Linda ZhangProject report

MACS390, “Media, war and peace,” autumn session, 2011

Media and Cultural Studies, University of Wollongong

The project report had two components. For details of the assignment see http://www.bmartin.cc/classes/MACS390_10outline.pdf

1. An information pack, starting on the next slide.

2. A fictional dialogue about carrying out the project, available as a separate file.

This document is located at http://www.bmartin.cc/classes/MACS390_11tops/.

Information Pack

Student Numbers:34488734018710

This information pack aims to: Inform the general public on the Grammar of War

Discourse Theory Explain the relationship between language and war

through various theorists Apply it to events before and during the Iraq War Use de Bono to shift into a creative, lateral way of

thinking about grammar of war discourse Analyse George W. Bush’s War Ultimatum Speech Show how language is used to justify and sell war Examine using examples how subsequently the war

was reported and constructed

During War information is managed and controlled.

Political, military, and media institutions play a role in this process.

Aims to “nullify rather than conceal undesirable news; control emphasis rather than facts; balance bad news with good; and lie directly only when certain that the lie will not be found out during the course of the war”

- Lukin (2004) p.58

Annabelle Lukin questions how information about prosecuting war is provided without turning people off the idea completely? War is after all pretty ugly business.› The answer to this question is that language is built on

systems of choice, allowing users to create alternative representations of the same piece of ‘reality out there’.

Lt. Co. Richard Long, Former Marine Corps Public Information Director says: › “Our job is to win the war. Part of that is information

warfare. So we are going to dominate the information environment”

- Lukin (2005) p.5

First Gulf War (1990)

› Report appeared in the London Daily Telegraph that Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of incubators and left them on the hospital floor to die.

› This event prompted the war and gained public support.› The story was pure fabrication by American PR firm who

were hired by the Kuwaiti government and arranged for a 15 year old Kuwaiti girl to lie to a US Congressional Committee.

Iraq War (2003) › Saddam Hussein was reported to be a threat to world

peace because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, WMD’s (a highly emotive spin-doctored term).

› A spurious rhetorical link was also made between Hussein and Al-Qaeda

- Louw p.156

Both were lies.

George W. Bush - War Ultimatum Speech Monday 17 March 2003 from the Cross Hall in the

White House The speech was given to prepare and inform the

United States of America on the government’s plan to enter into war in Iraq

Eric Louw states that modern wars have seen the military become increasingly sophisticated; skilled at using the media as powerful tools of warfare.

Louw identifies that through use of language and grammar, certain elements are used to media-ize and sell war:› Opposition leaderships are demonized in preparation for the

war› Selective portrayal of history› Target regime destabilized and made to look unreasonable› Victims in need of saving

- Louw p.151

These elements are all present in Bush’s speech as seen in the following quotes

The creation of identifiable villains and demonizing opposition leaderships is usually a strong indication that war is coming.

“The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed”

“We are a peaceful people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers”

“If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end”

- George W. Bush (2003)

Involves presenting the target regime in a negative light. It may also include one sided facts that justify intervention

“The regime has a history of reckless aggression”

“In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990’s”

“The United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war, pledging to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction.”

“The world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy… Our good faith has not been returned”

- George W. Bush (2003)

The target regime will be destabilized, embarrassed and made to look unreasonable and irrational through political, economic and diplomatic maneuvers.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”

“It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists including operative of Al Qaeda”

“The danger is clear…with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions”

- George W. Bush (2003)

Binary opposition logic necessitates creating ‘victims’ to be saved.

Victims are an important device for justifying using violence against foreigners

“We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free”

“The day of liberation is near”

“Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty”

- George W. Bush (2003)

Repetition› “We” - when referring to the United States and it’s allies› “Regime” – when referring to Hussein’s government; has

negative connotations implying dictatorship and a nation state without democracy

Choice of language› “Disarm” – as if WMD is a fact, beyond doubt

Contrast of negative and positive language› “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again

and again – because we are not dealing with peaceful men”

Tone creates a sense of fear and urgency. › “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein

now”› “We are acting now because the risks of inaction would be far

greater”- George W. Bush (2003)

What is spoken to us, what we read or is represented to us directly affects how we interpret or understand those events

“Language is a highly plastic resource: there is never just one way to report a set of events, even when the facts may be ‘uncontested’”

“Facts never speak for themselves: they have to be brought into existence through choices of grammar and words. This necessarily involves us favouring one kind of view over another.”

- Lukin (2004) p62

Evident in George W. Bush’s Ultimatum Speech As well as news reports during the war

Article 1 The Guardian UK - ‘US: 'We are seeing history

unfold’› “Three weeks after war began, jubilant crowds greeted

American troops in Baghdad yesterday, cheering as marines toppled a giant statue of Saddam before slapping his cast forehead with their shoes, the strongest of Arab insults.

› "Seeing the faces of liberated Iraqis, you have to say this is a very good day," Mr Rumsfeld said at a Washington press conference.”

Article 2 ‘Army report confirms psy ops staged toppling of

Saddam statue’› An internal Army study of the war in Iraq has confirmed that

the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis.

› According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment.

The Square was sealed off by the U.S. military. The 200 people were U.S. Marines, international press and Iraqis. However, the media portrayed it as an event of the Iraqi people

Through language, war appears necessary and justified.

The public has no way to fact check and without other independent sources of information, they consent to war.

The language techniques in Bush’s Ultimatum speech are used to persuade and sell the war’s objectives to the public; to disarm and remove the threat of ‘WMDs’

Consequently, in the news reporting of the Iraq war, similar grammar techniques were used to construct reality and justify the continuing intervention

De bono asks us to think laterally, moving away from a single perceptual framework. Our info pack demonstrates an alternate framework for considering the rhetoric of war and its hidden objectives.

Bush, G.W. (2003, March 18). Full text: bush's speech. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

Butt, D.G., Lukin, A., & Matthiessen, C.M. (2004). Grammar - the first covert operation of war. Discourse & Society, 15(2-3), 58-74.

Louw, E.P. (2010). The media and political process. Los Angeles: SAGE. Lukin, A. (2005). Information warfare: the grammar of talking war. Social

Alternatives, 24(1), 5-10. De Bono, Edward ‘Lateral thinking and Parallel thinking.’ Accessed

05/06/2011, available at: http://www.edwdebono.com/lateral.htm The Guardian ‘US: We are seeing History Unfold’ April 10, 2003. Accessed

05/06/2011, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/10/iraq.iraq2

Daily Kos ‘Army Report confirms Psy Ops staged Saddam Statue Toppling’ October 07, 2004. Accessed 05/06/2011, available at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/07/57574/-Army-Report-Confirms-Psy-ops-Staged-Saddam-Statue-Toppling

Note: all image references are in the notes section of the corresponding slide