The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear List,
Things are getting more depressing by the day. Does
"creative" mean still bigger lies?
The Pew Global Attitudes survey:
I think that Iraq should be destroyed, says Bush the Younger,
because Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace. Yes,
echoes the "international community" (government leaders,
big business, the media) we can see the threat clearly...
it must be removed. And the Security Council confirms that
with the best Resolutions money can buy.
But the "international public", it appears, largely believes
this argument is naked: According to the recent Pew Global
Attitudes survey, a large percentage believes that the attack
on Iraq is about control of Iraqi oil. (Russia 76%, France 75%,
Germany 54%, Britain 44%.)
The survey, released December 4, 2002, is based on
interviews of "more than 38,000 people in 44 nations. It
also a revealed a growing discontent with US foreign policy.
Or, as the Pew pollsters call it simplistically, a "Growing
Anti-Americanism". The pollsters seem puzzled that people
who "embrace things American" may nevertheless "decry U.S.
influence on their societies".
(Coke, Levis, and Windows as promoters of US foreign policy?)
Response to the survey results:
These theories about oil and power are nonsense, an avid
let's-get-rid-of-Hussein proponent told me. And not very
flattering to the PRESIDENT. Mr Bush's motives are simple...
honourable, he said. All Bush wants is to spread democracy
and prosperity. Of course, he added bitterly, this won't
satisfy the conspiracy theorists and professional
anti-Americans.
Was he trying to fool himself?
The oil and power motives sound reasonable to me, I said.
Normal. If you are the world's committed superpower you have
to stay on top. Destroying smaller nations is part of the
game. So is war...killing. And why worry about the views of
foreign multitudes? -- He didn't seem to like that.
But even the world's only superpower is unhappy about the
views of the international public. Likes to change them.
"Image problems", the Pew survey calls it:
"U.S. image problems are not confined to Muslim countries.
The worldwide polling conducted throughout the summer and
fall finds few people, even in friendly nations,
expressing a very favorable opinion of America, and
sizable minorities in Western Europe and Canada having an
unfavourable view."
The Pew Global Attitudes survey, December 4, 2002 at:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165
http://people-press.org/reports/files/report165.pdf
Molding reluctant hearts and minds into submission:
The survey also established that "In almost every country,
the media rates higher than the national government."
So hey presto, figured the Pentagon, let's buy the foreign
media. Let's change world opinion through "vigorous and
creative propaganda":
"As a military officer put it: 'We have the assets and
the capabilities and the training to go into friendly
and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could
do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean we should.'"
"Many administration officials agree that the government's
broad strategy to counter terrorism must include vigorous
and creative propaganda to change the negative view of
America held in many countries." -- But:
"Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might
pay journalists to write stories favorable to American
policies or hire outside contractors without obvious ties
to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American
policies."
"In hostile countries like Iraq, such [propaganda] missions are
permitted under policy...." Aim: "undermine morale". And:
"In future wars, they might include technical attacks to
disable computer networks, both military and civilian."
These are excerpts from an article in the New York Times of
December 15, 2002. Here it is in full:
--------Start Fwd--------
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/16/international/16MILI.html
Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Defense Department is considering
issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct
covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy
makers in friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and
administration officials say.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet decided on the
proposal, which has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush
administration over whether the military should carry out secret
propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany, where many
of the Sept. 11 hijackers congregated, or Pakistan, still
considered a haven for Al Qaeda's militants.
Such a program, for example, could include efforts to discredit
and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that
have become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy and
anti-Americanism across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. It might
even include setting up schools with secret American financing to
teach a moderate Islamic position laced with sympathetic
depictions of how the religion is practiced in America, officials
said.
Many administration officials agree that the government's broad
strategy to counter terrorism must include vigorous and creative
propaganda to change the negative view of America held in many
countries.
The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over "the strategic
communications for our nation, the message we want to send for
long-term influence, and how we do it."
As a military officer put it: "We have the assets and the
capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral
nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away
with it. That doesn't mean we should."
It is not the first time that the debate over how the United
States should marshal its forces to win the hearts and minds of
the world has raised difficult and potentially embarrassing
questions at the Pentagon. A nonclandestine parallel effort at the
State Department, which refers to its role as public diplomacy,
has not met with so much resistance.
In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of
Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news
items, and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to
influence public sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say
Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States
government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion
worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against
terrorism and militancy.
Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the
military in carrying out what it calls information operations
against adversaries, especially before and during war, as well as
routine public relations work in friendly nations like Colombia,
the Philippines or Bosnia, whose governments have welcomed
American troops.
In hostile countries like Iraq, such missions are permitted under
policy and typically would include broadcasting from airborne
radio stations or dropping leaflets like those the military has
printed to undermine morale among Iraqi soldiers. In future wars,
they might include technical attacks to disable computer networks,
both military and civilian.
But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at
allies has divided the Pentagon -- with civilians and uniformed
officers on both sides of the debate.
Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay
journalists to write stories favorable to American policies or
hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to
organize rallies in support of American policies.
The current battlefield for these issues involves amendments to a
classified Department of Defense directive, titled "3600.1:
Information Operations," which would enshrine an overarching
Pentagon policy for years to come.
Current policy holds that aggressive information tactics are "to
affect adversary decision makers" -- not those of friendly or even
neutral nations. But proposed revisions to the directive, as
quoted by senior officials, would not make adversaries the only
targets for carrying out military information operations --
abbreviated as "I.O." in the document, which is written in the
dense jargon typical of military doctrine.
--------End--------
P.S. Perhaps an effective strategy for peace proponents:
exposing the propaganda...the motives. If they are that
concerned about image. --elga
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk