Phony War

More on the ‘phony war’ thats also being waged off the battlefields and how the media and other ‘useful idiots’ help it along.

[quote] Phony War

May 22, 2007: The U.S. Justice Department recently indicted an anti-war activist who claimed he was a soldier who had participated in atrocities during the liberation of Iraq. In this case, the anti-war activist not only had been making phony claims about massacres, he also is accused of defrauding the government out of over $10,000 in veterans benefits. It is yet another example of the aftermath of a phony claim not getting the reports those lurid initial claims of massacres got.

There have been several major claims of massacres. The most notable was the 2002 Battle of Jenin against Israel. After the battle, the Palestinian Authority claimed a massacre had occurred. The mainstream media and human rights groups quickly echoed their claims. However, further investigations showed that not only had the body count been exaggerated, but that most of those confirmed killed were, in fact, terrorists and not civilians.

Claims of a massacre at Haditha in 2005 have also become much more murkier. Testimony from an intelligence officer and a liaison officer indicated that at least eight of the 24 killed in Haditha were insurgents. The initial Haditha investigations uncovered some apparent discrepancies in the Marines’ stories, and a criminal investigation by NCIS was launched. This, and claims from human rights groups in the media, led to some criminal charges being filed earlier this year. Currently, the Haditha matter is being addressed through the military justice system. Contrary to earlier claims by an anti-war Congressman, there has been no cover-up.

Phony claims of massacres have not been the only false claims aimed at the U.S. military. Al-Qaeda terrorists that have been captured are instructed, in their training manuals, to immediately and loudly claim torture. This tends to draw the attention of human-rights groups – and they tend to lobby politicians. The media also tends to jump not only on the torture claims, but also other lurid claims, like guards at Guantanamo Bay flushing a Koran down the toilet. The Koran-flushing story triggered riots in which people were killed and injured. In virtually every case, the claims turned out to have no relation to the facts.

Phony claims by anti-war activists – including phony claims of military service – are not new. Several members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were found to have never served in Vietnam. That said, these groups tend to get a pass from a media that is sympathetic to their agenda. Much of the outing of these phonies, and the placement of torture claims in context comes from bloggers.

Fighting false accusations from terrorists that get repeated by the media, human rights groups, and politicians is important, yet it proves to be difficult. Not only do these claims tend to undermine morale among the troops, they also have to deal with increased recruiting by terrorists, who often cite the claims from Western media and anti-war activists of massacres and torture. This allows the terrorists to train a new generation – a generation out to avenge atrocities that never happened. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/a … 70522.aspx[/quote]

The propaganda phase of warfare has long been in hand.
It’s nothing really new.
What matters is how effectively one’s {& the other’s} propaganda is disemminated, digested and used to fuel some further concrete action.
Many U.S. organizations have indulged in propaganda. The main question remaining is why are they so lagging behind that put out by their adversaries.
Specifically, I’m talking about propaganda aimed at neutral or foreign elements of the world’s population, not props for domestic consumption.
They are two different games, after all.

[quote=“TheGingerMan”]The propaganda phase of warfare has long been in hand.
It’s nothing really new.
What matters is how effectively one’s {& the other’s} propaganda is disemminated, digested and used to fuel some further concrete action.
Many U.S. organizations have indulged in propaganda. The main question remaining is why are they so lagging behind that put out by their adversaries.
Specifically, I’m talking about propaganda aimed at neutral or foreign elements of the world’s population, not props for domestic consumption.
They are two different games, after all.[/quote]

No, the question is why those “adversaries” are in fact American citizens disseminating anti-American propoganda used by our real enemies to draw recruits and justify terrorist attacks.

I was part of the anti-war movement in the beginning, until I realized that leaving Iraq would be more dangerous than staying, but I would never have dreamed of inventing false stories of massacres. As far as I’m concerned the people fabricating these lies are aiding and abetting the enemy and should be put on trial for treason.

Overcounting the dead is probably bad. But how about undercounting the dead, or pretending they died for different reasons than they really did? It’s unacceptable and uncivilized.

According to a recent survey undertaken by the US military, only half of soldiers in Iraq would report their colleague for killing an innocent Iraqi. Not reporting something like that is a cover-up, hiding wrongdoing from view. It’s no wonder that cover-ups such as that occurred in Haditha take place.

twocs -
I agree with your comment regarding non-reporting of incidents such as you mention. It is also a violation of the UCMJ. This is not something taken lightly. Do you have any supporting sources for this claim?

Anyway, another article along this line - belief vs reality:

[quote] It’s What You Want To Believe That Counts

May 23, 2007: The U.S. Congress, now controlled by the Democratic Party, is insisting that American troops be withdrawn from Iraq if the Iraqi government does not meet specific goals. Many Democratic politicians say the war is lost. How that loss is defined appears linked to the level of violence in Iraq, American casualties, and who is causing the violence. It’s been known, since shortly after Saddam was driven out of power in 2003, that his followers had a “Plan B” that involved a sustained terror campaign. It was believed that this would eventually drive the Americans out (based on the Vietnam experience), and allow the Sunni Arab minority to regain power. This is an eerie repeat of the Vietnam experience, where the South Vietnamese rebels were crushed in the late 1960s, at the same time the many American politicians (mainly Democrats) were saying the war was lost. South Vietnam eventually fell to a conventional invasion from North Vietnam in 1975, as the guerillas in the south never recovered.

The Iraqi Sunni Arabs are talking about history repeating itself. But there’s a nasty catch. The Sunni Arab terror campaign has made the Sunni Arabs even more hated than they were in 2003. If the American troops left, the retribution from the much more numerous Kurdish and Shia Arab troops would be a disaster for the remaining Sunni Arabs of Iraq. Over have of them have already fled the country. But the hardcore who are still carrying on the fight, believing that neighboring Sunni Arab nations (especially Saudi Arabia) would rather invade, than see the Sunni Arabs driven out of Iraq. Saudi Arabia has said, publicly and privately (via diplomatic channels) that they would not invade. The main reason for this is Iran, which would be compelled to support the Shia majority that now runs Iraq. Now the Sunni Arabs could call on the United States to come back and help keep the Iranians out of Iraq, but American voters are pretty fed up with Middle Eastern politics at this point.

These realities don’t play well in American politics. Democrats don’t want to admit there is any reason to keep American troops in the Persian Gulf. The reality of the continued Sunni Arab resistance to a democratic government in Iraq never caught on with the Western mass media, although troops in Iraq realize pretty quick what’s happening. Thus winning in Iraq is complicated not by what is happening there, but by what a lot of different groups outside of Iraq want to believe is happening.
strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/ … 70523.aspx[/quote]

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]The propaganda phase of warfare has long been in hand.
It’s nothing really new.
What matters is how effectively one’s {& the other’s} propaganda is disemminated, digested and used to fuel some further concrete action.
Many U.S. organizations have indulged in propaganda. The main question remaining is why are they so lagging behind that put out by their adversaries.
Specifically, I’m talking about propaganda aimed at neutral or foreign elements of the world’s population, not props for domestic consumption.
They are two different games, after all.[/quote]

No, the question is why those “adversaries” are in fact American citizens disseminating anti-American propoganda used by our real enemies to draw recruits and justify terrorist attacks.

I was part of the anti-war movement in the beginning, until I realized that leaving Iraq would be more dangerous than staying, but I would never have dreamed of inventing false stories of massacres. As far as I’m concerned the people fabricating these lies are aiding and abetting the enemy and should be put on trial for treason.[/quote]

Propaganda is an age-old art form. Some are better at it than others. Obviously, the advent of the internet & digital video, has allowed any old dork-form to make propaganda. This goes for the other sides as well.

Assuming your point is true about adversaries being US citizens spouting off rhetoric used by the real enemies, then why hasn’t the State Department, The Pentagon, and the DOD done more to counteract such supposed nefarious acts? Are they asleep at the helm?

Must it always be a case of “Whose side are you on, buddy?”, and it’s obvious sequel: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us…!”

What is this: The Weimar Republik? :noway:
The old stab in the back theory has such a shoddy, abused historical odium around it’s neck, that one should surely come up with a better angle than that!

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]twocs -
I agree with your comment regarding non-reporting of incidents such as you mention. It is also a violation of the UCMJ. This is not something taken lightly. Do you have any supporting sources for this claim?

Anyway, another article along this line - belief vs reality:

[quote] It’s What You Want To Believe That Counts

May 23, 2007

The Iraqi Sunni Arabs are talking about history repeating itself. But there’s a nasty catch. The Sunni Arab terror campaign has made the Sunni Arabs even more hated than they were in 2003. If the American troops left, the retribution from the much more numerous Kurdish and Shia Arab troops would be a disaster for the remaining Sunni Arabs of Iraq. Over have of them have already fled the country. But the hardcore who are still carrying on the fight, believing that neighboring Sunni Arab nations (especially Saudi Arabia) would rather invade, than see the Sunni Arabs driven out of Iraq. Saudi Arabia has said, publicly and privately (via diplomatic channels) that they would not invade. The main reason for this is Iran, which would be compelled to support the Shia majority that now runs Iraq. Now the Sunni Arabs could call on the United States to come back and help keep the Iranians out of Iraq, but American voters are pretty fed up with Middle Eastern politics at this point.

These realities don’t play well in American politics. Democrats don’t want to admit there is any reason to keep American troops in the Persian Gulf. The reality of the continued Sunni Arab resistance to a democratic government in Iraq never caught on with the Western mass media, although troops in Iraq realize pretty quick what’s happening. Thus winning in Iraq is complicated not by what is happening there, but by what a lot of different groups outside of Iraq want to believe is happening.
strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/ … 70523.aspx[/quote]
[/quote]

Of course, the reason to keep the American troops in Iraq is to place them in between the Sunnis and the Shiites who want to kill each other- the question is whether US troops getting shot at from both sides is the best way to resolve the situation, given the fact that the Iraqi politicians seem to be totally uninterested in making the compromises necessary to restore some semblance of peace

And of course phoney claims from right-wing astro-turf groups that their side of the story is being suppressed by liberal journalists…

More on the media and its manipulation of the publics image of what is happening in the ME War.

[quote]Al Qaeda mastered media manipulation in Iraq
May 24, 2007, 2:00 AM (3 days ago)
by Lorie Byrd, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - An aspect of the war on terrorism that gets too little attention, yet is as important as any other, is the media war. Whether they realize it, members of the mainstream media are participants in the war on terrorism, and nowhere is that more evident than in Iraq.

Blogger Bill Roggio, who has embedded as a journalist in Iraq and Afghanistan, says the enemy’s documents reveal that much of their strategy revolves around manipulation of the media. An enemy unable to beat us on the battlefield is employing a strategy of attacks planned specifically for maximum media coverage and effect.

Roggio recently told the Christian Science Monitor that most mainstream media reporters “display a lack of knowledge of counterinsurgency and the role the media plays in an insurgency’s information campaign.” He says al Qaeda and insurgent groups frequently choose their targets to get specific media coverage they desire.

He cited the way a suicide attack in the Anbar province was reported as an example. “U.S. success in Anbar was immediately negated when al Qaeda conducted a suicide attack in Ramadi in early May, and The Associated Press ‘reported’ that the attack dealt ‘a blow to recent U.S. success in reclaiming the Sunni city from insurgents.’ Al Qaeda conducted the attack to generate such an opening paragraph.”

Journalist Michael Yon describes a similar attempt to manipulate the media. “As the British increase their forces in Afghanistan, they are drawing down in Iraq. Although the drawdown in Iraq is based on pragmatism, the enemy apparently is attempting to create the perception of a military rout. So while the British reduce their forces in southern Iraq, they are coming under heavier fire and the enemy makes claims of driving ‘the occupiers’ out.”

He then describes how a ceremonial transfer of authority over the Maysan province from the British to the Iraqi government was used to “counterpunch in the perception war, by focusing on the progress being made by the Iraqi security forces in the region.” Yon says “some of the biggest battles in Iraq today are being fought not with bombs and bullets, but with cameras and keyboards.”

Gerd Schroeder, a major in the U.S. Army who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, sees a big problem with the lack of context in reporting from Iraq. In an article at The American Thinker, he explains how he came to that conclusion after studying the Brookings Institution Report, “IRAQ INDEX Tracking Reconstruction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq.”

In the report, which he says is updated frequently and provides information from the U.S. military and other governmental agencies, he found some examples of how a lack of context can create a “misleading public impression.” One example was in the coverage of “ISF” figures.

“The Iraqi security forces (ISF) includes military, police, special police, Iraqi National Guard and border police. From early 2005 to mid-2006, the hot topic for marking progress in the war was how many ISF were being trained and employed. However, in mid-2006, this media reporting trend almost wholly dried up,” he said.

In an attempt to understand why, he examined information from the report: [b]“In July-August 2006, the number of deployed ISF jumped from 269,600 up to 298,000. The previous months had experienced much smaller growth, but July/August 2006 experienced a 10.6 percent jump in ISF. The numbers jumped again in September by almost 10,000 to 307,800. October rose 4,000, and November rose almost 11,000.”

Schroeder concluded that when ISF figures became a good news story of progress, they received less media attention. He says there is “significant, unreported good news” in Iraq.[/b] He acknowledges there is plenty of bad news there, but that “the media has been doing a good job of reporting on those negative aspects.”

Schroeder makes the argument for more complete context in reporting saying, “Accurate, meaningful information that spans the full spectrum of subjects, including good news as well as bad, is critical to the American people getting a true picture of the war.”

Until the media start reporting the war in more complete context, it will be impossible for the public to accurately gauge the success or failure of “the surge” or any other aspect of the war in Iraq.

News of even significant progress in any region of Iraq can be silenced with one strategically placed bomb or beheading. Unfortunately, media manipulation is one aspect of the war the terrorists appear to have mastered.

Lorie Byrd is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at wizbangblog.com.
Examiner.com[/quote]

Hmmm…I wonder if Al Quieda also gives classes in ‘drive-by’ one-liner dumb-ass postings on internet chatrooms? Looks like that might be the case…:smiley:

A it more from a CWO in theater:

[quote]Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges
JOHN CARLSON’S IOWA, May 23, 2007

A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq.

A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.

He described his Boone-based unit’s successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.

Morale?

“We’re treading water,” the Ames man told the people closest to him. [i]"We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don’t support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our ‘illegal occupation’ of Iraq."[/i]

His greatest frustration? The performance of the people who deliver the news to the American people.

I’ll let him say it, in his own words, in the letter, which found its way to me:

[i]"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy’s objective every day. You are the enemy’s greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn’t see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you’re not exempt, you suck also).

"Let’s give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.

"The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time.

"So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy’s agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public.

"We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.

"How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today - good and bad? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news.

“Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers.”[/i]

It’s a punch in the nose to the news media from Funk, 39, a full-time employee of the Iowa National Guard.

Why did he write it?

“I am just tired of busting my butt over here and coming home every night and turning on the TV (Armed Forces Network) and hearing how we are failing miserably,” he told me in an e-mail.

You may agree with what Funk has to say. You may not.

Many in my business certainly won’t. But Funk is a soldier, fighting a war, who has earned the right to be heard.
Columnist John Carlson can be reached at (515) 284-8204 or jcarlson@dmreg.com
DesMoines Register[/quote]

Do the majority of Iraqi people agree with him? If they do, then I support his mission. If they don’t, then his opinion, my opinion and your opinion are irrelevant because it’s their country, not ours.

[quote=“spook”]Do the majority of Iraqi people agree with him? If they do, then I support his mission. If they don’t, then his opinion, my opinion and your opinion are irrelevant because it’s their country, not ours.[/quote]Spook -
No.its his opinion based on his, the CWOs’, actual in country experience.
Of course, someone like yourself may possess a huge reservoir of extraneous facts and speculation that is at variance with his, the CWOs’, opinion. However that in no way negates his opinion. No matter how actively you, the theoretical ‘you’ of course, seek to do that.

So how about discussing his, or the other articles, presented items?

In your opinion, is the media being played as a ‘useless idiot’ by Al Quieda? Are the MSM’s being used for Al Quieda propaganda by their selective reporting? What your opinion spook?

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]Do the majority of Iraqi people agree with him? If they do, then I support his mission. If they don’t, then his opinion, my opinion and your opinion are irrelevant because it’s their country, not ours.[/quote]Spook -
No.its his opinion based on his, the CWOs’, actual in country experience.
Of course, someone like yourself may possess a huge reservoir of extraneous facts and speculation that is at variance with his, the CWOs’, opinion. However that in no way negates his opinion. No matter how actively you, the theoretical ‘you’ of course, seek to do that.

So how about discussing his, or the other articles, presented items?

In your opinion, is the media being played as a ‘useless idiot’ by Al Quieda? Are the MSM’s being used for Al Quieda propaganda by their selective reporting? What your opinion spook?[/quote]

My opinion is that the only opinion which really matters about the future of Iraq is that of the Iraqi people. Anything else is double-talking, self-serving bullshit.

It’s fascinating how all this is focused on the media, TC. The Right’s propaganda strategy is to demonize the media for reporting reality, while not confronting the numerous US and other governmental and private organs that are reporting an identical reality – failure – in Iraq.

In other words, the only sources on the whole planet not reporting failure are on the Right and in the Bush Administration. Do you think the horrible liberal media controls all the world’s media organs, as well as its NGOs, retired and active generals, Pentagon report writers, soldiers in Iraq…or what?

The failure of the Right to admit defeat resembles the failure of Japan to admit defeat after the fall of '43. The same charges were hurled at the people who tried to bring a halt to the war, with the same lack of results. And we all know what happened to Japan in the end.

Michael

TC, you really ought to change the title of this thread. It’s a great insult to thousands of dead and injured men and women and their families.

Is the US war in Iraq phony to these first-hand witnesses?

Is it phony to this soldier and the child he is holding?

Is it phony to this soldier and his mom?

Was it phony to these soldiers (and is it phony to their families)?

MT -
You really ought to get a friggin clue. The gist of this thread, which apparently you are either unable ti understand or unwilling to acknowledge, is the ‘useful tool’ by which the mainstream media has been used by the opposition forces in the war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Now this might twist your panties a bit, but this action on their part is part & parcel of the game of conflict. It should be expected for an enemy, and I do regard Al Quieda, the Taliban, Hamas and Fatah, as the enemy, to use any and every means available to them to sow discontent and division among their enemy - The Coalition Forces. This thread was established to show examples of this occurring.

I consider your post a troll effort and totally off-topic for this thread. It is a cheap attempt to hijack the thread because you so obviously dis-agree with the gist of it…IMO.

Vorko -
It is about the media. See the above reply to MT’s thread hijack attempt.

More to come.

Look who is talking … :roflmao:

But so that you don’t accuse me of being off-topic let me add this:
Same old story, it’s all the media’s fault. Like the reporting of the heroic Jessica Lynch rescue, the toppling of the Saddam statue, the Pat Tillman case etc. …

Whine about the fact that the opposition forces are better at it, but surely bullshitting, also known by its more PC term ‘propaganda’, is not limited to them. Heck, everytime a speech by Bush is aired it could be considered the same and we should blame the media for allowing themselves to be manipulated. :unamused:

Now back to our regular programming (posting lengthy articles with one-line comments).

Rascal -
It appears the gist of this thread, the ‘OT’ as its commonly referred to, is slightly eluding you.

Your extrapolations into the ether serve only to illustrate further how the techniques mentioned are used.

You don’t like the message…so the message must be wrong.

As mentioned, [i]"The gist of this thread, which apparently you are either unable ti understand or unwilling to acknowledge, is the ‘useful tool’ by which the mainstream media has been used by the opposition forces in the war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Now this might twist your panties a bit, but this action on their part is part & parcel of the game of conflict. It should be expected for an enemy, and I do regard Al Quieda, the Taliban, Hamas and Fatah, as the enemy, to use any and every means available to them to sow discontent and division among their enemy - The Coalition Forces. This thread was established to show examples of this occurring."[/i]

I don’t see anything you are posting disproving that premise.

Wrong there also. But thanks for being remarkably predictable with your comments. How about surprising us someday and actually making a well-thought out response to a topic rather than a whining screed of passive-aggressive frustration?

Now follow what you quoted:
“So how about discussing (t)his, or the other articles, presented items?”

TS, sorry if those photos made you uncomfortable.

I am sorry that Mother Theresa cannot seem to find any pictures of the victims of either Saddam’s atrocities or those killed by terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. This whole debate has gone down the usual wrong channel. The US may do some bad so therefore it is EQUALLY bad to those who do mass killings and torturing. The posture of we are no better than they, that they are no worse than us is one that plagues the left. After all, most of the killings in Iraq are at the hands of some violent whackos not US troops.

Would this same posture be willingly adopted when it comes to the environmental movement. The NGOs and their minions have done bad, used carbon so they are in no position to criticize industry for doing so and those who adopt a position that global warming is not going to be that serious are just as good as those who say it is a real problem because really how can any of us tell what is truly right? Those people who don’t believe that global warming requires the huge outlays and preventive strategies cannot be criticized because we need to understand the cultural reasons why they have the beliefs that they do? Good. I am so glad to see that we are all in agreement. In the meantime, I continue supporting the president’s strategy in Iraq and no one can criticize that because who can really say that I am wrong? This is rich.