Anti-American newspaper in Iraq shut down

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

American forces have shut down a newspaper in Iraq for printing false rumors about US actions in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/international/worldspecial/29PRES.html?hp). (I don't see any other threads on this, at least not in GD; please correct me if I'm wrong).

I've read this story carefully, and by damn if I can't understand the coalition's reasoning. I mean, sure, it's both unethical and dangerous for a paper to print untrue propaganda against the US. But if we're talking about a propaganda war, why on earth would coalition forces hand a great big propaganda victory to the opposing side? It's almost like a joke in a second-rate anti-American play -- forces come in to liberate Iraq and shut down a newspaper that dares to say it's not liberation.

The cure for the ills of democracy, they say, is more democracy. Is the US not getting its own message out? Or is it that the US message is considered irrevocably tainted by many Iraqis? If the latter, why is that the case?

I'm used to the US at least being a master of propaganda wars. This seems like a damn fool move to me.

Daniel

[AZCowboy]

I've read this story carefully, and by damn if I can't understand the coalition's reasoning. I mean, sure, it's both unethical and dangerous for a paper to print untrue propaganda against the US. But if we're talking about a propaganda war, why on earth would coalition forces hand a great big propaganda victory to the opposing side?
From the story linked in the OP, pg 2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/international/worldspecial/29PRES.html?pagewanted=2&hp)
Not far away, gunmen shot to death two foreign security staff members outside an East Mosul power plant. The two guards, one from Britain and the other from Canada, were killed while trying to protect a team of engineers working for General Electric.

Later on Sunday, and also in Mosul, American soldiers got into a shootout with a band of armed men. Two Americans were wounded, and four Iraqis were killed.
I can understand the coalition's reasoning. Couple it with these:
Among Iraqi journalists, Al Hawza was known for printing wild rumors, especially anti-American ones. A broadsheet of about eight pages, the paper is considered a mouthpiece for Moktada al-Sadr, a fiery young Shiite cleric and one of the most outspoken critics of the Americans.
[...]
Unlike Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the influential Shiite cleric who has also criticized the occupation but not in militant terms, Mr. Sadr has threatened to form his own militia.Yep. I understand it. Until they can turn over control, the US military must maintain security, for themselves and for innocent Iraqis. While I understand this reasoning:
"If you're trying to promote democracy in a country that has never had it, you have to lead by example," Mr. Rosenstiel said. "I'm not in Iraq. But it's hard for me to see how the suppression of information, even false information, is going to help our cause."I also understand the predicament.

And I can't criticize the decision, from thousands of miles away, based only on the article.

[Squink]

And I can't criticize the decision, from thousands of miles away, based only on the article.
It's a tough choice. Sadr is dangerous (http://www.juancole.com/2004_03_01_juancole_archive.html#108053848844746017):
Alissa Rubin of the LA Times reports that the CPA has also closed an informal court run by Muqtada (al-Sadr) in Najaf, and released prisoners who had been sentenced to being held and tortured in its basement. Muqtada's organization is said to maintain such courts and prisons all over the country.

[Fear Itself]

It is not so much the closing of the paper that I object to; it is probably justified for the sake of security. What torques my jars is all the crowing about how we have brought democracy to Iraq, when no such thing has yet happened. One day, perhaps, but not today; and it is this premature declaration of liberty that conflicts with the necessary security measures and makes Bremer & Co. look two-faced.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I understand it. Until they can turn over control, the US military must maintain security, for themselves and for innocent Iraqis. While I understand this reasoning:

I guess i understand it from a practical point of view, but it really seems to be a "wint he battle, lose the war" situation. In the modern era, it is extremely difficult to suppress information, whether or not that information is true; media are simply too cheap and widely available to prevent the spread of (mis)information.

The opponents in Iraq of the US occupation are surely saying that the US is looking to establish their own anti-democratic control over the country, that the US is lying to people, that the US has no interest in establishing an open and free society in Iraq as it's claimed. Shutting down an opposition newspaper is feeding exactly into that sort of anti-US propaganda. If you're worried about the effect of anti-US propaganda on the safety of coalition forces, you could hardly do worse than to hand a propaganda victory to the enemy like this.

Daniel

[Aldebaran]

You really must look at this with every possible understanding for these Promoting A Free Society In Liberated Iraq actions.

This particular one is part of Sublime US Strategies known as:

"You are with us or against us"

and

"Winning the heards and minds"...



Tsss... I don't know why people just don't see the Real Humanitarian Concern for the Iraqy Population behind this Display of All US Goodwill and Best Intentions.


Salaam. A

[London_Calling]

At least Howard Stern has company now - and it demonstrates to everyone else what happens if you don't play the white man.

It's the indirect consequences and the message it sends that's the important news, here.

Slowly, but slowly, the message gets more and more controlled as the media within this administrations orbit cowers.