Culture and Life

by Rob Gowland

It's called brainwashing!

PROOF screamed the headline of The Daily Telegraph, my favourite 
tabloid newspaper. Beneath the single word, with letters ten centimetres 
high, was a large colour photo of Osama Bin Laden.

The juxtaposition made the message simple and instantly clear: "they" had 
proof that bin Laden did it. If you bothered to actually read the text 
below the photo however, you discovered that the story did not detail the 
"proof" that so excited the headline writer.

Instead, the story told us that British PM Tony Blair had told the British 
Parliament that he had been shown the "proof" and it was "wholly 
convincing". He did not say what it was, however, nor did he show it to the 
British Parliament. They had to take his word.

In fact, he could not have shown them even if he had wanted to, which I 
suspect he assuredly did not want to. The Yanks had taken the "proof" away 
again as soon as he had been allowed to look at it, just as they whisked it 
away from John Howard.

It's better that way; it prevents the evidence being examined by 
interfering experts who might inconsiderately question its validity, 
authenticity, legality, accuracy or usefulness.

And that would cast a shadow over the glorious crusade against the infidel, 
or whatever George Bush's spin doctors have decided to call his war against 
everyone the US doesn't like.

After all, Tony Blair's word that the "proof" was in fact proof was good 
enough for the Mother of Parliaments which OK'd his sending British troops 
to invade Afghanistan and British ships and planes to attack the country. 
The troops, from the SAS, had been operating inside Afghanistan — an act 
of war — for a couple of weeks "before" Tony bothered to raise the matter 
in Parliament.

What was it Western propagandists used to call the Supreme Soviet? A 
"rubber stamp" parliament?

Incidentally, did you notice that in writing about the SAS going into 
Afghanistan the press reported that they had had experience of fighting in 
the country before: the SAS had participated with US forces in fighting the 
Soviet Army in Afghanistan. I bet the British Parliament was never asked to 
OK that!

As I write this, Bush's UN Ambassador has just told the Security Council 
that the US may have to extend the war to other countries. Iraq has been 
mentioned.

Extending the war to Iraq should pose no problem for Blair, at least. 
Tony's aircraft have been joining in the US bombing of Iraq ever since "New 
Labour" got elected in Britain. They'll just step up their activities.

The British military's opportunity to bomb Yugoslavia proved short-lived 
(bad management, that) but now they have another war that could go on for 
yonks.

Some Yank general said last week, when asked how long the war with 
Afghanistan might last, that it could take ten years. He clearly thought 
that was good news and was probably miffed at his listeners' lukewarm 
response.

Continuous war will be great for business — should pull the US and other 
capitalist economies out of the doldrums well and truly. The first salvo of 
25 Tomahawk cruise missiles alone cost the American taxpayers a cool $37.5 
million, without all the ancillary costs of the other bombs and missiles 
that were used that day, or the costs of the aircraft, subs and surface 
ships, military bases, command centres, and so forth that were involved.

But Congress has already been told that cuts to Social Services, health and 
education will be necessary to support the President's "crusade". And since 
none of the well-paid legislators depend on welfare, use public clinics or 
send their kids to public schools in poor neighbourhoods, that shouldn't be 
a problem.

The Bush White House announced at the beginning that the US had a list of 
some 62 countries that were potential targets of the War On Terrorism Other 
Than Our Own Or Our Allies'. Starting with Afghanistan would seem to 
suggest that they are going to attack them alphabetically. Anyone got a 
spare ticket for Zambia or Zimbabwe?

Let's face it: attacking them alphabetically is as good an excuse as any 
that Bush has given. The most prominent target deliberately destroyed in 
Afghanistan at the time of writing is a UN-backed land mine clearance 
centre.

Its personnel were involved in removing the millions of land mines that dot 
the Afghan countryside and kill or maim thousands of children and farmers 
every year. Clearly a vital part of a terrorist network.

Half the population of Afghanistan were refugees packed along the country's 
borders "before" the US-British-Australian war with Afghanistan began. What 
the country will be like by the time the new rulers of the world are 
satisfied beggars the imagination.

It will fuel the global movement of opposition to the New World Order. 
Unfortunately, it also generates the anger and frustration that finds its 
vent in terrorism. Either way, the US is assuredly making a rod for its own 
back.