Media blitz aimed at preventing troop withdrawal from Afghanistan
The cover of the August 9 edition of Time magazine was designed with shock and awe in mind. It shows a picture of Bibi Aisha, a young woman from Afghanistan whose nose and ears had been cut off. The photo was accompanied by the headline: “What happens if we leave Afghanistan”.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Gen. David Petraeus almost simultaneously began giving interviews to The New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, Meet the Press and others voicing his opinion that a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan would be unwise.
Normon Solomon wrote an article in Common Dreams.org today, “Gen. Petraeus Goes to Media War,” which says: “Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, with the evident approval of the White House, has launched a fierce media blitz to cripple the policy option of any significant military withdrawal a year from now. Riding high in what is supposed to be a civilian-run military, Petraeus is engaging in strategic media operations to manipulate what should be a democratic process on matters of war and peace.” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/16Solomon, author of “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” and president of the Institute for Public Accuracy http://www.accuracy.org/, visited Kabul last year.
Lucinda Marshall said Monday, “On Meet the Press on Sunday, Petraeus cited the recent Time cover story featuring a young Afghan woman with her nose cut off. Said Petraeus: “If you lose, it has, I think, some significant repercussions, not just for this country, although they would be enormous, and start with the cover of Time magazine for starters.”
Marshall is director of the Feminist Peace Network, which just posted the article “Time’s Story About Afghan Women – Questions Raised About Author’s Vested Interests And Accuracy Of The Story.”
But you don’t have to be an American to see the dangers of the military setting a nation’s agenda.
This is from an article by Tony Iltis in Green Left, an Australian-based alternative weekly that describes itself as “a proudly independent voice committed to human and civil rights, global peace and environmental sustainability, democracy and equality.” Tony’s article was headlined, accurately, I believe, “‘Time’ exploits victim to promote war.”
“…what happened to Aisha took place in Afghanistan under Western occupation.
“In return for allowing Time to publish her photo, Aisha was flown to the US for reconstructive surgery. However, although Time ensured her mutilated face was seen worldwide, they appear less keen for her voice to be heard.
“I heard Aisha’s story from her a few weeks before the image of her face was displayed all over the world”, Ann Jones, author of Kabul in Winter, wrote in the August 12 Nation. “She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn’t figure at all in this account.
“The Time story, however, attributes Aisha’s mutilation to a husband under orders of a Talib commander, thereby transforming a personal story, similar to those of countless women in Afghanistan today, into a portent of things to come for all women if the Taliban return to power.”
In March, Wikileaks published a CIA document that outlined a strategy to counter growing opposition in Europe to participation in the US-led occupation. It recommended using a narrative about the oppression of women in Afghanistan that highlighted the Taliban’s misogynist violence while ignoring that of the pro-occupation warlords and the occupation armies.
Afghan feminist Malalai Joya condemned the pro-war media manipulation. “During the Taliban’s regime such atrocities weren’t as rife as it is now and the graph is hiking each day”, she told France 24 on August 1.
“Eighteen-year-old Aisha is just an example and cutting ears, noses and toes, torturing and even slaughtering is a norm in Afghanistan
“ … The US used the plight of Afghan women as an excuse to occupy Afghanistan in 2001 by filling television screens, internet pages and newspapers with pictures of women being shot down or beaten up in public.
“Once again, it is molding the oppression of women into a propaganda tool to gain support and staining their hands with ever-deepening treason against Afghan women.”
Malalai Joya, who also is a politician the BBC called “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” for denouncing the warlords in the parliament, toured the United States earlier this year in an effort to get support for pulling out U.S. troops from her country.
This was her message to Americans:
“Democracy will never come to Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun, or from the cluster bombs dropped by foreign forces. The struggle will be long and difficult, but the values of real democracy, human rights and women’s rights will only be won by the Afghan people themselves.
“So do not be fooled by this façade of democracy. The British and other Western governments that claim to be bringing democracy to Afghanistan ignore public opinion in their own countries, where growing numbers are against the war.
“In my tours to countries that have troops in Afghanistan, I’ve met many bereaved parents who have lost their loved ones in the war in my home. I am very sorry to see governments putting the lives of their soldiers in danger in Afghanistan in the name of bringing democracy. In fact the soldiers are serving the strategic and regional interests of the White House and the consequences of their occupation so far have been devastating for my people.
“The worst casualty of this war is truth. Those who stand up and raise their voice against injustice, insecurity and occupation have their lives threatened and are forced to leave Afghanistan, or simply get killed.
“We are sandwiched between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces of the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban and the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai.
“My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation.”
But, of course, the current media blitz by Gen. Petraeus and his willing media accomplices isn’t aimed at the people of Afghanistan. It’s aimed at us.
Where do you stand? What will you do?
2 Comments to “Media blitz aimed at preventing troop withdrawal from Afghanistan”
-
Analysis: Petraeus media blitz seeks to calm fears – The Associated Press - Most hotest, Most latest World News Online - Most latest World News Online — August 16, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
-
Media blitz aimed at keeping troops in Afghanistan | Looking for … | Afghanistan Today — August 16, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI