When the bombing of Afghanistan resumed Monday night [Oct. 8],
retired generals showed no fatigue at their posts under hot lights at
network studios. On CNN, former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark teamed
up with Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd to explain military strategies; they were
sharing their insights as employees of AOL Time Warner.
Far away, missiles are flying and bombs are exploding -- but in
televisionland, a sense of equilibrium prevails. The tones are calm; the
correspondents are self-composed. News bulletins crawl across the bottom of
the screen, along with invitations to learn more. "Take a 3-D look at U.S.
military aircraft at CNN.com."
At Pentagon briefings, carried live, the secretary of defense
bears a chilling resemblance to a predecessor named McNamara. But the
language of Donald Rumsfeld is thoroughly modern, foreshadowing a war
without end: "In this battle against terrorism, there is no silver bullet."
But there will be many bullets, missiles and bombs. We hear the customary
assurances that air strikes will be surgical, and Rumsfeld echoes the
metaphor: "Terrorism is a cancer on the human condition."
The reports about the bombing are laced with references to
airborne food drops. Details have been sketchy. But self-congratulation has
been profuse on television, now a free-fire zone for war propaganda.
Sunday night [Oct. 7], on "Larry King Live," a bipartisan panel of
senators affirmed their loyalty to the president. The ranking GOP member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, a former secretary of the navy,
illuminated our goodness. Sen. John Warner said: "This, I think, is the
first time in contemporary military history where a military operation is
being conducted against the government of a country, and simultaneously,
with the troops carrying out their mission, other troops are trying to take
care of the innocent victims who all too often are caught in harm's way."
Hours after Warner's explanation of American saintliness, the UN's
World Food Program halted its convoys of emergency aid to Afghanistan
because of the bombing campaign. Meanwhile, private relief workers voiced
escalating alarm. A news release, put out by my colleagues at the Institute
for Public Accuracy (
www.accuracy.org), quoted the president of the
humanitarian aid organization Conscience International, Jim Jennings: "Food
drops from high altitudes alone absolutely cannot provide sufficient and
effective relief that is urgently necessary to prevent mass starvation."
The U.S. government sent two C-17 planes to drop rations.
Jennings, who has been involved in humanitarian work around the world for
two decades, was not impressed. At a single camp inside Afghanistan, in
Herat, "there are 600,000 people on the verge of starvation," he said. "If
you provide one pound of food per day, the minimum for bare survival, it
would take 500 planeloads a month to supply the one camp in Herat alone,
and Afghanistan is the size of Texas. The administration has stated that
two aircraft are being used for food relief so far -- for all of
Afghanistan."
Avowedly, the main targets of the bombing are the people in the
Bin Laden network. But the rhetorical salvoes will be understood, all too
appropriately, in wider contexts. "We will root them out and starve them
out," Rumsfeld said, just before closing a news conference with a ringing
declaration: "We are determined not to be terrorized."
"That last quote says it all," MSNBC anchor Brian Williams
interjected a moment later, before going to "NBC military analyst" Bernard
Trainor, a former Marine Corps general. Like the other ex-generals on
network payrolls, Trainor consistently uses the word "we" to describe U.S.
military actions. ("We now have the capability...") High-tech maps and
video graphics are profuse during the explications of war-game scenarios.
Former diplomats can play too. On NBC, Richard Holbrooke -- a
media favorite who engineered the diplomatic runup to the bombing of
Yugoslavia in spring 1999 -- chatted with Tom Brokaw while using a pointer
and a bright-lit map to elucidate geopolitical dynamics.
Constantly crawling across TV screens, snippets of quotes blur
together... Bin Laden saying that believers will triumph, Bush declaring
"may God continue to bless America," the Taliban accusing the U.S. of
"terrorist" attacks... As time goes on, the adversaries increasingly seem
to be talking each other's language.
The on-screen logos, spangled in red-white-and-blue, exude pride
in a nation resurgent. CBS has opted for "America Fights Back." NBC and
MSNBC are using "America Strikes Back." At times, MSNBC switches to an
alternate buzz phrase: "Homeland Defense."
Supposedly, bombing Afghanistan is going to make us safer back
here in the USA. Yet hours after the attacks began on Oct. 7, the FBI
called for heightened alerts across the United States -- because the risk
of another deadly attack in this country had just increased. If war can be
peace, why can't greater danger bring us greater security?
By Monday afternoon, networks were showing bombers taking off from
aircraft carriers, en route to Afghanistan. MSNBC's viewers saw footage of
warheads with "NYPD" scrawled on them; in the background, an American Flag
fluttered on deck.
And so, a bait-and-switch process of patriotic imagery is near
completion. For weeks, in the aftermath of the horrendous events of Sept.
11, the public embraced Old Glory as a symbol of grief, human solidarity
and love of country. Now the ubiquitous American Flag is being affixed to
military means of destruction.
"This will be a long war," George W. Bush promised on Monday. From
all indications, the TV networks are ready to do their part for the
military operation that has been named Enduring Freedom. But far from the
comforts of televisionland, many people will be enduring our freedom to
kill.
____________________________________
Norman Solomon writes a syndicated column on media and politics. His latest
book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
