ago has given way to a tentative quality that is new to the game.

Or how about this one: “The next step and the next challenge is to have a Constitution that is written by people that are broadly representative”. Well, that’s comforting. That’ll make any insurgent glad to give up his arms.

I really love the next one: “Rice said she will tell Bush that Iraqis were dedicated to a democratic future”. I can just see the President responding with, “Woo, that’s good news! Thanks for clearing that up for me. Good work, Conde”.

I finish the Rice article by quoting the following: “She gave no time frame, but said the security interests of the United States called for a different kind of Middle East, emphasizing that meant an Iraq that is democratic, prosperous, and multi-ethnic”. Translation: “She said she didn’t know when we’ll be able to get our asses out of there, but said the economic interests of the United States called for a different kind of Middle East, emphasizing that meant an Iraq that has a government that answers to us”.

Ladies and gentlemen, other than an exercise in newsprint filling space, can anyone see a further purpose in this article? Talk about refried beans!

Unlike the weightless meringue of the Rice article, there was one by a James Bennet of the New York Times that had the rich substance of a thick pudding. Its headline read, “Iraqi Rebels Breaking All The Insurgent Rules”. And then, once again in smaller print, “Puzzling moves defy lessons of history”.

Notwithstanding some crackpot rubbish reminiscent of the tone of a year ago --- for example, the suggestion that the anti-American message of the insurgents is weakened by the election of an Iraqi government that has not asked the Americans to leave (this would be something like a 3 year old child asking his parents to stop providing food for him) --- the article was a moribund acceptance that we are very confused by this insurgency’s personality. We can’t seem to grasp even the most basic assumptions about it: who they are, how they are organized, who are they fighting against, what are their goals, why they target the things they do, etc.? One James Joes of St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, considered an expert on guerrilla warfare, says, “The insurgents are doing everything wrong now, or anyway, I don’t understand why they’re doing what they’re doing”. Steve Metz of the U.S. Army War College, is perplexed by the lack of “any kind of political ideology or political spokesman or political wing emerging”. Perhaps the most telling remark came in the last paragraph, where a Loren Thompson, described as a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, says, referring to the insurgents, “It clearly makes sense to the people who are doing it. And that, more than anything else, tells us how little we understand the region”.

Do you remember when “Yosemite” Bush, six-guns on his hips, ten gallon hat on his head, sheriff’s star shining on his chest, yahooed his way onto that aircraft carrier in San Diego Bay and boasted of how we had won the war … when it hadn’t even begun yet!?

I think that’s what Thompson was talking about.