|
|
|
|
|
|
by Polly Mann, W A M M
|
I am a skeptic, but on those occasions when I forget to be, I’m promptly brought back to reality. For example, I came across some recent newspaper items containing comments of soldiers on leave proclaiming what a good war Iraq is and how we, the American people, should be more patient and that time would prove the validity of it all. Interesting, I thought. Not exactly the kind of comments heard from returning soldiers during the Vietnam War. It was all made clear when I read about the Pentagon’s “Operation Homefront,” which ordered military personnel to give interviews to their hometown newspapers, television stations and other media outlets praising the U.S. war effort in Iraq. Soldiers were even provided a detailed set of talking points to help them. Some soldiers who are home and not under orders to return tell a different story. I should have known.
On the other hand, expressions of anti-war sentiment from the troops are not countenanced. One National Guardsman who posted anti-war sentiments on an internet blog was demoted and fined $1,640.
The Pentagon, itself, promotes war as it encourages enlistment. A report from the General Accountability Office found that from 2003 to mid-2005, the administration authorized the expenditure of some $1.4 billion in contracts with advertising agencies to broadcast positive messages about its policies and initiatives. Another $200 million went to public relations companies and $15 million to building connections with media outlets. Individual members of the press received $100,000 in promotions contracts. To me, it seems akin to using the government franking privilege to mail campaign literature. But then, I’m old-fashioned in my concept of what the role of government should be. I agree with Abraham Lincoln who is supposed to have said that the legitimate object of government was to do for the people that which needs to be done but which they, by themselves, could not do so well.
And what about all the television ads touting the military? A February 28th article appearing in The Chicago Tribune explained it all. It seems that a political group close to the Administration, “Progress for America” spent more than a million dollars on television commercials shoring up the public support for the war in Iraq. Minnesota was chosen as the site for this blitz and between February 9th and the 22nd the average Minnesota television viewer saw the pro-war commercials numerous times. This group spent more than $35 million in support of President Bush during the 2004 campaign. Since the election, the group mounted advertising campaigns on behalf of the administration’s political priorities, including Social Security reform and confirmation of the president’s two Supreme Court nominees. Now, you see what those of us on the other side of the political fence are up against! One of the ads, however, stretches the truth, or in other words, is a lie. It says, “You’d never know it from the news reports, but our enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda, the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.” When you have so much money to play around with, no one bothers too much about exact wording. I’d love to see what Garrison Keillor would do with this scenario: all the good folks in Lake Woebegone’s responding to a survey concerning their reactions to the campaign.
The whole framework of politics, especially of campaigns, has grown so huge it seems absolutely unmanageable. How could any accountant possibly have a grasp on all the money spent by all the individuals, lobbying groups, special interest groups, etc. al? I have one idea that I think would be good and that would be to limit all money spent on political campaigns to be that from within the state where it is to be used. Of course, there’d be ramifications. What about money coming from a bank account within the state? Wouldn’t it be possible for a non-resident to open an account within the state for the express purpose of providing campaign funds? Of course, none of these suggestions is going anywhere because the power brokers that run our country would not have them.
I don’t know why the government finds it necessary to run ads encouraging enlistment in the military. If present trends continue, more and more young people will join the military because it will be viewed as their only option. After all, tuition has gone up, college grants have been greatly reduced, (even as the University of Minnesota plans a new stadium and new buildings occupy every available space,) jobs are being out-sourced and the cost of living increases daily. The truth about the dangers of depleted uranium poisoning, the psychological trauma and suicides are overlooked in the face of the ads about the excitement of serving your country and a $20,000 fee for enlistment. We have our work cut out for us, in needing to expose to youth and others the stark realities of war, and the reasons behind them. |
|
|
|
© 2006 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete July/August 2006 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
