Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
Our 'evil' military is using 'propaganda'! :shocked:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007616
Much more here, links galore:
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19436/
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007616
'It Is Unclear Whether the Anonymous Quotes Are Authentic'
"As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq," claims a story in the Los Angeles Times. Get a load of this:
According to several sources, the process for placing the stories begins when soldiers write "storyboards" of events in Iraq, such as a joint U.S.-Iraqi raid on a suspected insurgent hide-out, or a suicide bomb that killed Iraqi civilians.
The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic.
"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.
What exactly is the difference between what the Times claims the military is doing and what the Times is doing right here? Oh yeah, the military's supposed propaganda is designed to aid our side.
Much more here, links galore:
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19436/
...and which official is maybe the source for said story?
Anyway, a lot of sanctimonious posturing here. The truth of the matter is, we need to win the war before we can worry about leaving behind a pristine democracy, and what is happening here, it seems to me, is no different than, say, the LA Times or the New York Times reprinting press-releases from the anti-gun lobbythe difference being that while there is clearly a problem with such journalism in a free and long-established democratic republic (with an established free press), Im not so sure I see largely factual pro-American propaganda as too much of a problem if it helps to burnish the image of Americans in the eyes of skeptical Iraqis long under the boot heel of a tyranical dictatorand in doing so, helps save soldiers lives and expedites the victory on the ground and the establishment of a strong and viable Iraqi government.
Also, it bears noting here the the US military is working with willing Iraqi newspapers in an effort to thwart the insurgency by defeating them not just on the battlefield, but in the sphere of public perception.
Questions: have we used these same techniques in other wars? Certainly. Should we? Absolutelyparticularly if it could save US soldiers lives and help end the insurgency. And interestingly, werent many of the critics of these techniques the same people who were absolutely apoplectic when they believed Scooter Libby had outed a covert CIA agent? What activities do these people think covert CIA agents engage in, anyway?
But nevermind that. If the LA Times says largely factual, albeit one-sided pro-US, pro-free Iraq stories are insidious propaganda, you can bet that will gin up outrage from those who are always looking for reasons to be outraged over US military behavior, whether its the Willy Pete non-story or this particular revelation.
For instance, heres Justin Gardner, from The Moderate Voice, reacting to LAT story:
Reports like this make my toes curl.
Do they not realize that actions like these simply create an atmosphere where its easier to compare us to Saddam? Couple stuff like this with our torture policy, and you have a recipe for credibility damage.
Note the careful wording here, which falls just short of comparing US actions to those of Saddam by buffering the corollation with talk of an atmosphere in which an unnamed and hypothetical someone (read: Mr Gardner) might draw the direct connection the author is too afraid to articulate himself. But rhetorical dodges asidde, do actions like thesedone in the service of ending an insurgency and saving the lives both of US soldiers and free Iraqisreally rise to the level of Saddams stranglehold on information, which served to maintain his grip on power?
Because if anything, its seems to me that the outing of this programand hysterical shrieks that the US has become like Saddamis the real propaganda here, and that what began as an interagency dispute over the propriety of this information operation is now more fodder for the cultural relativists in the anti-war movement.
Heres Garder again:
[...] the Iraq media is a willing participant, and I blame them too, but you cant stop the truth from coming out, and operations like these dont do us any good in the long run.
Just project out with me for a second. Once this story hits Iraq, people will probably start turning to alternative media sources. Who might put out these new stories? Oh, maybe terrorists sympathizers...
Uh huh. And were that to be the case, what are the chances that the LA Times would be as careful to break that story, whichunlike the story todaywould be a story about enemy propaganda...?
Whereas the stories being placed by the US military are hardly different in kind from the stories one reads daily from Reuters or the New York Times.
Just my opinion. Im interested to hear your take on this.