Newspeak and the New War in Iran

The more I read the press releases and public statements of the U.S. military command in Iraq (the "Multinational Force Iraq") under Gen. David Petraeus, the more I am reminded of the dystopian future empire of George Orwell's 1984, in which the state controls thought processes through an ingenious language called "Newspeak." That variant of English is organized so as to reinforce the total dominance of the state by removing all shades of meaning except the extreme dichotomies that keep people in line.

The primary characteristic of Newspeak, therefore, is that words are robbed of meaning and become instruments of political control. Obviously the war managers had to engage in some gross manipulation of words was going on in Iraq from 2003 through 2006 to cover up the reality of a totalitarian Gulag in which many tens of thousands of Sunnis were mistreated, often tortured and kept for many months without any due process.

But in 2007, Petraeus and his White House handlers have carried the misuse of words to a new level that is truly reminiscent of Newspeak. The reason for this predictable development is clear: the shift in White House strategy to using the U.S. occupation of Iraq to pursue its escalating campaign of pressure on Iran.

At the center of Petraeus's Newspeak is the word "evidence." The common sense understanding of the word is that it either involves direct, objective documentation of a legal or other claim or theory, or circumstances that allow a logical inference. But in the fast-morphing war in Iraq, "evidence" has taken on an expansive new meaning.

Petraeus gave the word "evidence" a whole new meaning in his news conference at the National Press Club September 12. Asked for the evidence of Iranian responsibility for the attacks on U.S. troops, Petraeus said Iran "certainly has contributed to a sophistication of attacks that would be no means be possible without Iranian support when it comes to the explosively formed projectiles, a signature item provided by the Iranians; rockets, again, very -- particularly 240-mm that, again, there's no question where they have come from. And the evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white."

Petraeus went on to declare, " It is not just intelligence. It rises to the level of evidence, particularly what we captured when we got the hard drives of the computers from the individuals that we picked up in Basra."

Fortunately for anyone trying to interpret his Newspeak, however, Petraeus had already described the contents of that hard drive in his April 26 press briefing. He said they included a memorandum which "detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala" and "numerous documents which detailed a number of different attacks on coalition forces...." Petraeus said nothing to suggest that these documents yielded any trace of Iranian involvement in any phase of the operations or that they had been given material assistance or even training, giving us good reason to believe that they did not. Instead he tried to link those operations to Iran by saying, "[O]ur sense is that these records were kept so that they could be handed to whoever it is that is financing them."

So in the Newspeak of U.S.-occupied Iraq, "evidence" means whatever gives the General and his staff a "sense" that a politically convenient claim is true. In other words, it is the simply the administration's own subjective feelings about the question. Petraeus uses the term in the same way that Dick Cheney used it when he declared famously in September 2002 that the Bush administration had "irrefutable evidence" of Saddam's efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Now that the enemy in Iraq has changed to Iran, any Iraqi Shiite groups that are opposing the U.S. occupation must be linked with Iran. But the political reality in Iraq does not conform neatly to this politically convenient narrative of "proxy war." Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, far from being a pawn of Iran is in fact the most independent and nationalist of the Shiite groups, and also the most popular by far. Sadr has long enjoyed good relations with Hezbollah, however, and has certainly gotten technical assistance and training from them. Meanwhile the Badr corps, whose chief is also a government minister, has been the closest thing to an Iranian "proxy" in the country, with very close relationships with the Iranians at high levels. But unfortunately for Petraeus's proxy war narrative, its followers aren't resisting the U.S. occupation.

To make matters worse, Petraeus knows perfectly well that the Mahdi Army is too strong to be defeated by military force, but the administration is unwilling to make peace with it, because that would mean compromising with those who refuse to accept the occupation. So he's been forced to try something in between -- to put pressure on the Madhi Army in the vain hope that it will split between those who will accept the occupation and those who refuse.

To get people to take a simple, black and white view of that messy situation, Petraeus and his handlers in Washington have invented an entirely new vocabulary to describe what is going on in Shiite Iraq. The objectives of the new vocabulary is to portray the targets of U.S. violence as both Iranian pawns (and therefore enemies of the American people) and only marginal elements in the Shiite community.

So we now have such politically innovative terms as "Shiite extremists" and "rogue cells" filling the command's daily press releases and public statements. The use of any of those terms by someone who reads these documents involves just the kind of dumbed-down, child-like thinking that Newspeak was supposed to create.

So as a public service to journalists and researchers trying to make sense of Petraeus's propaganda output, here is a guide to what some of the key Newspeak terms really mean:

Shiite extremists: Shiites opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq who are current or prospective targets of U.S. suppression.

Iranian surrogates: Shiites opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq who are current or prospective targets of U.S. suppression

secret cell: any armed organization of Shiites opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq who are current or prospective targets of U.S. suppression

secret cell terrorist network: any network of Shiite armed organizations of Shiites opposed to the U.S. occupation which are current or prospective targets of U.S. suppression.

rogue cell: any Shiite armed organization opposed to the U.S. occupation which is a current or prospect target of U.S. suppression.

affiliate of Quds Force: anyone suspected of involvement in weapons smuggling.

Comments

[brutus948]

yea they do. It was frozen after the revolution.

[MagisterLudi]

I agree with Mr. Porter's assertion that US administration is attempting to influence public opinion by using certain vocabulary. They've been doing it for years. ROve was a master of that.
But is Mr. Porter suggesting Iranians are not funding and/or funneling weapons into Iraq?

Such suggestion would irresponsible. due to the fact the the blogger has no access to true intelligence and is simply speculating based on his biases, just like the rest of us :-)
Of course there's nothing wrong with that. Blogging does not have to raise to the level of objective journalism. Still we need to be more careful NOT to attempt to present opinion as fact.
I think each blogger (and music critic) should preface their peace with a statement: " This is my opinion only.I believe strongly that my opinion is correct based the research I conducted and in accordance with my personal convictions. But I am not arrogant enough to presume its the only possible opinion on the matter."

[jhNY]

And what you might cite as evidence that would counter Porter's piece are those impenetrable obfuscatory nuanced statements by Petraeus et al, which you cannot prove, but can only believe if you choose to. In other words, bullshit. And whether or not Porter means to say it, I will : there's precious little proof (and what little there is has been systematically overblown by media and adminstration hacks alike) the Iranians have been funding or funneling weapons into Iraq. There is however, documented proof that large quantities of munitions and arms have come into the hands of Iraqi insurgents thanks to the doings of Bremer and Petraeus-- quantities large enough that the insurgents have little practical need for whatever Iran might wish to supply. Please wake up.

[ihavenobias]

Well, there *is* a much more compelling case that Saudia Arabia is a much bigger player in Iraq than Iran is.

Take the LA Times reporting that more than half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from (drumroll) Saudia Arabia. Did that ever make headlines across the US and on the mainstream television media?

In fact, if the US weren't so cozy with SA, you could be assured that we'd hear the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, over and over on the news.

PS---An interesting video clip on a 4 part strategy to attack Iran:

youtube.co­m/watch?v=­AuB1h1GBoy­s

[Durango]

I keep thinking about an alternate explanation for Iranian weapons showing up in Iraq.

Civilization was developed somewhere in the immediate vicinity of Iraq and Iran 10,000 years ago, give or take 5,000 years.

And what was one of the first inventions after civilization? (Maybe before)

Smuggling. And it has been a constant ever since.

Should anyone be suprised at Iranian weapons showing up in Iraq? Ask the Mexican officials how American weapons show up below our border.

[Craig]

The pictures I've seen for the Iranian Guard shows them carrying M-16's. So why is the US supporting a terrorist organization?

[akoop]

Can you say Iran/contra?

We only support terrorist states when it's in our economic interest.

[tomsthumb]

One more Newspeak:
suspected insurgent: civilian casualty

[tomsthumb]

One more Newspeak:
suspected insurgent: civilian casualty

[Sundialsvc4]

If we've read 1984, then does it not behoove us to start reacting now to prevent it?

As far as Iran is concerned, well, I found an interesting article published by William Clark more than exactly THREE years ago: http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/march2005/articles/iraneuro.htm

... which says in part:

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

Quote:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

[Sundialsvc4]

(I quote the text directly, and the inconsistency between an article "published in 2004" referring to "2005-2006" is of course unexplainable. But the content is relevant, I think, nonetheless despite the editorial inconsistency.)

[TheFacilitator]

We did not succeed to win in Iraq, a country with no weapons, no real army. We have wasted so far $700 billion, and created more,and enemies than ever. We are now provoking WW3, with less and less friends. Perhaps, this time, we will be the ones to be wipped out from the map. Only thing China and Russia have to do: watch us to destroy ourselves.

[yappnmutt]

i especially like the part about the madman and the razor blade.

By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 25, 6:55 PM ET

LISBON, Portugal - Russian President Vladimir Putin warned strongly Thursday against imposing new international sanctions on Iran, in words that appeared to be a response to newly announced U.S. measures to punish Tehran.
ADVERTISEMENT

Putin spoke hours after Washington cut off Iranian military and banking institutions from the American financial system. The U.S. said the sanctions were in response to Iran's defiance of U.N. demands to curb its nuclear program and its alleged support for terrorism.

Arriving for a summit with European Union leaders, the Russian leader did not make any direct reference to the U.S. announcement., but he said the standoff with Iran will have to be resolved through patient talks.

"Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action?" Putin asked. "Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation."

[Overd0g]

The razor blade is only the first step. We have a howitzer we can use if needed.

[duboisist]

How dare Iran get involved in what we are doing in Iraq?
We invaded it fair and square. It would be like we got involved in a war between Iran and Iraq by supporting Iraq.
Wait a minute ... Come to think of it, didn't we... Um ... Well ...

Anyway, the Senate voted for a non-binding resolution declaring the PKK "a terrorist organization" and we have evidence that we can show the American people, the international community, and anyone interested. It's not like their Parliament declared the CIA and the U. S. Army "terrorist organizations" and they had more proof of their assertions than we do.
Oh crap! They did ... AND THEY DO ... that's not so good ...

Anyway, WE don't have crazy political leaders who are willing to rush into war regardless of how the rest of the world, the majority of their people, other branches of their government, or even other key members of the political leadership disapprove.
Bush ... Cheney ... Rumsfeld ... Wolfowitz ... Gonzalez ... Bolton ... FUCK!!!

Anyway, We don't have a bunch of religious zealot dictating foreign policy based on an apocalyptic worldview. Our leaders talk about "World War III" or "a battle of civilizations" or irrational ... crazy ...

My stomach hurts!

[cognate]

The meaning of "Quds" in Arabic - Jerusalem - conveniently is never brought up.

[NotMyPrez]

Never brought up because understanding a foreign culture would be too much like diplomacy and we can't have that.

I wonder at the fact that we have so many illegal aliens in this country and we are surprised by the fact Iran is trying to make inroads in Iraq at their back door...
I know, send the IA's to Iraq to build a fence....
::headdesk::

[ajax2]

A good sample of Newspeak is the MSM's effort not to call the PKK a terrorist organization. They have used insurgents, rebels, and everything else. Of course Bush may have given the order as he supports both the PKK and MEK terrorists.

[The Collinbrandt]

Soon the war in Iraq will expand and there is nothing anyone can do to stop this escalation of profit and patriotizm. The republicans and republicrats are in agreement with our all knowing rulers in the white house. Only a new incarnation of Robespierre can save us from our current rulers who are just greedy evil monsters that live and lie without conscience.

[Countess]

The United States is an outlaw empire obsessed with bombing its way into the hall of shame. All good people of the world must work for its defeat.

[yappnmutt]

bush and company have now seized iranian assets in the USA. they might want to call it something else but siezing the assets of another country is an act of war since the beginning of time. so the reality is the USA has declared war upon iran. of course iran has provoked the USA to take this course of action. if you know what the provocation is please let me know too.

[Hass]

Iran doesn't have any assets in the US.

[MagisterLudi]

Yes Hass but Iranian Guard's money is at banks with significant involvement with US and American companies. Thye use these banks to generate profits and fund their proxies all over the world.

These banks may have to choose where they will profit more: to sever involvement with Iranians or ignore US sanctions and run a risk of having THEIR assets frozen.
This is essentially the goal of the sanctions.