Using propaganda.

[glitchg2]

What he meant is incredibly clear from the context and doesn't seem to have been a problem for anyone else but you. That suggests the problem is with your comprehension rather than his graofftopicr.

 

[seanpatrick]

Sparkle,
I think what you'll find if you read some of the 'anti-Iraq' war posts on here, is that a lot of MAPers are, as Koyo so eloquently put it, not 'anti-Iraq' but 'anti-unjust-war'.

If you read closely, you will see that the majority of those posts are sympathising with and supporting the troops, but questioning the reasons for them being there in the first place.

What you have are good men and women, placed in a dire and unassailable situation, against massive odds, with no real purpose or reason to fight. These troops then get seen by the very people they are supposedly there to help as 'invaders'. How long can anyone put up with that sort of thing before it all goes a bit screwy?? Get treated like a villain long enough, and eventually you'll start to believe you are one.
And the bit that really galls is that if American's learned to loook at their own history they would see that this sort of situation only ever ends in a massive loss for the invading forces! Hell, the Yanks only have about 200 years worth, it's not like it's a lot to remember!! (Sorry, low blow, but it really drives me nuts!)

My problem with the whole situation is that the troops flat-out shouldn't be there. We went in on a pretence, with a purpose that was a sham, and now having failed in that we are still there. Why? Why are troops serving and dying in a war that shouldn't have happened in the first place? Reason: Money. Plain and simple.

I will join Koyo in saying I'm not anti-Iraq, I'm anti-good-people-dying-to-make-others-richer.

And kudos to you for joining up, all I'll say is watch your back man, and try to get out clean!

As to your original question - easy. Yes, images and clips like those you describe could stir up a lot of support for the troops serving out there, or they could have the opposite effect and actually pour petrol on the anti-war fire. And that's why they aren't being shown. The high-ups are unsure of how people would react, and before you start spreading propaganda, you need to know it will send the right message.

 

[Dreamlite]

Just to clarify - I wasn't using 'good men' and 'good guys' in the hero/villain aspect, but just generally. I'm sure there are some absolute prats serving over in Iraq. I just hate to see well-adjusted, loving, caring, happy people turned into either a) Dead people, or b) Evil/mentally scarred people, by a bad situation they shouldn't be exposed to in the first place.

And I agree - Bring them all home.

 

[gothic_emo]

With you all the way here. My point was the imposibility of remaining a "good" guy in a fight . That will get you killed.

The first casualty of war is truth the second is innocence.

regards koyo

 

[ajstokes92]

There's a huge debate to be had here, with many a good point.

I think we're all in agreement that our support for the men on the ground out there is unfaultering and that the situation leading to and sustaining this situation is the big problem.

However, getting back to the point initially made regarding videos of that nature, showing people on the news etc these videos may well increase popular support of the fighting men/women, but I don't think it can EVER justify our soldiers performing acts which are illegal, inhumane and brutal, regardless of the situation they are put in.

The war may have started for the wrong reasons, but we're there now and fighting against these terroists scum who do behead people. If we go round shooting inncoent people, this makes us the same as they are and completely defeats the point of our soldiers staying there. No matter how hard and trying it is, we need to remember that we're there now for humanity, to bring the everyday Iraqi safety and let them live their lives in peace and safety, not adding to their fears.

 

[thepaperxpression]

QFT! I like thayrea's sig.

 

[AstralXIII]

Couldn't have said it better!!

 

[MadnessO]

There seems to be a general tone here where propaganda is considered "bad" regardless of who uses it. We blast the administration for banning images of flag drapped coffins and yes, Americans view a very sanitized snap shot of the war. Jihadis cut people's heads off and have it broadcasted on Al Jazeera to demonstrate their strength. Both represent staged views designed to influence a specific audience. In the Jihadi beheadings, the victim usually has his hamstings cut and is bled out to weaken him. This renders him incapable of resisting as he is killed creating an image of strength for the murderer and weakness of his victim. The Bush administration meanwhile seeks to curb resistence to the conflict among American voters by preventing the bloody images of war from being viewed by families at dinner as was done in Vietnam.

Debating the morality of propaganda use is a little like debating the morality of airstrikes or suicide bombings. What's more important is understanding that propaganda is a necessary part of 4th Generation Warfare. It is both a tactic and a strategy. The side that controls public opinion will win. Victory doesn't come on the battlefied in 4GW, it comes in the political expression of the people. When you say the war is 'unwinable' what you're expressing is the west's continued frustration and unwillingness to grasp the strategy of 4GW opponents.

The classic example is the Tet offensive in 1968. Tactically, it was an abysmal failure for the VC and NVA. American forces smashed them. The VC networks were destryed to the point where initially the NVA thought they lost the war. But the offensive succeeded strategically by sapping the last of America's political will; most famously, Kronkite who declared the war unwinable. This is the crux of 4GW. The tactics of our enemy are not designed to win on the battlefield they're designed to influence our politics at home. This is the way war will be waged against the west for the forseeable future. Even the Chinese have recently put together 4 brigade size units specifically to train for 4GW campaigns against western adversaries. Propagana is to 4GW what fire and manuever was to 3GW. This is a concept we in the west must understand on many levels.

 

[TorBor]

DC - I woudln't classify propaganda as a 'new' part of warfare. Propaganda has been integral to all conflict since ancient times - just look at the depiction of the Turks and Moors as Barbarian savages in the Crusades and you can see that.
I don't see where you get the impression that we are viewing it as bad though. What most people posting here have said is that images like the ones described in the OP, though powerful, do not excuse the behaviour of troops that kill an unarmed, wounded enemy who was trying to surrender.
I think anyone with half a brain knows that in any conflict, there is going to be propaganda. There is some quote about winning hearts and minds that I'm sure is applicable here but I can't remember it for the life of me.....

 

[LenaA]

I am curious how far people's anti war sentiment extends would you for instance oppose an intervention in Zimbabwe or Burma? What I'm getting at is are people ruling out ALL military interventions in foreign countries or is it simply due to not believing the reasons justified the intervention in Iraq's case?

 

[robins_rodents]

I think a major problem is that soldiers are trained for war (if that it'self is possible) NOT as policemen where they must act within given parameters while their opponents need not.

Propaganda has the ring of a lie to me used by politicians to convince the antagonists that there is a reason behind the killing other than greed or power.

Sadly I think there shall be no intervention in Zimbabwe or Burma because there would be no profit in it for those in power who SHOULD act.


regards koyo

 

[KellyThapa]

As I said in a previous post, I don't think there IS an 'anti-war' sentiment on MAP. A lot of people oppose the Iraq war because it is unjust and there was/is no reason for us to be there.
As for Zimbabwe - you have mass riots, a despotic leader who uses violence and fear to maintain power, and millions suffering because of it. They sound like pretty solid reasons to send in the troops to me. But as Koyo says, there is no money to be made, so it will never happen....I hope I'm proven wrong though.....

 

[TjJ]

Clearly there were major issues with Iraq such as a despotic ruler. The topic thats up for debate is how far such issues served as a smokescreen for less legitimate motivations as well as the usage of exaggerated or invented issues to increase public support. I don't agree though that there was no reason for any outside country to get involved with Iraq.

 

[gismoII]

Becoming involved is a far cry from going to war.
How true it is that for evil to exist needs only one thing ..that reaonable men do nothing.


regards koyo

 

[rockoutloud]

I agree with CKava. I think the need to do something was definitely there and the people of Iraq were suffering under the previous regime. How much life has improved is another debate. Again, were the correct actions taken? Probably not. Was the need for action there? Most definitely. Was the action taken for the right reasons? Conspiracy theorists eat your heart out.

I think we've kind of left the point of this thread. We seem to be discussing the merits of the war, rather than the merits of such propaganda in the popular media

 

[my_ducati996]

I gather from those who have participated on this thread that that many are "anti-unjust war." For those people I have these specific questions - Have you seen the videos that are out there on what happens in these executions? Have you seen them more then once and actually watched them closely without cringing away or thinking it's horrible and clicking it off? Has it caused you to think twice about having a military force in Iraq?

My intention is not at all to sway people into supporting the war. The war very well may be one of the most unjust, despicable things of our time. Regardless of that though, do you think it would be right to withdraw these men and women when this sort of thing happens now when the troops are in there. Don't you think it may get worse without any military force in there to at least try and protect and take these guys out? Would it be right to just up and leave when we may have made the situation worse (being that if we don't finish the job, death would be more rampant with our departure)? Don't you think that regardless of the real cause behind the war that good things may be coming from it for the majority of people in Iraq? I mean sure the cost is in human lives, but how many more are being saved, how many souls will go to sleep feeling somewhat safer then before?

These are all questions that I don't feel have a definite answer for me right now. They are not me saying "look at how good we are doing" because honestly I don't know. Everything could be the exact opposite, things could just be getting worse. I haven't been there . . . yet. But if the answer to all those questions I just posed are somewhere along the lines of "it's getting better bit by bit for the people in Iraq" then I would gladly go and risk my own life, my own limbs, my own mental health to try and do my part in helping regardless of the fact that evil men may have started a war for their own benefit. Good things can come from the process of fulfilling an evil man's objective. That's just how things are sometimes. He'll get his in time.

Also on the subject of soldiers doing unjust things over in Iraq. I didn't mean to sound like I was condoning it, just rather that if you really saw what they had to see sometimes on a daily basis, would you have a little more compassion for them? I'm not saying you'll turn a blind eye, but would you be so quick to judge so harshly or would you have a little more understanding? That comes from me seeing people in an outcry over certain events that I've seen on the news with people calling soldiers out to be horrible and depraved people when they probably have no friggen clue at all to the mental stress these men and women go through.

 

[zakt]

I have nothing but absolute respect for the soldiers out there. It is the reason they are out there that I question.

As for soldiers doing questionable things..It is near impossible to retain your humanity in such circumstances this is why so many soldiers returning from war find it so hard to return to a "normal" life.

My respect to those involved..my contempt for those who started and extend it.

regards koyo

 

[nickp]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing o the pull out of troops. To be honest, now we're there, we have to see it through.

Do I think it'll get worse if we weren't there? Maybe, maybe not. No one can answer that and to be honest, a bit of a strange comment. Unless you had a crystal ball. I agree the military presence is a deterant, but can you not argue that it is also aggrevating the situation, remembering these people think they are being invaded. Wouldn't you fight for your home?

The executions are dispicable, no question. And I'm sure the things the soldiers have to endure and just as awful and soul destroying, but surely they have to remind themselves that when they act like that, they are no better than the terrorist's they're there to fight.

 

[ugheeeewhattm]

"a despotic leader who uses violence and fear...etc". And just how is that different than Saddam's Iraq? As far as I know, Mugabe never gassed entire villages in Zimbabwe. If removing Mugabe is a "solid reason to send in the troops...", why was removing Saddam not?

 

[Wertbag]

Simple answer? Because removing Saddam was not the reason we went in. If it was we would have had a better plan in place for re-establishing independent rule after he had been deposed. It's not like the American or UK governments aren't skilled in deposing one leader to replace them with someone else and keeping the fuss to a minimum.

No-one was crying injustice and genocide when Saddam was in charge. After the first Gulf War I never heard anything about him again, until after 9/11 when Bush promised the American public a good old fashioned lynching, and then couldn't find the lynchee. When Bin Laden proved too hard to find, the US and UK governments put their heads together and through spectacular rhetoric and spin-doctoring somehow convinced enough people that Hussein was the evil mastermind behind it all. Only then did we start seeing stories of all the supposed atrocities committed under his evil iron fist. Then the WMD's made their appearance (or lack of) and the rest is history.

The difference between Mugabe and Saddam is that Mugabe is being shown to the world now as an evil tyrant, and it has nothing to do with money, he is just someone who is using his position to ensure he stays in power. And he has an opposition. An opposition that has been forced out of the country for fear of extermination.

Now when I said 'send in the troops, I also did not mean a full scale invasion and occupation of Zimbabwe with a vague plan about handing control back at some point in 2047. I meant a focused show of arms to remove someone who has no right to the position of power they are claiming, and allow the democratically elected leader take up their role. I'm not naive enough to think it's a 'no muss, no fuss' kinda situation, but it has the possibility to be far less drawn out and painful than Iraq has been.

Now, Iraqi people may have been freed from the rule of a tyrant, but what has replaced him? Nothing. Instead, they have what the average Iraqi probably sees as an invading Allied military force policing their country. If the situation were reversed, and a powerful military power came into the UK and removed the government after a lengthy and costly war campaign, and then didn't leave, what else am I to think but 'invaders'?

Sometimes its all about point of view. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Which brings us back to the OP's original question - would the images being shown on TV make people better understand the plight of the troops out there? As I said before, yes it would. But maybe we should spend more time trying to befriend the Iraqi people and prove we are a benevolent force their for the protection of the common man, rather than an invading bunch of infidels.