Public image clusterfuck

[Edi]

I see two large components: Bush being blunt and domestic politics.

First off Bush is hideously blunt. He's father says "this will not stand". He says "We will remove Saddam." Unlike the majority of politicians he is forthright about his intentions. While every president has likely beleived that Europe is largely useless militarily, Bush actually comes and says it. Where Clinton knew hell would freeze over before Kyoto would be ratified, Bush simply said he was pulling out. The nations of the world like to pretend that they are needed and vital to the greater picture, blatantly saying we don't need you has never won any friends.

It's not just Bush being blunt. I've no problem with politicians being blunt, and if you take e.g. the foreign minister of the previous Finnish government (the one that's leaving office in the next couple of weeks), Erkki Tuomioja, me and my family's appreciation of the man (whom we rather detest) went up several notches for being blunt about some things that are usually considered political taboo. The problem with Bush is not being blunt, it's being blunt and contemptuous simultaneously, as well as bullying and threatening. And he also bluntly makes it clear that he isn't even interested in listening to what anyone else is going to say and will just ignore them and do what he wants anyway. Add to that all the talk (whether just rumors or not) by US Administration officials about how the US will "make Germany pay" for not supporting the war, the "you are with us or the enemy" rhetoric, demanding unconditional support and then snubbing the offered help (Afghanistan after 9/11), that's what makes him so hated abroad.

Tony Blair is also pretty blunt when he wants to be, and so are others. Colin Powell has also been rather direct at times. Yet they don't manage to fuck up international relations the way Bush has consistently done.

In fairness to Bush he is presented with bad domestic political landscape abroad. Schroeder has just come off a VERY narrow election and doesn't have the political capital to buck the populace. Likewise Chirac didn't have particular legitimacy running against the French equivalent of Pat Buchannon. Bush has to deal with German leadership that MUST be hostile to war (otherwise risk losing their coalition), and a French leadership trying to placate the right (who another De Gualle) and the left (anti-war). Even if he had done a good diplomatic job he faces a far harder sell to his opponents due to domestic electoral concerns.

There is that, but it hardly counts since the American administration didn't even make an effort to sell the war to the rest of us. It spent a lot of time and propaganda effort to get the American people behind the war, and then basically said to the rest of the world that it should go along just because it said so, and when asked for justification and evidence, it just repeated what it had said earlier and when pressed, manufactured "evidence" out of whole cloth! What works to convince the American public does not necessarily sway Europeans or others, something the Bush administration simply failed to recognize from the looks of things. Or it just didn't care, which is just as (if not more) likely.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

While I agree Bush grates, there are a variety of reasons he proved so startling "arrogant" in your book. One of those was the assumption that Europe would reject any American proposal on Iraq out-of-hand. Don't forget that this is a matter of national security according to the White House. We are willing to sequester your opinions - we did, in fact -, but not to tollerate your directions.

Bush was caught in a "Catch 22" no matter what he did. If he argued for war on the basis that inspectors would ultimate prove ineffectual, Chirac made the counter-claim that he wasn't being fair to Blix. If he argued for war on the basis that Saddam was a threat by potential extension, it was insisted that he lacked credible evidence. By the time we made the final decision to go to war, we already knew that Europe was dead-set against it. We didn't do it merely to "shaft" you. We did it, in fact, because on many levels, we had already been "shafted" ourselves.

[Edi]

While I agree Bush grates, there are a variety of reasons he proved so startling "arrogant" in your book. One of those was the assumption that Europe would reject any American proposal on Iraq out-of-hand. Don't forget that this is a matter of national security according to the White House. We are willing to sequester your opinions - we did, in fact -, but not to tollerate your directions.

Bush was caught in a "Catch 22" no matter what he did. If he argued for war on the basis that inspectors would ultimate prove ineffectual, Chirac made the counter-claim that he wasn't being fair to Blix. If he argued for war on the basis that Saddam was a threat by potential extension, it was insisted that he lacked credible evidence. By the time we made the final decision to go to war, we already knew that Europe was dead-set against it. We didn't do it merely to "shaft" you. We did it, in fact, because on many levels, we had already been "shafted" ourselves.

If you're unable to provide evidence for your claims (WMD, threat to US security, terrorist links) when asked for it, then that tends to point rather effectively to the claims being spurious. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The evidence that was given was not credible. By the time the US made the final decision to go to war, it had dawned on Bush & Co that Europe was not going to go along with them just because they said so. I've little love for Chirac, he's a corrupt toad, and that's being generous, mind you, but it doesn't change the fact that the US administration's effort to actually really find evidence and genuinely convince Europe can only be described (if we again want to be more generous than warranted) as half-hearted. You can try to twist the issue around, but after the mess you made of your credibility in the Our World-Historical Gamble thread and elsewhere, you need to come up with an argument a lot more convincing than the fabrication quoted above.

Edi

[Illuminatus Primus]

The voluntary self-censorship conducted by American media at the behest of the government, the firing of media personalities with dissenting viewpoints (Mahr, Arnett), the accusations of anti-Americanism, the widespread attempts to equate criticism of the war effort with outright treason (giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"), the widespread use of doublespeak, etc. all fit the definition of propaganda. From outside the country, it just looks hamfisted and transparent, and does not fit America's constitutional self-image of free and open expression of ideas.

Give me a break. Arnett thanked the Information Ministry for the "freedom" he's always enjoyed reporting from Iraq and how grateful he was. That's what irritates me. Little selfish attention whore endorsing the Information Ministry so he could try and get a lucrative commentary.

[Axis Kast]

If you're unable to provide evidence for your claims (WMD, threat to US security, terrorist links) when asked for it, then that tends to point rather effectively to the claims being spurious. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The evidence that was given was not credible. By the time the US made the final decision to go to war, it had dawned on Bush & Co that Europe was not going to go along with them just because they said so. I've little love for Chirac, he's a corrupt toad, and that's being generous, mind you, but it doesn't change the fact that the US administration's effort to actually really find evidence and genuinely convince Europe can only be described (if we again want to be more generous than warranted) as half-hearted. You can try to twist the issue around, but after the mess you made of your credibility in the Our World-Historical Gamble thread and elsewhere, you need to come up with an argument a lot more convincing than the fabrication quoted above.

It's become a clear point of opinion. You people don't accept my reasoning just as I don't accept yours. In my opinion, Hussien is a clear threat. I'm especially convinced given the recent report by the Sydney Morning Herald. You can't tell me that close ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq - ties that have put al-Qaeda operatives in command of Iraqi irregulars - sprung up within eleven days' time. There had to be some kind of open communication or at least periodic relationship.

[Frank_Scenario]

Colon Bowel should have shut his fucking mouth.

That fucking assclown is why we're going back into Iraq 12 years later.

See, 12 years ago, as the US Army was on the edge of routing the
Iraqi army all the way to Baghdad, and US forces were on the banks
of the Euprhates river, Colon Bowel told George HW Bush that we
didn't have to advance any further, because we had "achieved our
objectives".

So it's because of that fucking idiot that we're having to go back in
12 years later to finish the job we should have finished in 1991.

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Former President George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam," Time Magazine, 1998.

Not only does it completely fail to mention Colin Powell, but it also gives a decent summary of one argument against the war. I'd like you to tell me where your information comes from, because it would seem that Bush (and his national security advisor) didn't have a problem with stopping.

[Frank_Scenario]

Corporations can do whatever they want. Things like the firing of Mahr and Arnett aren't propaganda acts, it's patriotism. Private companies don't have to give equal air time to people with viewpoints like Mahr's or Arnett's if they don't want - And people don't have to watch what those companies produce (with or without people like that). That's the way a capitalist society works. Unless you can prove that the government actually is requesting for any of this to happen, it doesn't compare with classic propaganda acts - Things like the works of Goebbels or the modern day DPRK propaganda posters and radio broadcasts or the Iraqi information ministry - whatsoever.

As I've said before: disagreeing with the war or with the policies of the Bush administration does not make you unpatriotic. Mahr is an iconoclast; hell, it's because of his willingness to say what he thought even if people disagreed that he had a show in the first place. Arnett was foolish in making his comments, given the time and place he made them; he gave the corporation no choice but fire him. Note that I'm not defending Geraldo, whose actions were entirely unacceptable by any standard.

However, none of these firings has anything to do with patriotism; refusing to allow dissent does not demonstrate that you love your nation.

As for government interference, I quote the Wall Street Journal, July 8, 1998: "Military officials continue to press the network to dismiss Mr. Arnett." Also from the Journal: "Gen. [Perry] Smith said he told Mr. Johnson [Tom Johnson, chairman of the CNN News Group] that US military leaders felt that dismissing Mr. Arnett was the only way the network could regain its credibility in light of the nerve gas report. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon has criticized the CNN report, and the network said 'hundreds' of former military officials, including former Gen. Colin Powell, have come forward to complain."

Now, both of these quotes come from 1998, when CNN aired a segment on the military use of nerve gas during an illegal incursion into Laos in 1970. Arnett was the voice of the documentary. Arnett was fired by CNN eventually, although not immediately; the network did retract the story.

Does this mean that the government (or the military) is forcing the removal of dissenters in the present day? No, of course not. But it is strong circumstancial evidence. They have a history of doing it, and with the same people who have been affected today.

I'm more concerned with the apparent confusion between patriotism (which Merriam-Webster defines as "love for or devotion to one's country") and jingoism ("extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy"). One can oppose war, despise Bush, hate his policies, and even admire the Iraqis who are defending their homes from what they see as an invasion and still be a patriot.

[The_Nice_Guy]

[quote="Frank_Scenario"]Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."[quote]

Bitterly hostile land? Iraq? When the Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War and failed, and even now hoping that Saddam is disposed?

There's actually now plenty of evidence that any effort to remove Saddam from power would have been welcomed by the Iraqi people, the Kurds, and anybody who had suffered under his rule. So that just about rules out the 'bitterly hostile land' part.

Sure, the rest of the Arabs might be mad, but they never needed a real reason anyway. If Iraq was liberated tomorrow and the majority of the populace say ou loud that they are grateful and happy that Saddam has been removed, a great proportion of the Arab world would still be mad at the US for various reasons. So much for their standing up for their brothers in Iraq.

Lastly, I don't remember the same Arab street standing up for the Kurds. Which shows only one thing. They're hypocrites.

The Nice Guy

[Axis Kast]

One can oppose war, despise Bush, hate his policies, and even admire the Iraqis who are defending their homes from what they see as an invasion and still be a patriot.

Too often it doesn't stop there. There's also the question on what logical grounds you oppose the war. So many can't make a decent argument validifying their position.

[Vympel]

Bitterly hostile land? Iraq? When the Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War and failed, and even now hoping that Saddam is disposed?

No, a *segment* of the Iraqi people tried to rise up. Not all.

There's actually now plenty of evidence that any effort to remove Saddam from power would have been welcomed by the Iraqi people, the Kurds, and anybody who had suffered under his rule. So that just about rules out the 'bitterly hostile land' part.

If that's the case, perhaps you'd care to explain the Iraqi resistance now? There have been no massive welcoming as liberators, with the only mildly sedate people (rather than hand-grenade tossers) being the ones who tried to rise up in the first place. Their reasoning, IMO, was perfectly valid.

Lastly, I don't remember the same Arab street standing up for the Kurds. Which shows only one thing. They're hypocrites.

Easily explained, since the Kurds are not Arabs. They're Kurds. They're also quite big on the using-terror-to-establish-kurdistan out of the territory of other countries.

[Axis Kast]

No, a *segment* of the Iraqi people tried to rise up. Not all.

Thirty thousand.

If that's the case, perhaps you'd care to explain the Iraqi resistance now? There have been no massive welcoming as liberators, with the only mildly sedate people (rather than hand-grenade tossers) being the ones who tried to rise up in the first place. Their reasoning, IMO, was perfectly valid.

Many Iraqis are naturally resentful of the fact that somebody else came in to topple the current regimé – no matter how hated. There has thus been a general move to promote “one day soldiers” – the kind that pick up a rifle out of obligation to family and country, fire until confronted with death or dismemberment, and go home after having lost the battle.

It’s also been pointed out that Hussein’s men still operate behind-the-lines. There is great fear that the Coalition might not have eliminated all resistance as of yet. Any outpouring of support will therefore be transient – based on the immediate presence of U.S. or U.K. troops – or guarded.

[Frank_Scenario]

One can oppose war, despise Bush, hate his policies, and even admire the Iraqis who are defending their homes from what they see as an invasion and still be a patriot.

Too often it doesn't stop there. There's also the question on what logical grounds you oppose the war. So many can't make a decent argument validifying their position.

This is true. It also holds for those who support war. In fact, I'd venture the suggestion that for almost all positions, the majority of the adherents are not capable of justifying it independently (though cthey can recite justifications that they have been given).

Most of the pro-war people whom I have met have done nothing more than spout the party line time and again. They just say, "Saddam is a threat" without actually having evidence. This is not to say that evidence doesn't exist; they just don't have it.

Surprisingly, the anti-war people whom I have met tend to have evidence, but this is because the anti-war people I associate with are the organizers of demonstrations, debates, rallies, and the like; they are the people behind the movement (on a local level), and it would stand to reason that they would be the most well-informed. I don't deal with the rank-and-file of the anti-war movement, but I do for those who support war.

[Frank_Scenario]

Bitterly hostile land? Iraq? When the Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War and failed, and even now hoping that Saddam is disposed?

As Vympel pointed out, it was not the entirety of the people. Keep in mind that Hussein has been a major figure on the Iraqi political landscape since 1966, and has been the man in charge since 1979. According to the CIA World Factbook, 41% of the population of the country is under the age of 14; 95% is less than 64. 60% of Iraq is less than 24. What this means is this: 60% of the nation has never experienced any government but Saddam. What we are fighting is not just a corrupt government, but 37 years of socialization. Under Soviet rule, many Russians found nothing odd about going to the polls and voting for the one name on the list. Many of them loved their country, which is why they rushed to the side of Stalin (a murderous dicatator on a scale Saddam could never aspire to) to defend it from Germany. Even those under a brutal, repressive regime will defend their nation.

There's actually now plenty of evidence that any effort to remove Saddam from power would have been welcomed by the Iraqi people, the Kurds, and anybody who had suffered under his rule. So that just about rules out the 'bitterly hostile land' part.

Care to give us some of this evidence? Jeremy Scahill, an independent reporter who has spent most of the last year in Iraq, reports that "the current crisis has brought to the surface a vibrant political debate." Undoubtedly, some Iraqis want America to invade. But the thousands of Iraqi civilians who returned to their country from abroad to sacrifice themselves in opposition of America suggests a powerful opposition. Scahill quotes an Iraqi engineer from Baghdad, who says "We don't want Saddam, but that doesn't mean we want America, either."

[The_Nice_Guy]

As Vympel pointed out, it was not the entirety of the people.

It was still significant in that it showed that some of the Iraqis were dissatisfied with Saddam, and wanted out. Furthermore, the lack of real resistance and plain apathy, and in some cases, shows of gratitude, from the Iraqi people in the present conflict shows that an invading force, even if not welcomed by open arms, might not be actively opposed by a bitter and hostile populace.

Being attacked by a hostile civilian population ala Chechnya and occupying ground with apathetic civilians are two quite different situations. I'll say the latter was alwasy more likely, even in the event of an Allied assault to remove Saddam in the 1st Gulf War.

What this means is this: 60% of the nation has never experienced any government but Saddam. What we are fighting is not just a corrupt government, but 37 years of socialization.

Does that indoctrination mean that most of the people are willing to fight against any invader? If they aren't so willing now, then surely 12 years ago, with 12 less years of indoctrination, by your logic(implicit premise), they would be even less inclined to die for Saddam.

Of course, 12 years of sanctions were a big factor in their present state of little-to-none resistance.

Even those under a brutal, repressive regime will defend their nation.

Well, I don't see hordes of young Iraqis flocking to defend Saddam now, so your 'will' is clearly wrong.

The difficulty lies in this. 12 years ago, could the Allied forces have convinced the Iraqis that they going in to punish Saddam, and not Iraq as a whole? If they could, then they'd have faced less resistance. And no bitterly hostile populace.

But if they somehow went in with the message that they're going to conquer Iraq, take their oil, and kill their babies, then certainly, a bloodbath would be inevitable.

Care to give us some of this evidence? Jeremy Scahill, an independent reporter who has spent most of the last year in Iraq, reports that "the current crisis has brought to the surface a vibrant political debate." Undoubtedly, some Iraqis want America to invade. But the thousands of Iraqi civilians who returned to their country from abroad to sacrifice themselves in opposition of America suggests a powerful opposition. Scahill quotes an Iraqi engineer from Baghdad, who says "We don't want Saddam, but that doesn't mean we want America, either."

Well, there're the expatriate pro-American Iraqis as well. Are their views any less valid? Let's see now. There's Amir Taheri. That prize winning poet(can't remember his name).

On the side of the people in Iraq, there's the piece several topics back about the guy who went to Baghdad to visit his folks. There's the lawyer who helped rescue Private Lynch. There's Dakel Abbas, from 12 years ago.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110003287

The money quote:

Besides, in my unit everybody hated Saddam. They cursed him like the good chief of my village used to curse him before being arrested and executed. I mean, openly. They called him terrible names, they wanted to desert, to escape . . .

In any case, remove Saddam first. The Iraqi people can make their decision once he's removed. Whether or not the US will abide by their decision would be interesting.

The Nice Guy

[Ignorant twit]

It's not just Bush being blunt. I've no problem with politicians being blunt, and if you take e.g. the foreign minister of the previous Finnish government (the one that's leaving office in the next couple of weeks), Erkki Tuomioja, me and my family's appreciation of the man (whom we rather detest) went up several notches for being blunt about some things that are usually considered political taboo. The problem with Bush is not being blunt, it's being blunt and contemptuous simultaneously, as well as bullying and threatening. And he also bluntly makes it clear that he isn't even interested in listening to what anyone else is going to say and will just ignore them and do what he wants anyway. Add to that all the talk (whether just rumors or not) by US Administration officials about how the US will "make Germany pay" for not supporting the war, the "you are with us or the enemy" rhetoric, demanding unconditional support and then snubbing the offered help (Afghanistan after 9/11), that's what makes him so hated abroad.

Umm most US officials don't give a rat's ass what public opinion is, except in a Machiavellian sense, most just don't come out and SAY it. Did Roosevelt actually listen to the millions of people who wanted to maintain American Neutrality? No, he worked to actively support the British and generally ignored the will of the populace. Did Reagan care when expanded nuclear deployment what the average Joe thought? No. Hell Bush Sr. basically decided to kick Saddam's ass bilaterally with Thatcher, and I can't recall the opposition having any real impact.

Honestly, which political leader has ever actually given a crap about listening to the foreign public? Most, if not all US policy is designed to appeal top down.

There is that, but it hardly counts since the American administration didn't even make an effort to sell the war to the rest of us. It spent a lot of time and propaganda effort to get the American people behind the war, and then basically said to the rest of the world that it should go along just because it said so, and when asked for justification and evidence, it just repeated what it had said earlier and when pressed, manufactured "evidence" out of whole cloth! What works to convince the American public does not necessarily sway Europeans or others, something the Bush administration simply failed to recognize from the looks of things. Or it just didn't care, which is just as (if not more) likely.

I don't recall an American administration EVER trying to sell foreign policy to the public in foreign countries. Can you point me to a single speech from Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, or somebody further back that targetted a foreign audience? Look at the coalition building of Bush Sr. He got foreign leaders on board and let them convince their own citizens. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand foreign policy we've always worked top down.

[Edi]

It usually does work top down, but you can equally apply what I said about the Bush Administrtaion not convincing foreign public opinion to them not convincing even foreign heads of state for the most part. The Bush Administration has been whining about Europe (UK, Spain and Denmark excepted) not getting with the program just because they say so, and I'll damn well blast them for it. They want the support, they can damn well give some convincing reasons for it instead of lying and manufacturing evidence out of whole cloth. I'm all for Saddam getting a bullet in the head instead of a mindless far left anti-war nut, but I also happen to think that Shrub is an assclown. He hasn't so much tried to persuade the rest of the world (or Europe at least) than to dictate to us what is going to be done about Iraq. He comes across like that even to friendly nations, and that's why he isn't liked, at all. Most of his cabinet is exactly the same.

Americans always seem to wonder why Clinton (whom a great many in the US despise) was so much more popular abroad, but at least he tried to take into account the interests of others (or at the very least give an appearance of doing so) even if he ultimately ignored them and acted otherwise. In politics public perception is or becomes reality very easily, unlike in science, and Bush and his administration are absolutely incompetent in the PR arena, as evidenced by the debacle preceding the war.

Edi