L_C, now you’re going all sentimental on us. 
Surely the simplest explanation is the PNAC neo-cons are self-assured that they have right and the American god on their side and are merely applying that old political axiom, “When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”?
Yes. I heard some hours ago an egyptian stating something like “There were people who were misleaded about the americans. Now, they have realized who they really are” (some not exactly positive comments followed). Of course, it’s only this guy opinion that egyptian people who still had a positive view about the the USA have changed their mind, but I don’t doubt it’s true, at least to some (large?) extent. The Egyptian and Jordanian governments seem to have some issue with their population, due to the impopularity of their so-called “neutral” stance.
The US govt. has pretty much given up on world public opinion.
Mr. Bush has all his (half) wits focused on selling this turkey to the US people.
I watched some footage stating that the 91 battlegrounds have not been cleaned in the Iraki territory, and that the ammunitions, still lying on the ground in many places, are degrading, and that the metal is ingested in various ways by the locals (including by eating animals and fish leaving in this area), hence is a real concern health-wise.
That said, I would guess that the seriousness of this issue pale by comparison with all the events which happened in Irak during the last twenty-five years…
Pop Quiz:
Which story do you find more accurate:
Well I think that both stories are accurate to the degree that they claim. I think supplies are not plentiful but certainly enough to keep the troops going… they may not be at 100% but they can handle a little less food than normal.
In the second story, it seems that Iraqi civilians in support of the US want to show a kind gesture. I highly doubt that this small amount of food has any significant impact on feeding our army.
Apologies for my Saturday morning stream of bladder-busting consciousness … and ** jjimm **, I meant the pub reference in a more symbolic ‘I’m taking the dog for a walk / heading for the garden shed / had enough’ way than literally hitting the bottle …… today will be more literal if, as I confidently expect, the rugby goes well.
Sure, that’s a reasonable explanation. I’d be inclined to colour it in slightly different but very similar terms; parochial, uncaring and essentially Isolationist in character.
What is, perhaps, more difficult to grasp (or agree with, even) is that the entire administration – in the way it deals with the media - reflects what is, in essence, the presidents own …. ‘indifference’ (as above).
Yet, I suspect, behind this unified, simplistic facade, the old dogs Cheney and Rumsfeld are achieving much in relation to their own – non-Bush – agendas; like a woman after a rich husband, they run rings around the light-weight. In this sense, the Bush Standard is, perhaps, a flag of convenience.
Has a president ever been more out of his depth, I wonder ?
Iraq may be winning the “propaganda war” by not engaging in propaganda. Another unexpected tactic.
I gotta say, the very first time I heard President Bush state (on a 60 minutes interview last September I’m pretty certain) that “we’re committed to a regime change in Iraq” I thought to myself… “Oh fuck… I wish you hadn’t said that… there is NO WAY IN HELL that the Arab World is ever gonna forgive you if you try to force Saddam out via military might…” and yet, still, he did.
So then I considered, when it became pretty obvious last December that a MASSIVE buildup of forces was taking place in Kuwait…
OK? What’s the upside to this, if any? And ultimately, the only upside is if American spends even more money REBUILDING Iraq than it is right now, whilst DESTROYING Iraq. Because, as it stands, Arab Street currently perceives the USA as being the driving force behind the destruction which is happening there, and Arab Street also believes that it’s just plain fucking rude that Iraq’s Oil Wealth should have to pay for the all destroyed buildings and bridges and whatever else that this war will cause.
Accordingly, it seems to me that the single most outstanding display of magnanimous goodwill that President Bush could make right now, is a public statement that upon Saddam’s downfall, the Coalition forces will pay 100% of the bill required to rebuild Iraq, and that the Oil for Food program will proceed entirely under the auspices of the UN without influence by the USA.
Rightly or Wrongly, America has to somehow get around to being looked upon again by the rest of the world as a “great idea” - and it used to be looked upon that way you know. I can remember when it was still looked upon that way - but gee - not since the Iranian Islamic Revolution have I ever heard it said in public anymore.
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
MARCH 27, 2003
15 Stories They’ve Already Bungled
Mitchell on the War Coverage So Far
By Greg Mitchell
NEW YORK – Opinion
The war is only a week old and already the media has gotten at least 15 stories wrong or misreported a sliver of fact into a major event. Television news programs, of course, have been the prime culprits. Newspapers, while they have often gone along for the ride, have been much more nuanced and careful. Newspaper coverage has not been faultless, as photos and headlines often seem shock-and-awe-struck but, compared with TV, newspapers seem more editorially – and mentally – balanced. Some have actually displayed a degree of skepticism of claims made by the military and the White House – what used to be known as “journalism.”
On Monday, I received a call from a producer of a major network’s prime time news program. He said they wanted to interview me for a piece on how the public’s expectation of a quick victory somehow was too high. “But,” he hastened to add, “we don’t want to focus on the media.” I asked him where he thought the public might have received the information that falsely raised their hopes. In chat rooms, perhaps? The problem, I suggested, is that most of the TV commentators on the home front appear to be just as “embedded” with the military as the far braver reporters now in the Iraqi desert.
Surely this is a bipartisan issue. While many on the antiwar side complain about the media’s alleged “pro-war bias,” those who support the war, and the Bush administration itself, have also been ill served by overly-positive coverage that now has millions of Americans reeling from diminished expectations.
Here, then, is a list of stories that have been widely misreported or poorly reported so far:
Saddam may well have been killed in the first night’s surprise attack (March 20).
Even if he wasn’t killed, Iraqi command and control was no doubt “decapitated” (March 22).
Umm Qasr has been taken (March 22).
Most Iraqis soldiers will not fight for Saddam and instead are surrendering in droves (March 22).
Iraqi citizens are greeting Americans as liberators (March 22).
An entire division of 8,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse near Basra (March 23).
Several Scud missiles, banned weapons, have been launched against U.S. forces in Kuwait (March 23).
Saddam’s Fedayeen militia are few in number and do not pose a serious threat (March 23).
Basra has been taken (March 23).
Umm Qasr has been taken (March 23).
A captured chemical plant likely produced chemical weapons (March 23).
Nassiriya has been taken (March 23).
Umm Qasr has been taken (March 24).
The Iraqi government faces a “major rebellion” of anti-Saddam citizens in Basra (March 24).
A convoy of 1,000 Iraqi vehicles and Republican Guards are speeding south from Baghdad to engage U.S. troops (March 25).
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.
Purplefloyd, why that is an interesting spin.
When the first article states clearly, “'No, there is not a resupply problem” and the second states Marines “have had to ration their army-issue packets of ready-to-eat meals due to disruptions to supply lines”, it seems pretty clear to me that one is inaccurate.
While troops may be able to deal with a little less food, how about fuel, ammunition, and water?
Ever considered a career as the White House Director of Communications?
Im not trying to spin anything, maybe i gave the wrong impression here. I think that the supply situation is not 100% but they are enough for now. Though they have to conserve resources, im not convinced that it is a very big problem. I think working on low supplies is probably part of thier training. We have halted our advance and the supplies will come. IMO it is a problem, but a small one.
With that, I agree.
But wouldn’t the US military and CentCom gain credibility by simply saying, “yes, there are a few problems, but we have them under control, and don’t expect it to be a real issue” instead of simply denying that any problems exist?
Yes i agree that they should just tell it like it is. Maybe its just part of the psychological and propaganda aspect of the war, but who are they fooling? Im alot more wary of a report when i DONT hear the negatives; if I hear nothing but positive, then its likely that im only getting half the story.
First and foremost I would like to thank the people who contributed to this thread so far. I’ve always wanted to create a popular thread and this has been it so far. Thank you for keeping the discussion open whilst I was indisposed. (honey doos) 
Anyway back into the Fray!!
Uuhh …“She”?? <looks into pants> Nope last time I checked, I wasnt female. 
I was more expressing frustration that the Arab news media are more adept at putting an anti-american spin than any of the western news service are at putting an anti-Saddam spin. Over the weekend, that seemed to have changed noticeably (maybe someone important in the news media is a a doper) But our side is still fumbling the propaganda ball.
We have stories about iraqi soldiers and paramilitary types shooting, injuring and even killing civilians and more significantly women and children. Until we show the world pictures or a witness interviewed, thats just another “fantasy” that Al Jezerera can shoot down with one of their junior staff people. We need verification! Why dont the embedded reporters interview the civilian victims and get their story. An arab saying death squads forced his family to drive in front of a iraqi truck to a US checkpoint wont easily be dismissed by Al Jazeera.
We are losing this propaganda war because it is not meeting our objectives. We must gain the confidence of the Iraqi civilians. We must show the Muslim nations the atrocities of the Iraqi regime so that they will stop sympathizing with them. We should gain more support, not with just muslms but all of the world. When people see the Iraqi regime for what they are and see all of what they do, WoMD will become a secondary issue. We’re in this war, lets work this like we mean it.
X~Slayer(ALE), first let me commend you on a fine OP. Not perfectly framed, as you may note in my first post - I thought it read more as a rant. But you did take the opposite side of the debate as one might have expected.
We have often been on opposites side of the war debates here, but clearly you and I, and most if not all on this board agree with some general points:[ul]
[li]The US will win, which is better than the alternative.[/li][li]The fewer civilian deaths, the better.[/li][li]The fewer war crimes, on either side, the better.[/li][li]The propaganda war is important, not militarily per se, but to accomplish the political objectives.[/ul]There are two primary reasons the US is losing the propaganda war, though the extent and weight of each are entirely debatable.[/li]
The compelling political message to justify actions to the domestic audience does not play well with the Arab street, and the message that would play best in the Arab street won’t compell the US populace.
The US administration does not sufficiently rely on cultural and regional expertise necessary to craft the political message to address specific middle eastern concerns.
An obvious solution to this problem, while creating plenty of criticism, would be a duplicitous political message when expressed in arabic versus english.
Such tactics are not new to the region, however.
The sky is falling!!!
Thank You AZCowboy. I appreciate your comment more than you know.
As to your points:
**
Unless more thought and purpose is interjected into what kind of stories are broadcasted. I agree that only truth shouled be aired, but what I suggest is a little bit more emphasis is needed.
for example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57954-2003Mar31.html
It states in his article that embeded reporters are not in tune with the soldiers they are riding with. They are seen as cynical and unconnected with the values that soldiers hold dear like loyalty, honor and duty. Why not a information liason officer? Ive seen some of these embeded reporters and I cringe at the obvious lack of expertise and near ignorant way they report military action. None has risen from their ranks that can precisely report the facts and captive the viewer. They show pictures of scenery then report heresay, gossip and speculation. Heck, why are they in the front at all?
This probably addresses the ignorance problem. Why arent they interviewing more Iraqis in arabic? Find the brave soul who hates Saddam, follow up on the human shield victims, show a glimpse of video of actual examples of Iraqi regime’s use of human shields. Am I wrong to think that this is great news? This is compelling stuff to both Western and Arabic viewers. CNN was cutting edge 12 years ago, Al Jezeera is now.
**2) The US administration does not sufficiently rely on cultural and regional expertise necessary to craft the political message to address specific middle eastern concerns.
**
My concern as well. The US administration has dropped the ball and let the US news media run amuck unchecked. They need cultural liasons, cultural interpretors. Where is the Voice of America? they should have up to date information and handing out bulletins. Where are the cultural and religious advisors to Rumsfeld and Colin Powell? The administration says they are not in a religious war, they should have Islamic scholars and moderate Mullahs have a voice. Of course the arabs think this is a Christian versus Muslim war. No one from our side is addressing the Islamic issues. They are merely being dismissed.
Saddam Hussiens only strategy is to gain World sympathy and the Arab support. Lets not hand it to him thru our media’s bungling of the religious and cultural issues for the sake of bombastic news reporting.
Perhaps we are still not in synch. In both responses you offer, you at least put some of the blame on the media.
I don’t. I don’t place blame on the news networks, east or west, the commentators, or any of the journalists, even the embedded ones. They are all doing the best that they can in presenting the facts that they know (and other information - premature facts 
). They focus their reports on what their audience wants to hear. They are in a free market, and I’ll let those market forces settle what they should and shouldn’t do.
Part of the problem with the embedded reporters is that they really don’t know anything of the big picture. Since they can’t report locations, directions, plans, or anything else of real interest, they’re limited to anecdotes of weather and everyday life. CentCom has been much less useful in presenting the big picture this time versus GW1.
As for propaganda, that is the responsibility of the respective states. The criticism I was making in point number 1 was directly at the administration, not the media generally. It relates to both the content of the administration’s message, as well as the rhetoric they use to deliver it.
I would agree with your last 10 sentences if you replace “media” with “administration” in the last one, and drop the final phrase.
Let me categorize my views:
*I agree that the western news media focus their reports based on what the audience wants to hear. That is a fallacy in journalism. They are supposed to report the facts. If they dont have any, dont say anything. The pressure to report something leads to inaccurate, unsubstantiated, sometimes fabricated stories. All Al Jazeera has to do is show some facts, refute the western stories and they did thier jobs correctly. Credibility for them, bad press for us.
*Centcom knows the big picture. They are not sharing it. They should share some of it. Relevance is at issue here. They should release what reinforces their stance. They should not play US news media and present speculation to be shot down later. They should show pictures not reports.
*The administration and the US media are separate. They are in competition with each other. The administration wasnt to paint a rosy picture and the news media wants a riveting story. Neither are presenting an organized report of the objectives. There is no organization to the administrations efforts to show their point of view. They need a plan.
and the final phrase was there to add to the debate.