Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Hegemony Or Survival? How Propaganda Perpetuates And Sustains America’s Global Dominance by Kioko Ireri COMM 643 Miami University Fall 2007 Professor: Dr. David Sholle December 11, 2007 Ireri 2 Hegemony Or Survival? How Propaganda Perpetuates And Sustains America’s Global Dominance There is no doubt that when it comes to global dominance, America, the most powerful state in history has no peer competitor. America’s global hegemony is ubiquitous, from the war ravaged Somalia in East Africa, Afghanistan in South Asia, to Iraq in the Middle East. The hegemony is exhibited through three fronts: the military front, the economic front, and the propaganda front. How the US has managed to spread its dominance tentacles, is mainly seen through military power, which is second to none. This explains why Americans have nearly been involved in all major wars since the World War I. Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely read voice on foreign policy on the planet explains that the American hegemony is rooted in Wilsonian idealism that states: “The imperative of America’s mission as the vanguard of history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its own dominance,” guided by “the imperative of military supremacy, maintained in perpetuity and projected globally.”1 To perpetuate, protect, and sustain this hegemony requires the all-important role of propaganda. This paper mirrors the successes and failures of President Bush’s propaganda model in the Iraq war, and addresses the question of whether America’s invasion of the oil rich nation was a show of hegemony or a survival tactic. Three key terminologies are important in this paper: hegemony, dominance, and propaganda. Hegemony is a concept developed in the 1930s by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian political theorist. The concept was later incorporated in cultural studies. O’Sullivan et al. define hegemony as the ability of the dominant classes to exercise social and cultural leadership - rather than by direct coercion of subordinate classes - to maintain their power over the economic, political Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004, 43. 1 Ireri 3 and cultural direction of the nation.2 The authors point out that hegemony does not force people against their conscious will, but seeks their consent to fit with the interests of the hegemonic leadership or power bloc. Agreeing with O’Sullivan et al., Morton argues that hegemony is a form of dominance that refers more to a consensual order, so that “dominance by a powerful state may be a necessary but not sufficient condition of hegemony.”3 But Jones notes that hegemony is more sensitive, thus, useful than “domination” which he says fails to acknowledge the active role of subordinate people in the operation of power. Moreover, he explains that, “hegemony is moral and intellectual leadership which treats the aspirations and views of subaltern people as an active element within the political and cultural program of the hegemonizing bloc.”4 The term propaganda entered the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1922 and in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences a decade later. Klaebu explains that the propaganda model of media operations devised by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media postulates that elite media interlock with other institutional sectors in ownership, management and social circles, effectively circumscribing their ability to remain detached from other dominant institutional sectors.5 The author observes that the HermanChomsky model avows to the view that the mass media are instruments of power that “mobilize” support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity.6 Propaganda is mainly executed through the mass media which serves as a system for communicating messages to the general public. It is the function of the mass media to entertain, O'Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, and Martin Montgomery. Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 1994, 133. 3 Morton, Adam. Unraveling Gramsci. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2007, 113. 4 Jones, Steve. Antonio Gramsci. New York: Routledge, 2006, 55. 5 Klaebu, Jeffrey. "A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model'." European Journal of Communication, no. 17 (2002): 147. 6 Ibid., 148. 2 Ireri 4 inform, and educate the target audience. But, at the same time, Herman and Chomsky assert that the mass media inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.7 In fact, Rutherford refers to media as tools or weapons of mass persuasion utilized to sell the commodity of war to Americans.8 Contrastingly, Rampton and Stauber rather see media as weapons of mass deception - used to dupe or deceive people to blindly support unwarranted decisions or actions by the elite. While mass media play an important role in democratic societies, Klaebu clarifies that they are presupposed to act as intermediary vehicles that reflect public opinion, respond to public concerns and make the electorate cognizant of state policies, important events and viewpoints. 9 Thus, the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model traces avenues through which money and power manage to filter out news fit to print or broadcast, marginalize dissent, and allow the government or dominant interests to get their messages to the public. The point Herman and Chomsky are putting across is that the elite dominate the media, a thing that results in marginalization of dissenting voices that are seen as a threat to the status quo or the ruling class. Backing this view, Klaebu observes that, “news discourse is framed so as to reproduce interpretations which endorse, legitimize and promote elite interests.”10 Now, it is necessary to examine and understand the ingredients of the propaganda model that filters or censors news to meet the interests of the elite. Of course, news censorship results in denying members of the public the right to know the truth regarding issues that affect their lives. These ingredients fall under the following five headings: Herman, Edward, and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988, 1. 8 Rutherford, Paul. Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, 193. 9 Klaebu, Jeffrey. "A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model'." European Journal of Communication, no. 17 (2002): 147. 10 Ibid., 152. 7 Ireri 5 a) The size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of dominant mass-media firms; b) Advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; c) The reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; d) “Flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and e) “Anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism. The first filter recognizes that the media are tiered, with the top tier - as measured by prestige, resources, and outreach. This tier comprise of between ten and twenty-four corporations, which according to Herman and Chomsky define the news agenda and supplies much of the national and international news to the lower tiers of the media, and subsequently to the general public.11 The fact is that these twenty-four giant corporations are profit-seeking, owned and controlled by wealthy people. These companies have assets in excess of $1 billion, and approximately three-quarters of these media organizations had after-tax profits in excess of $100 million in 1986. To capture the media situation in the United States, Herman and Chomsky write: In 1986 there were some 1,500 daily newspapers, 11,000 magazines, 9,000 radio and 1,500 TV stations, 2,400 book publishers and seven movie studios in the United States – over 25,000 media entities in all. But large proportion of those among this set who were news dispensers were very small and local, dependent on the large national companies and wire services for all but local news. Many more were subject to common ownership, sometimes extending through virtually the entire set of media variants.12 On the other hand, an advertising-based system drives out of existence into marginality the media companies that depend on revenue from sales alone. While the advertisers’ choices influence media prosperity and survival, they at the same time serve as a powerful mechanism that weakens the working-class press. Weakening of the working-class press means that interests of ordinary people are not fully articulated within the realm of the public sphere through the Herman, Edward, and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988, 5. 12 Ibid., 4. 11 Ireri 6 mainstream media giants. The hegemonic function, however, strives to see to it that the plight of the working class is put into consideration within its political and cultural programs. For instance, as a way of managing this social group, a hegemonic leadership would encourage them to form trade unions through which their aspirations are articulated. Herman and Chomsky explain: The ad-based media receive an advertising subsidy that gives them a price-marketing-quality edge, which allows them to encroach on and further weaken their ad- free rivals. Even if ad-based media cater to an affluent (“upscale”) audience, they easily pick up a large part of the “downscale” audience, and their rivals lose market share and are eventually driven our or marginalized.13 The reliance of the media on gathering information provided by state agents and institutions owned by wealthy people only acts as a means of curtailing journalists’ independence as they in the process fall prey to propaganda mill controlled by the powers that be in society. The Pentagon has a public-information service that aims at disseminating positive information about America forces to the public. For example, in 1980 the US Air Force revealed that its publicinformation outreach included the following: 140 newspapers, 690,000 copies per week; Airman magazine, monthly circulation 125,000; 34 radio and 17 TV stations, primarily overseas; 45,000 headquarters and unit news releases; 50 meetings with editorial boards, and 6,600 interviews with news media, etc.14 “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media or program. Examples take the form of letters, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, complaints, threat, and punitive action. Flak from the powerful can be costly as seen from what befell The People Daily, a national English daily in Kenya. On March 22, 2002, then Minister for Trade and Industry Nicholas Biwott won a libel suit against the newspaper in the amount of $250,000 for implicating him in the allegedly corrupt dealings during the construction of the Turkwel Gorge hydro electric power plant in Turkana district. Biwott, then Minister for Energy was such a powerful figure during President Daniel Moi’s regime 13 14 Ibid., 15. Ibid., 19. Ireri 7 which was voted out in December 2002 after twenty four years of wanton mismanagement of public resources. At the height of his power, Biwott, the diminutive Keiyo South Member of Parliament, boisterously referred to himself as “Mr. Total Man.” The $250,000 Biwott compensation was a record punitive action meted on a news organization in the country’s media history. It stands out clearly as an example of ramifications associated with flak. It is certain that all governments engage in propaganda to counter criticism from opposition quarters, or when state agents want to whip up the support of the masses for a certain cause of action. Crises such as the Iran-Contra scandal, the Cuba Missile Crisis, or the Iraq war create a platform for the return of the propaganda state, which Rutherford defines as, “a regime in which the governors employ constant stream of messages to propel the population toward some desired condition of right thinking and acting.”15 The term “propaganda state” was first witnessed during the early years of revolution when the Communist Party tried to remake Russia. Rutherford writes that the Bolshevik regime prohibited dissent and employed posters, advertising, school books, plays, paintings, newspapers, cinema - all apparatus of persuasion so as to fashion the new socialist man and woman.16 During the 1930s Nazi Germany was at the forefront as a propaganda state with Joseph Goebbels, a genius of persuasion, commanding the press, radio, art, and cinema to program minds and stigmatize enemies. During the Second World War, Goebbels employed “whisper” (or person-to-person) propaganda to ensure a uniform set of messages that expressed the Nazi vision of war.17 In 2002, President Bush and his think tank team were burning the midnight oil scheming how to invade Iraq, and depose Saddam Hussein from power. By September, the Bush Rutherford, Paul. Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, 184. 16 Ibid., 185. 17 Ibid., 186. 15 Ireri 8 administration announced its National Security Strategy that declared the right to resort to force to eliminate any perceived challenge to the US global hegemony. It is a fact that controlling the general population has always been a dominant concern of power, and the Bush administration was eager to do so. Chomsky, in his book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, writes that the same September, a propaganda campaign was launched to depict Saddam as an imminent threat to the United States and to insinuate that he was responsible for the 9-11 atrocities and was planning others.18 Perhaps a hegemonic perspective can offer a better way to understand the Bush administration’s propaganda strategy and its impact on public opinion in relation to the Iraq invasion. Therefore, the challenge facing President Bush and his henchmen was to craft communications strategies that would sell what Americans wanted to hear - that Saddam masterminded the 9-11 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC), and that the tyrant was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In the aftermath of 9-11, Americans felt horror, anger and outright astonishment, and therefore any propaganda pinpointing the devil behind the heinous attack would be good music to the ears of the US citizens. Earlier in this paper I stated that the US media is owned and controlled by affluent people, and it must serve their interests. Hence in the wake of the Iraq invasion, the media had no option but to support both the imperial grand strategy and the propaganda campaign that depicted Saddam as a real threat to Americans. Regarding media’s collusion with elites, Snow and Taylor observe: Although they will rarely admit to it, news organizations are often willing colluders with governments and militaries in efforts to censor because major media owners are members of the political elite themselves and therefore share similar goals and outcomes. Making profit would appear to rank higher than telling the truth in the minds of some media owners and many of their employees.19 Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004, 43. 19 Snow, Nancy, and Philip Taylor. "The Revival of the Propaganda State." The International Gazette, no. 68 (2006): 396. 18 Ireri 9 The quest to perpetuate, protect and sustain the American hegemony was unstoppable, not even the toothless Security Council division of the United Nations could convince President Bush that attacking Iraq was not a wise move. Saddam had already failed to fully comply with numerous Security Council resolutions. Indeed, well-known international affairs specialist John Ikenbery describes the National Security Strategy as, “grand strategy that begins with fundamental commitment to maintaining a unipolar world in which the United States has no competitor.”20 Chomsky notes that when the UN fails to serve as “an instrument of American unilateralism” on issues of elite concern, it is dismissed. It is well documented that since the 1960s, the US has been at the frontline - notoriously vetoing UN Security Council resolutions on a wide range of issues, even those calling on states to observe international law. The national security propaganda was not enough to convince Americans that attacking Iraq was necessary. The Bush advisors did not leave anything to chance as they crafted a plethora of other communication strategies such as advertising and public relation campaigns to sell the war product to Americans. Some of the Bush administration’s advice came from Jack Leslie, chairman of Weber Shandwick, one of the world’s largest public relations firms. Rampton and Stauber in their book Weapons of Mass Deception say that Leslie proposed that the United States adopt a PR version of the “Powell doctrine” of using “overwhelming force” as its communications strategy.21 Rampton and Stauber, further write: The Washington Post reported that the White House had created an Office of Global Communications (OGC) to coordinate the administration’s foreign policy message and supervise America’s image abroad. In September, the Times of London reported that the OGC would spend $200 million for a “PR blitz against Saddam Hussein” aimed “at American and foreign audiences, particularly in Arab nations skeptical of US policy in the region.” The campaign Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004, 11. 21 Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. Weapons of Mass Deception. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2003, 10. 20 Ireri 10 would use “advertising techniques to persuade crucial target that the Iraqi leader must be ousted.22 The choice of Leslie encapsulates how Bush and his cronies were determined to use credible figures in the fields of communication and politics. They went for the best, so as to win the support of the public. They wanted credible personalities who can transform attitudes of Americans jittery about the Iraq invasion. Leslie was the man fitting this bill. Weber Shandwick’s website describes Leslie as a veteran communication strategist. He has been an architect of some of the most visible communication campaigns of the last two decades, as well as serving as a high-level strategist for nationwide political campaigns on three continents. Weber Shandwick’s website further states that: Leslie specializes in helping prominent corporations and public institutions to transform public attitudes rapidly on divisive, high-profile issues. Leslie's dual background as a seasoned communications professional and political operative offers a unique perspective that enables him to integrate advertising, media relations, direct marketing and political strategy.23 Leslie has served as a communications crisis advisor to the NY-NJ Port Authority in the immediate aftermath of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and to American Airlines following the attacks of 9-11; to the Government of Colombia on illegal narcotics; to the State of Florida on the shootings of foreign tourists; and many other foreign and domestic crises. He was a senior aide to Senator Edward M. Kennedy as well as a strategist on dozens of nationwide and local campaigns in the United States, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Leslie has advised several heads of state on communications as well as managing trade and economic development campaigns for the governments of Colombia, Chile, Portugal, the Philippines and Indonesia. Such a respectable Ibid., 38. "Jack Leslie." Weber Shadwick. Available from http://www.webershandwick.com/Default.aspx/People/JackLeslie. Internet; accessed 7 December 2007. 22 23 Ireri 11 resume saw Leslie’s wealth of experience in managing crisis being desperately sought by the Bush administration to sell the Iraq war to skeptical people. Since coming to power the Bush administration had fumbled on many issues of national importance. This is why many Americans did not buy the idea of attacking Iraq. Therefore, to make the clamor to invade Iraq more credible, the Bush administration used then secretary of state Colin Powell to announce that indeed Iraq had assembled biological weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell had a distinguishing career as a soldier. He was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held myriad command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12 th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the US’ victorious 1991 Persian Gulf War. His success during the Gulf war earned him respect, and even political pundits argued that Powell would pass as a credible and strong presidential candidate. Secretary Powell’s civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President’s Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal.24 On February 5, 2003, Powell appeared before the UN to “prove” the urgency to engage a war with Iraq. He told the UN that Iraq harbors a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi. He also showed photos of what he said was a poison and explosives training camp in north-east Iraq, operated by the group. In November 2002, immediately after the mid-term elections, a new group - Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) was formed, and Rampton and Stauber say that its mission statement was, “to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell." The White House. Available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/powell-bio.html. Internet; accessed 7 December 2007. 24 Ireri 12 Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations.25 There were other groups pushing the pro-war propaganda agenda for America’s survival. These were; the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, the Hudson Institute and the Hoover Institute, each which shared a number of overlapping memberships and interests with the others. In the months preceding the Iraq invasion, the government media propaganda mouthpiece had its effects, as within weeks, Chomsky reports that some 60 percent of Americans came to regard Saddam Hussein as an “immediate threat to the US” who must be removed from power as quickly as possible.26 And by March, almost half of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks and that the hijackers included Iraqis. It is also notable that the propaganda united Americans, at least setting aside their political differences. During the 2002 midterm elections, the Bush administration won a mere majority as American voters put aside their immediate worries and demonstrated their commitment to fight the common enemy. President Bush’s approval rating stood at a high of 70 percent. Therefore, it can be seen that hegemonic function of the Bush administration built its agenda for the war based on the 9-11 bombing of WTC twin towers. That propaganda linking Saddam Hussein with 9-11 won the consent of many Americans to endorse the war is a pure hegemonic function, which thrives on consensual order, and not coercing people to support a public agenda. The hegemonic function had less resistance in achieving its goal. This is so Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. Weapons of Mass Deception. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2003, 53. Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004, 18. 25 26 Ireri 13 because even the democrats, who were supposed to question the motive behind invading Iraq, appeared to already have succumbed to the propaganda. How the democrats’ bigwigs succumbed to the pro-war propaganda and to a lager extent the hegemonic function is demonstrated by what they said about Saddam. On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry, who ran for the presidency in 2004 said: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." The following day Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, now garnering for the democratic presidential nomination ahead of next year’s presidential polls said: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.27 On September 23, 2002, former vice president Al Gore said, “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We should also remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”28 It can also be said that the Bush war propaganda addressed some of the values that keep the fabric of American society intact. American values revolve around patriotism, democracy, freedom and the American Dream. The urge for the Iraq war called for the spirit of patriotism, and "Don't Quote Me." BreakTheChain.org. Available from http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/demquotes.html. Internet; accessed 7 December 2007. 28 Ibid. 27 Ireri 14 for the American people to defend their country by going for the enemy’s jugular. The American society professes democracy, and they saw the dictatorial leadership of Saddam as an impediment to the liberation of Iraqis, especially women and the Kurds. They also thought that imminent threat from Saddam was tantamount to putting the “American Dream” in jeopardy. March 18, 2003 was a day of reckoning for Saddam Hussein as the US troops, backed by British forces invaded Iraq. Patrick and Thrall argue that the hegemonic perspective envisions a president able to command media attention in support of his agenda and to determine the news framing applied to Iraq.29 Therefore, Bush’s propaganda team set the news agenda, and framed war coverage for the news media and the public. So the media was there to cover the unfolding events. Interpreting the hegemonic nature of the Iraq war news coverage, Rutherford says, “Once the bombing started, the big media rallied to the cause of war, as did much of the public, leaving even less room for dissent.”30 The hegemonic function perpetrated by the political elite was already working. True, the media was playing into the hands of the hegemonic mission. One incident which was given wide coverage during the fall of Saddam was in a square in central Baghdad, where US marines helped a crowd of Iraqis topple a giant statue of Saddam in a bold symbolic gesture. CBS news analyst Col (Ret) Mitch Mitchell referred to the event as a “psychological victors,” and went ahead to add that, “bringing it down is symbolic of the fall of the regime - that the regime no longer is in control of the country.”31 “Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Ceausescu in the pantheon of failed brutal dictators, and the Iraqi people are well on their way to freedom,”32 declared then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Patrick, Brian, and Trevor Thrall. "Beyond Hegemony: Classical Propaganda Theory and Presidential Communication Strategy After the Invasion of Iraq." Mass Communications & Society, no. 10 (2007): 104. 30 Ibid., 96. 31 CBS, "Saddam Toppled In Baghdad." CBS News 1-1. cbsnews.com. 04/04/2003. 32 Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. Weapons of Mass Deception. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2003, 2. 29 Ireri 15 That President Bush’s propaganda machinery had managed to rally media to support the Iraq invasion meant that the grand strategy propaganda supplemented by other efforts had succeeded. Saddam was no longer in power, a big victory for the Bush administration. Rampton and Stauber note that the Bush administration had succeeded in making “Should we attack Iraq?”33 - the most-considered political question in the United States that time. However, the events that unfolded in Iraq in the aftermath of ousting Saddam from power in Baghdad questions the success of the propaganda campaign. Though President Bush’s approval rating stood at a high of over 70 percent at the time of the Iraq invasion, only four months later Patrick and Thrall said that the president’s support for the war dropped faster than support for Vietnam between 1965 and 1971.34 Such a drastic fall in the president’s approval rating begs for one central question that confronts the hegemonic tradition: Did President Bush’s propaganda machinery fail to dominate the news for some reasons? If so, Patrick and Thrall argue that the hegemonic-inspired theories were dealt a devastating blow.35 French playwright Jean Anouilh once observed, “propaganda is a soft weapon; hold it in your hands too long, and it will move about like a snake, and strike the other way.”36 Did President Bush hold his propaganda campaign too long in his hands such that it boomeranged once Saddam was out of power? Chomsky argues that from the first moments of the propaganda offensive, it was apparent that the pronouncements lacked credibility.37 Here is what a US government source in Washington as quoted by Chomsky says about the propaganda campaign, “This administration is capable of any lie....in order to advance its war goal in Iraq.”38 Another comment came from Anatol Lieven, a political analyst who says that most Americans had Ibid., 41. Patrick, Brian, and Trevor Thrall. "Beyond Hegemony: Classical Propaganda Theory and Presidential Communication Strategy After the Invasion of Iraq." Mass Communications & Society, no. 10 (2007): 96. 35 Ibid., 96. 36 Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. Weapons of Mass Deception. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2003, 81. 37 Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004, 18. 38 Ibid., 18. 33 34 Ireri 16 been duped…..by a propaganda program which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime democracies.39 Snow and Taylor comment: The selling of the invasion of Iraq as a ‘liberation’ of the Iraq people from Saddam’s regime – all these themes proved to be highly controversial in the justification for war not only among those four democracies who formed a ‘coalition of the willing’ to actually fight the Saddam regime.40 Another blow to the propaganda campaign that was pegged on allegations that Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons occurred when the military forces occupying Iraq failed to discover the said weapons. It is worth noting that for the hegemony to remain unchallenged the American leader is free to change rule at will. So when the WMD were not discovered, the Bush administration justified the invasion by discovery of equipment that potentially could be used to produce lethal chemical weapons. This means that America is free to act unilaterally especially to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources. On March 14, 2006, CNN’s lead story read: Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low. The news article reports that 60 percent of those polled said they disapproved of President Bush’s performance. “Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday,”41 says the article. In the same article, 57 percent of those interviewed said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Thus, Bush’s approval rating of 36 percent was the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored the previous November. Ibid., 19. Snow, Nancy, and Philip Taylor. "The Revival of the Propaganda State." The International Gazette, no. 68 (2006): 391. 41 CNN, "Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low." CNN International 1-1. cnn.com. 03/14/2006. 39 40 Ireri 17 It can be concluded that the propaganda put in place by the Bush administration as an excuse to invade Iraq succeeded, but backfired immediately after Saddam was out of power. The success is explained by the high approval rating of 70 percent of Bush’s performance just before the invasion. The propaganda was effective such that it convinced a majority of Americans, including leading democratic figures whose priority at that time was security, that Saddam was behind WTC bombing and was in possession of deadly weapons that were a threat to American’s survival. Also, the propaganda had managed to portray the dictator as the ultimate evil and an imminent threat to Americans’ survival. The tyrant was assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons so as to dominate, intimidate or attack US installations around the world as was the case of US embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya in 1998. The propaganda was effective beyond reasonable doubts when it claimed that Saddam had already used his deadly weapons on whole villages – leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or transfigured. If this was not right, the propaganda said, then, evil has no meaning. However, events that took place after the fall of Baghdad indicate that the propaganda was not a success. First of all there were no weapons of mass destruction as put by Bush and his spin doctors. That it took the US troops less than a month to push Saddam out of power, is an indication that Iraq was defenseless, which negates a critical view that the tyrant was assembling WMD. What followed after the failure of getting WMD was a drastic fall in approval rating of Bush, and Iraq was plunged into sectarian war which has claimed the lives of thousands of American soldiers and over a million Iraqi civilians. The propaganda’s failure can be seen in the words of Rutherford who says that propaganda state is the dark shadow of democracy. He points out that the propaganda state thrives when other voices are silenced.42 Therefore, the Iraq invasion captures Rutherford, Paul. Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, 184. 42 Ireri 18 all of characteristics of a superpower ready to show its hegemony by perpetuating and sustaining it through propaganda campaigns. It can also be seen as a survival tactic because America, in its quest for global dominance has created many enemies such that its citizens live under fear – hence this vital quote by Snow and Taylor: “we must defeat them over there before they attack us here.”43 There is no slightest indication that the America’s global dominance is about to be challenged by any nation, thus, the American hegemony is here to stay – whether we like it or not. Snow, Nancy, and Philip Taylor. "The Revival of the Propaganda State." The International Gazette, no. 68 (2006): 397. 43 Ireri 19 References 1. "Don't Quote Me." BreakTheChain.org. Available from http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/demquotes.html. Internet; accessed 7 December 2007. 2. CBS, "Saddam Toppled In Baghdad." CBS News 1-1. cbsnews.com. 04/04/2003. 3. Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004. 4. CNN, "Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low." CNN International 1-1. cnn.com. 03/14/2006. 5. Herman, Edward, and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988. 6. "Jack Leslie." Weber Shadwick. Available from http://www.webershandwick.com/Default.aspx/People/JackLeslie. Internet; accessed 7 December 2007. 7. Jones, Steve. Antonio Gramsci. New York: Routledge, 2006. 8. "Kenya Extended Bulletin: Country Information & Policy Unit." Immigration & Nationality Directorate Home Office, United Kingdom (2003): 22-23. UNHCR. December 2, 2007. 9. Klaebu, Jeffrey. "A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model'." European Journal of Communication, no. 17 (2002): 147-182. 10. Lasswell, Harold. Propaganda in the World War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927. 11. Morton, Adam. Unraveling Gramsci. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2007. 12. O'Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, and Martin Montgomery. Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: 1994, Routledge. 13. Patrick, Brian, and Trevor Thrall. "Beyond Hegemony: Classical Propaganda Theory and Presidential Communication Strategy After the Invasion of Iraq." Mass Communications & Society, no. 10 (2007): 95-118. 14. Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. Weapons of Mass Deception. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2003. 15. Raymond, Williams. Marxism and Literature. London: Oxford University Press, 1977. 16. Rutherford, Paul. Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. 17. "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell." The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/powell-bio.html. Internet; accessed 7 December 2007. Available from 18. Snow, Nancy, and Philip Taylor. "The Revival of the Propaganda State." The International Gazette, no. 68 (2006): 389-407.