How The U.S. Is Losing The PR War In Iraq

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
This sooooo true... we just can't do what the bad guys are doing. Some say it is not fair, in fact we had a long discussion over several beers last friday after work on this subject.


Newsweek
January 15, 2007
Insurgents using simple cell-phone cameras, laptop editing programs and the Web are beating the United States in the fierce battle for Iraqi public opinion.
By Scott Johnson
For nearly four years, U.S. military officials have briefed the Baghdad press corps from behind an imposing wooden podium. No longer. Last week U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell relaxed with reporters around a "media roundtable." He replaced the cumbersome headset once used for Arabic translations with a discreet earpiece. He cut short his opening statement, allowing for more back-and-forth banter. Yet even as Iraq emerged from the deadliest month in 2006 for American soldiers, Caldwell maintained the relentlessly upbeat patter that has come to characterize the briefings. "The key difference you're going to see in 2007," he said proudly, "is this is truly the year of transition and adaptation."
Another year, another message. In the United States this week, President George W. Bush's speech laying out his new strategy for Iraq will be scrutinized for its specifics—the numbers of an anticipated troop surge, the money for reconstruction and jobs programs. But at least as critical to success may be whether Bush is convincing. A draft report recently produced by the Baghdad embassy's director of strategic communications Ginger Cruz and obtained by NEWSWEEK makes the stakes clear: "Without popular support from US population, there is the risk that troops will be pulled back ... Thus there is a vital need to save popular support via message." Under the heading DOMESTIC MESSAGES, Cruz goes on to recommend 16 themes to reinforce with the American public, several of which Bush is likely to hit: "vitally important we succeed"; "actively working on new approaches"; "there are no quick or easy answers."
What's even more telling is that the IRAQI MESSAGES—the very next section—are still "TBD," to be determined. Indeed, the document so much as admits that despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars, the United States has lost the battle for Iraqi public opinion: "Insurgents, sectarian elements, and others are taking control of the message at the public level." Videos of U.S. soldiers being shot and blown up, and of the bloody work of sectarian death squads, are now pervasive. The images inspire new recruits and intimidate those who might stand against them. "Inadequate message control in Iraq," the draft warns, "is feeding the escalating cycle of violence." (A U.S. Embassy spokesperson claims the document reflects Cruz's personal views, not official policy.)
Sunni insurgents in particular have become expert at using technology to underscore—some would say exaggerate—their effectiveness. "The sophistication of the way the enemy is using the news media is huge," Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told NEWSWEEK just before he returned to the United States. Most large-scale attacks on U.S. forces are now filmed, often from multiple camera angles, and with high-resolution cameras. The footage is slickly edited into dramatic narratives: quick-cut images of Humvees exploding or U.S. soldiers being felled by snipers are set to inspiring religious soundtracks or chanting, which lends them a triumphal feel. In some cases, U.S. officials believe, insurgents attack American forces primarily to generate fresh footage.
Guerrillas have always sought alternative technologies to undermine their better-equipped enemies. What's different now is the power and accessibility of such tools. Production work that once required a studio can now be done on a laptop. Compilation videos of attacks on U.S. forces sell in Baghdad markets for as little as 50 cents on video CDs. Advancements in cell-phone technology have made such devices particularly useful. Their small video files—the filming of Saddam Hussein's hanging took up just over one megabyte—are especially easy to download and disseminate. "Literally, it's only hours after an attack and [the videos] are available," says Andrew Garfield, a British counterinsurgency expert who has advised U.S. forces in Baghdad. "You can really say it's only a cell-phone call away."
What the insurgents understand better than the Americans is how Iraqis consume information. Tapes of beheadings are stored on cell phones along with baby pictures and wedding videos. Popular Arab satellite channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya air far more graphic images than are typically seen on U.S. TV—leaving the impression, say U.S. military officials, that America is on the run. At the extreme is the Zawra channel, run by former Sunni parliamentarian Mishan Jibouri, who fled to Syria last year after being accused of corruption. (Jibouri says he's being persecuted for political reasons, and can return to Iraq whenever he wants.) Since November the channel has been spewing out an unending series of videos showing American soldiers being killed in sniper and IED attacks. The clips are accompanied by commentary, often in English, admonishing Iraqis to "focus your utmost rage against the occupation." Among Sunnis and even some Shiites, Zawra has become one of the most popular stations in Iraq. "I get e-mails from girls in their 20s from Arab countries; some of them are very wealthy," Jibouri boasts. "Some offer to work for free, some offer money."
The U.S. military's response, on the other hand, usually sticks to traditional channels like press releases. These can take hours to prepare and are often outdated by the time they're issued. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, director of the military's press operations in Baghdad until this past September, complains that all military-related information has to be processed upward through a laborious and bureaucratic chain of command. "The military wants to control the environment around it, but as we try to [do so], it only slows us down further," he says. "All too often, the easiest decision we made was just not to talk about [the story] at all, and then you absolutely lose your ability to frame what's going on."
An even bigger problem, say other U.S. officials, may be the message itself. The videos on Zawra are powerful precisely because they confirm the preconceptions many Iraqis have about the occupation. Col. William Darley, editor of the influential Military Review at the Combined Arms Center in Fort Leavenworth, Kans., argues that merely changing podiums in the briefing room misses the point. "You can cook up a kind of shrewd, New York City-style advertising campaign for a candy bar, and if the candy bar tastes lousy, you can't sell it," says Darley. "If Iraq has no electricity, spotty medical care, no security, then [we] cannot succeed."
The consequences of losing the propaganda battle are real. "One of these videos is worth a division of tanks to those people," says Robert Steele, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer. Not only do the insurgent videos draw recruits and donations, they don't give ordinary Iraqis much incentive to cooperate with the Americans. Videos put out by sectarian death squads, like the one shown to NEWSWEEK by the watchdog SITE institute in which a Sunni militiaman saws the head off a Shiite prisoner with a five-inch knife, enrage the targeted community. The release of the ghoulish video of Saddam's hanging prompted thousands of Sunnis to protest in Anbar province. Residents of Fallujah—the target of a multimillion-dollar hearts-and-minds campaign—renamed the city's main thoroughfare the Street of the Martyr Saddam Hussein.
The damage goes beyond Iraq. Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab ("The Cloud") has similarly improved the quality and frequency of its videos; the group, says former State Department adviser Philip Zelikow, uses "the Internet to provide a sense of virtual identity" now that its Afghan training camps have largely been destroyed. The question is how to fight back, when today's most powerful technologies—the Web, cell phones—are better suited to small, nimble organizations. Back in the 1930s national leaders could almost wholly control the framing of their messages, says Donald Shaw, a professor of media theory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has written about reforms for military public-affairs officers. But now, "the podium has lost its influence." For those who once stood behind it, that message at least is very clear.
With Michael Hastings in Baghdad and Benjamin Sutherland in Treviso
 
I see soldiers that come back from Iraq almost every day and the first thing I say to them is "how was it?". Nine out of ten will respond with "Its not nearly as bad as the media potrays it....".
 
I am sorry but I have heard very different.

I a buddy over there, and he says its pretty bad. I cannot say if its as bad as they show on TV, because I have personally never been there. (Although I did get a job offer in 2003 from the British Army to do computer work over there).

Anyway, one of my college buddies is a Blackhawk pilot who has been on 2 tours, and he has told me its no picnic.
 
Last edited:
Those tapes are atrocious.
They're taking advantage of the Americans' censorship regulations, and it's probably one of their more successful projects.
 
As much as I dislike why we were dragooned into going there, I have to say I don't believe either the media, nor the arabic sources nor the Government over what is going on there.

IMHO, the only way the US would win in Iraq is so politically incorrect and morally reprehensable that we as American's could not tolerate it.

We need to conquer and occupy Iraq, Iran, and Syria. PERIOD. Get 500k boots on the ground there and do it right. If some Joe Blow Local even looks cross-eyed at our troops should be sent on his way to Allah. (Begging the pardon of any Moslem members here. I intend NO disrespect to your religious beliefs or tenets.) THe militant militias should be forcably disarmed and if they cry, shoot them.

This is brutal, yes, but if the insurgeants are killing more Iraqis than our guys they need to be rooted out and extirpated. Then send in civil government units, and engineers to repair and build up the infrastructure. I figure about 7 to 10 years that whole area would be stable enough for full self government.

My two cents.
 
Hmm, so you're proposing doing another "iraq" on syria and iran and shooting anyone who looks at the troops involved in a strange way.

Hmm, where you ever related to some mad dictator like Hitler or Stalin? You propose invading soverign nations and conducting genocide. I don't really think that would work out for everybody.

Begging your pardon but I don't think you thought your post through at all mate.
 
I don't know who expected the Iraqis to jump with joy in the face of a foreign army invading. Sure, Saddam was bad, but that doesn't mean they don't have national pride, as we now know.
 
Since when have the press ever handled things even handedly?

Most of the freelancers have still got their knickers in a knot over having to be "embedded" or take the risks associated with being in a battle zone on the other side of the frontline.
 
Hmm, so you're proposing doing another "iraq" on syria and iran and shooting anyone who looks at the troops involved in a strange way.

Hmm, where you ever related to some mad dictator like Hitler or Stalin? You propose invading soverign nations and conducting genocide. I don't really think that would work out for everybody.

Begging your pardon but I don't think you thought your post through at all mate.

I am NOT proposing that the US and other Coalition Allies act as an invading oppressor ala Stalin, Tojo, or Hitler.

Quite the opposite in fact: Occupy these countries just like Japan and Germany were occupied post WWII with a Constabulary and an aim of rebuilding the infrastructure with a view to giving the average citizen better access to electricity, fresh water, and schools etc, etc.

Unfortunately that would take a hella bunch a troops in theatre and as I stated: Political suicide for both any politicians, General Staffers, and countries that would propose this or support it. In that we do have nukes, we could tell the World to 'butt out' and make it stick, but it would hurt our reputation and trustworthiness in the eyes of all the other countries of the world.

I do not think for a second my opinion has any merit in the lofty halls of any government. I just rage at the insurgents who wage terror war on innocent civilians all in the name of: (INSERT NAME OF CAUSE HERE) and seriously wish that something would be done about them

DonP
 
If some Joe Blow Local even looks cross-eyed at our troops should be sent on his way to Allah.

From what you said before it does sound like the US would be acting as an invading oppressor in your scenario.

The US are trying to rebuild the infrastructure etc in Iraq, unfortunately, unlike in the case of war weary germany and japan after ww2, there is continued resistance to the occupiers. Now if this has happened in Iraq which was ruled by a dictator that not many people liked, imagine repeating this kind of action in syria and iran where you're gonna be up against populations, which on the most part are gonna be supportive of their government. Its not gonna be a Germany or Japan, it would be another Iraq except more brutal and bloody.

Where would the US find the troops to occupy Iraq, syria, iran and afghanistan at the same time?

In the case of countries opposing these iran and syrian adventures you mentioned threatening them with nukes, would you go so far as using them all for the sake of pacifying Iraq?

Iraq has already damaged the trust nations hold in the US, its reputation has taken a blow, to repeat iraq not once but twice would be unwise.

I think your solution to the problem of Iraq would cause bigger problems to the one that you are trying to solve in the beginning and so would not be a viable option in most cases.

I'm sorry for sounding like a ****** mate, I know its bloody frustrating to see these terrorists using human shields etc :box: and the world would definitley be a better place without the :cen: s. I just don't think your solution would work in most scenarios
 
Where would the US find the troops to occupy Iraq, syria, iran and afghanistan at the same time?
Don't believe the hype in the bloody press mate. The troops being used now are a drop in the bucket. If we commit the full force of the military there is more than enough to go around.
 
Don't believe the hype in the bloody press mate. The troops being used now are a drop in the bucket. If we commit the full force of the military there is more than enough to go around.

Troops are one thing, and the Draft can put a lot of Boots on the Battlefield very fast. Generals and Battalion & Brigade Commanders are also talking about not having Equipment to Deploy, sadly.
 
Wirehead, what you suggest is a horrible idea. This would further "prove" to the enemies that America is imperialistic and expansionistic. The first thing that needs to be done is Iraq needs to have a stable government and the will of the people must be against the terrorists. Sure they might be pissed off at our troops too but that won't matter once we've pulled out.
What's needed:
Stable Iraqi government
Iraqis need to be proud of their country. If you get them electricity, food, water, medicine and most of all, jobs this is possible.
Eventual American troop pullout - it's the only way to prove we're not out there colonizing other countries.
 
Eventual American troop pullout - it's the only way to prove we're not out there colonizing other countries.

Hehe, all of people of the whole world are waiting for the American's pullout, but just like the US stays in Saudi, only God know whether Americans want to pullout.

To my limited knowledge, in the history, U.S had never pullout actively except they were defeated or the conquered place was not useful any more.

except WWII, because it is that the Western countries beated each other. There is much diffenent because of much different cultural background.
 
Limited knowledge indeed... here's an education for you.

Countries who have experienced militarus interuptus by American forces.
China
Japan
France
Belgium
Italy
Nicaragua
Honduras
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Libya
Algeria
Tunisia
and on and on...

Might serve you well to educate yourself prior to making assumptions.

The KSA has a contract with the US for the housing of troops in their country, at THEIR request.
 
Rising costs of iraq makes world investors uneasy.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
Iraq is second Vietnam?
No,I don't think so.
Fortunetelly,Vietnam had a government after war,but Iraq doesn't have powerful government that can controll Iraq.
So,US should retreat iraq immedietelly?
Nonsense,that will make Iraq 2nd Somali after Black Hawk down.
・・・・・I can't imagine any good idea that can solve this situation,or better yet how is calling Iran Peace Keeping Force?
 
Back
Top