The language of war

The tragic war that has torn Syria apart over the last five years has created enormous suffering in modern times. Not enough has been said about the war by the media that has consistently prioritised other issues. It has highlighted problems that are far more trivial than the tragedy that is unfolding in a country from which thousands have fled.

But beyond the dimensions of war, it is the hypocrisy behind it that is striking. The language used for those taking part in so many ways defines heroes and villains. In many cases this language appears to be inappropriate. It is created by a false, concocted sense of morality and rhetoric that are not based on reality. This was manifested during the latest US air strike that was carried out without the approval of the UN Security Council. This occurred even though Donald Trump, in his election campaign, had averred that there would be no direct US involvement in the Syrian conflict and that massive mistakes had been made by treading on Middle Eastern soil in the past.

The precise truth about the alleged gas attack which took place close to Damascus is yet to be known. This is typical of a war that has been reported poorly throughout its course and where lies have been presented as absolute facts. The Russians of course, present on the ground at the time of the strikes and informed of it in advance, would know. But they form part of the power game that is being played in the region between outside elements – a game that has devastated the beautiful cities of Syria.

The nerve gas attack could be a lie. The UN suggests pro-West rebels conducted it. The lies are familiar. In the not very distant past, Iraq was devastated on the basis of glaring lies conveyed by unreliable ‘spies’ about its weapons. The US and UK picked up on them and presented them as facts because it suited them to do so. We are seeing a replay. 

Let’s talk about the narrative we have been fed. This is necessary because at the time of the Iraq war we were told there was no bigger tyrant than Saddam Hussein and that he needed to be ousted at all costs. It is true that Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator. He has acted without any mercy against his own people and destroyed vast tracts of his own country in his efforts to fight against those who wish to oust his regime. It is also true that the regime has blood on its hands. It is guilty of torture, execution, the killing of civilians and incarceration in secret jails. Militias that operate under nominal control of the regime have been engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Of course this is not a government that can be admired or sympathised with. But would the US really want to delve into its history? Is it not correct that the Shia Baathist regime led first by Assad and then inherited by his son played the role of a close US ally for many years? Bush would send all those people from whom he wanted to extract confessions (through torture or any other means available) to Syrian jails. This is not something that many Americans are familiar with.

They are also unfamiliar with other truths. The ‘rebels’ which the West has been consistently supporting were once better known as Al-Qaeda, the evil responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They may today in some case go under different names but the groups are the same and consist of the same leadership. Even Isis, against which the US says it is leading the struggle, has not been targeted as frequently as Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship.

There are other hypocrisies involved in the sequence of events. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the main financiers of the rebels who were sent into Syria to overthrow Assad. There have been multiple accusations from Syrian citizens – who do not favour the Assad regime – of atrocities committed by these bands. But while former US president Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton are on record as saying they sought democracy in Syria, they do not seem disturbed by the fact that many Middle Eastern regimes are authoritarian. Both nations have quite openly backed the orthodox rebels attacking Syrian cities. They were also ardent supporters of the Taliban who drove Afghanistan into the mediaeval ages.

This has also meant that, despite the 9/11 perpetrators not being Afghan, Afghanistan bore the brunt of the US fury. This time too Iran appears to be the indirect target of the fighting.

The language used to describe the war is also important. After Assad’s armies walked into the ruins of Aleppo late last year, the events were described as the ‘fall’ of Aleppo rather than with words that would describe a city that had been retaken or recaptured by the Syrian government from the hands of ‘rebels’ who had terrorised people. In contrast, when Palmyra, the ancient city built by the Romans was taken by Isis, the words used to report it stated that Palmyra was recaptured. There was no talk of a ‘fall’ or any other catastrophe.

Similar hypocrisies can of course be found everywhere. In the US media there is little discussion of the fact that the US has been the world’s biggest user of chemical weapons. Apart from the country’s use of them in large quantities against civilians in Vietnam, its use elsewhere has been condoned. Surely there are lessons to be learnt from this. One of the reasons for the pictures being put before us is that many of the war reporters and journalists present in Syria had joined the ‘rebels’, often with the tacit support of US military personnel. It is then not surprising that we hear essentially a single perspective. This has been a problem for a very long time.

In 1945, soon after the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by US atomic bombs, only one reporter, Wilfred Burchett, suggested that the act delivered a warning to the world about the horrors of technology and warfare. Other journalists maintained the official stance that the US had emerged victorious in its fight against a country that had already been brought to its knees.

This connivance between the media and officialdom, through language – terminology and choice of words – to describe different players in any conflict is now a common phenomenon. It was seen in Afghanistan where American media professionals were ‘embedded’ with troops to ensure that only one version of reality was portrayed. Of course the reporters could have broken away from the leashes that bound them. But historically, only a few have dared to do so and this is perhaps particularly true in the Middle East where many other factors play a part in shaping public perspective.

Syria is the focal point of the game being played between the giants. In many ways the US strike is significant: it will impact relations between Moscow and Washington. For both nations, the region is a crucial one. This is one of the reasons why its people have been subjected to rule by dictators and autocrats who act as puppets for leaders in faraway lands. These people simply become pawns in wars whose reality is often veiled from the world. This duplicity is created by describing things in only one way.     

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.

Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com