Saddam International Airport on April 2, 2003: two days before the battle
August 24, 2006
In Part One of this interview, Captain Eric May, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, gave us insight
into what he considers one of the most devious cover-ups of all time: the Battle of Baghdad, primarily the battle for the
airport. He also brought up that we are now in the process of conducting an info war that will eventually change the way that
mainstream media can be manipulated by the U.S. government. Today’s article goes into further detail about the items
Captain May brought up in Part One of the interview.
ML: Please explain in detail what you consider the info war and on what kind of battlefield
will it be fought.
CM: It’s clear that we are in an info war. When Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial
complex, he could have said, in Orwellian terms, the military/industrial/media complex.
The info wars are staged by such things as the manipulation of the capture of Saddam. I remember various media
outlets grumbling about it because the story given by the U.S. administration was kind of falling apart.
With every story we discuss, information has been manipulated. If you listen to Rumsfeld, he will always say,
"We need to win the propaganda war and we need to win the informational war." Informational warfare is nothing but info war.
But, nobody wants to admit info war is going on because then it becomes clear that we have a treasonable condition of affairs.
ML: How can the numbers of U.S. killed in the Battle of Baghdad be covered up? How
can they make four or five hundred soldiers disappear?
CM: That formed the first level of my investigation into the Battle of Baghdad. After
watching CNN on April 4, 2003, I spent a couple of weeks doing TV analysis. Then, I decided I would go to Fort Stewart in
Georgia, which is the home base for the Third Infantry and the 3/7 Cavalry.
When I got there, I immediately confirmed the existence of the Battle of Baghdad with the chaplain, who also
told me the constitution was in the tank. They were covering up what they wanted. They control what the public feels, sees
I realized there was a cover-up going on at the home base. Later in the summer, it came out that wives at
the home base were being harassed and they were being given pharmacological psychotropic cocktails. There was a news blackout.
When they (Third Infantry Division) finally did get back, they came back kind of on the midnight train.
There were many more wounded than the hospital could accommodate. They were sleeping in open fields. The reason
for that, I believe, is that they were trying to keep everybody who was at the Battle of Baghdad all located at one Army post
so they could control all the information.
Among the survivors and their dependants, there was an attempt to coerce silence. I like to say they were
thugged up and drugged up.
In January 2004, I had a freelance journalist from upstate New York start working with me to try to get the
story. She found out that there were about 100 backdoor visits, which means the casualty officer would come and inform the
widows of what happened. They were taking women and getting them out of town, off the post.
She came up with a number of about 100 war widows. About one out of three soldiers is married. That kind of
went well with what I had thought: about 300 to 500 killed in action. Very quickly, after she began investigating, she got
a death threat.
Maybe we have 500 dead. That sounds like an immense pile. What happens is that you get 500 coffins that go
to 500 different train terminals and 500 disparate cities and small towns. Nobody sends out a card saying there are 499 other
ones. Everybody who gets one knows they have a dead G.I. But, nobody thinks their dead G.I. was part of a massive battle.
It’s the elephant of truth. Every blind person gets one feel. Everyone gets one pat on the elephant without realizing
there’s an immense beast there.
Covering up dead body counts is not hard to do at all. All you do is fail to report in any kind of cohesive
order that there has been a massive battle. They proved that again by the fact that the fight of Fallujah, both of them, were
It’s easy to understand what happened with Fallujah. The same as the Battle of Baghdad. What the public
got told was nothing like the carnage that was going on. The U.S. death count was held down. There’s no way you have
street-to-street close urban combat dismounted and have only two guys a day getting killed. It doesn’t happen that way.
We had regimental operations going on in Fallujah.
ML: If George Bush declared victory on May 1, 2003, why is there still fighting in
CM: The one thing we should understand is we have a Battle of Baghdad going on right
now. It’s being covered up. It’s being hidden as a substratum under the greater story, which is the Israeli war
As an example of what happens when you broadcast propaganda instead of history, the truth gets lost. The American
public was told we took Baghdad far easier than we did and that meant clear sailing, when it really didn’t. Now, the
American public has been deluded. It’s like a magic trick: once you follow the magician, you’re lost. The magician
has control of you. The media is a magic trick. That TV is a box and the magic trick that comes out of it tells us that we’re
reinforcing our troops around Baghdad so we can take Baghdad back. The screaming question should be, "What the hell? You mean
we lost Baghdad?" We’ve been losing Baghdad since we got there.
ML: Have you spoken to any Iraqi participants of the Battle of Baghdad?
CM: A couple of journalists who were in Baghdad proper talked to the people returning
from the battle. The most extreme thing I picked up is that the Battle of Baghdad was started at the airport with the U.S.
forces being overwhelmed. It would up being a six-hour firefight at close quarters and my surmise is that our side was running
out of ammo and somebody decided to go nuclear. That seems to be universally acknowledged by everybody on all sides, except
Evidently, what happened was the U.S. G.I.s buttoned up inside their armor, which cuts down the transmission
of radiation, and some sort of nuclear devices were used at Baghdad Airport. Since then, American battle doctrine has been
revised to allow commanders to do exactly the kind of things that I’m inferring from my sources that were done at Baghdad
Airport. In other words, they retroactively retrofitted the doctrine.
The nuclear threshold is a very fuzzy thing in this war anyway. We already went over using D.U. (depleted
uranium). That already, arguably, makes it a nuclear war. Of course, you see why Battle of Baghdad One had to be covered up.
How the hell do you go into a war where you say you’re going to remove an evil madman because he has weapons of mass
destruction and you bring them with you?
ML: In your opinion, did the U.S. do anything positive in removing Saddam Hussein
and his government?
CM: You remember the first year of the war, the commentators were saying to the naysayers,
"Well, what do you mean? Are you saying they’d be better off if Saddam was still in charge?" That was something that
shut everybody up because, one year into this, everybody was still believing the myth that we freed the Iraqis. At this point,
the reason why nobody asks if they’d be better off with Saddam in power is that it has been so transparent to anybody,
except a Republican clone, that they were much better off when Saddam was in power.
ML: Do you think the truth will ever come out to the mainstream about the Battle of
CM: The mainstream seems to be irrelevant. They’ve condemned themselves. They
find they formed a Faustian pact when they were all going to get behind a war that was for oil and Israel. They agreed to
become an imbedded asset. What could be more shameful than to be imbedded? They’re not a media supplying relevant information.
They’re a propaganda operation providing rationalization.
That’s what leaves us with the term "info war." Now, the relevant and important information comes out
through what you might call the "underground media." Call it alternative media or what you want. What is means is that two
guys, like you and me, who both have enough expertise to be on any of the network shows, talk about what we talk about. We
can’t get on their TV, so we do it through this alternative medium. The best interviews that can be conducted are available
outside the mainstream media. The ability of the people who are not plugged into the mainstream media system to do quality
work means that the system will inevitably fail.
I compare it to the Catholic hierarchy after the creation of the printing press. The Internet, to us, has
become our info war printing press. Information cannot be totally controlled. If you say, "I’m a gatekeeper and I’m
plugging up this big old door," the Internet makes it such that information seeps out of the cracks.
What we call media, I call collaborators. All collaborators, throughout history, suffered the same fate. They
lost all reputation and dignity after the victory by the right side.
It’s only at the point when the media have been exposed that the real history of the Iraq war will be
written. You’re writing one now. Eventually, there will be acknowledgement of the Battle of Baghdad and the Battle of
Fallujah. These things are being kept under wraps now because the very frail Bush League still maintains control of the equally
frail imbedded media. That cannot endure.