Iraq: why the media turned
From Jonathan Mirsky
Sir: William Shawcross (‘Leaving Iraq would court disaster’, 28 October) rolls out the stab-in-the-back accusation that the media ‘helps only those violent extremists’ trying to destroy Iraq. But the media initially supported the war. Then Bush and Blair were caught lying and the realities of the war became apparent. The same happened in Vietnam. Newspapers and television were once pro-war. For many reporting the war, as I did in 1965 and 1967 (and Mr Shawcross himself did superbly), the realities changed the reporting. Nonetheless, the failed commander, General William Westmoreland, told me, ‘The war in Vietnam is the first war in history lost in the pages of the New York Times.’
But unlike Mr Shawcross, reporters in Iraq, where nearly 90 have died (more than in 20 years in Vietnam), know what’s what. Are they wrong to describe the corruption and unreliability of the Iraqi police, hundreds of whom have been dismissed? Or to say that the Iraqi army is largely unreliable, often with only half its strength in the field?
The brutal truth about the war is this: just as many southern Vietnamese hoped the Americans would save them from the Vietcong but grew to fear the Americans more, many Iraqis were grateful that Saddam was removed but now feel the Coalition behaves like foreign occupiers. The yet more brutal truth, as was also the case in Vietnam, is that the insurgents are far more willing to die than the American soldiers and their local colleagues are.
Jonathan Mirsky
London W11
Why not Prince Yusuf?
From Joseph Askew
Sir: Tim Walker (‘Charles, the first multicultural monarch?’, 28 October) asks whether Prince Charles will be the first British monarch to have a multi-faith coronation. It is worth pointing out that Charles has failed to take the first steps to that end: after all, he picked the two most blatantly sectarian names available to him for his sons. Since he named his heirs after Henry VIII and William of Orange, it is hard to take him seriously about being open to other faiths. Not only did he fail to consider the largest Christian minority in Britain; it is also worth noting that neither Henry nor William was King of Scotland. Had Charles picked, for example, David, he would have reached out to the Welsh, the Scots and the Jewish communities, all of which have had rulers called David.
If Charles had wanted to reach beyond Great Britain or to the newer religions, he could have named a son Yusuf and so connected with the Islamic world he professes to respect so much. He could even have chosen a name like Nahasapeemapetilon. He either chose not to do so or did not have the courage to challenge tradition.
It is hard to imagine Charles changing his behaviour any time soon. No doubt he has vague feelings for other religions, but perhaps they would be better satisfied by an Open University course in theology than by meddling with the constitution of Great Britain.
Joseph Benjamin Askew
Coromandel East, South Australia
Universities are for scholars
From Martin Hogg
Sir: James Shaw’s critique (‘I am a new kind of university drop-out’, 28 October) makes for depressing reading. If his ‘premier league’ university did indeed give him little or no work to do in the first term, if prizes were offered to all and sundry, and if selection of courses could ensure assessment based on coursework alone, then neither his university nor its external examiners were doing their jobs properly.
Universities should not exist simply as production lines for degrees to enable graduates to secure better jobs. A university should exist as a community of scholars, and only those students with a passion for scholarship should be encouraged to undertake a course of study. Mr Shaw’s question, ‘What exactly is the point of going to university if you’re not going to do any work?’, raises the question why, whether or not he was challenged by his coursework, he did not consider finding his way to the university library to fulfil his eagerness to learn.
Martin Hogg
Edinburgh
Paterfamilial progress
From Osman Streater
Sir: Rachel Johnson (‘To be expelled is the mark of genius’, 28 October) informs us that ‘I have asked almost everyone I know but, apart from my brother and my editor Matthew d’Ancona, I can find very few head boys or house captains who have made it to prominence’. Ah, but have you tried your own father Stanley, Rachel? He awed us at Sherborne — as Head of School, Head of House, Captain of the First XV and RSM of the Corps.
And to think the Johnsons have Turkish blood. Such lack of paternal respect!
Osman Streater
London NW3
The wrong rings
From Wynne Weston-Davies
Sir: The BBC4 docudrama Longford was one of the best things on television for a long time but it perpetuated a current television solecism, in that Lord Longford was shown wearing a wedding ring. He did not, as many photographs and portraits will confirm; nor did many British men until about 20 years ago, when this American habit began to creep in. To this day no male members of the royal family wear wedding rings on the fourth finger of the left hand, although the Prince of Wales did wear one below the signet ring on his little finger during his marriage to Diana.
Despite this, almost all British films, plays and docudramas produced in the last five years, from Jane Eyre to Longford, persist in showing the male characters wearing wedding rings when a cursory glance at any number of contemporary paintings, films and photographs will show that almost none did. At a time when costume designers go to endless lengths to get the pattern of an 18th-century lace collar absolutely right, should they not be more observant of important dress codes of only 20 years ago?
Wynne Weston-Davies
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Comments