April 21, 2003
BBC/Guardian: Unanswered Questions

One feature of the war in Iraq was the speed and immediacy with which many events were reported by the media. Some of these turned out to be not quite what they seemed, others are still surrounded by confusion. Was this the fog of war, effects-based warfare, propaganda, or error? BBC News Online has created a list of points where discrepancies in reporting remain, such as the following:

Scuds

Coalition account: On day one of the war, 20 March, military spokesmen for the US and UK announce that "Scud-type" missiles have been fired into Kuwait. This was significant because Iraq was banned from having Scuds or other missiles of a similar range under UN resolutions.

Clarification:Three days later US General Stanley McChrystal reports: "So far there have been no Scuds launched."

The Guardian is running a similar article, titled "War Watch":

In due course, questions will be asked about the clashing interests of the military and the media and the role of war propaganda in the pursuit of a swift victory against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Umm Qasr was "taken" at least nine times before it was...taken. An uprising in Basra evaporated without trace. Chemical Ali may or may not have been found dead. And most extraordinarily today, it transpires that the Saddam torture morgue seized upon by troops as evidence of the regime's horrors may in fact be completely erroneous. The Iraqis said they were victims of the Iran-Iraq war and it looks as if they may be telling the truth.


Posted by Darren Wershler-Henry at April 21, 2003 12:22 PM | TrackBack
Comments
-->