Public image clusterfuck

[Darth Wong]

OK, I think it's common knowledge that Bush and Co. have fucked up the propaganda war big-time. People from both sides of the pro-war/anti-war debate seem to agree that irrespective of whether you agree with the war, the job of selling it to the world has been (and continues to be) handled very poorly.

Question: who do we blame for this? What crucial mistakes were made, and by whom? How could it be fixed?

From where I sit, it's a top-to-bottom problem, not just a leadership problem. Look at the news media; in the short span of this war, we have seen the Al-Jazeera airing uncensored footage and information (albeit with their own "spin" on it) while American news networks air heavily self-censored footage and information (again, with their own "spin" on it, but with the added PR problem of having to publicly fire reporters like Arnett for saying the wrong thing). Worse yet, serious falsehoods have been aired by the American news networks (most notably the "We have control of Basra" bit, which was aired more than a week ago and which is still quite obviously not true). It goes without saying that this situation looks bad, because outside the US, the American news networks are starting to look like a kangaroo outfit.

And of course, at the government level, Colin Powell got massive egg on his face for presenting WMD evidence that turned out to be forgeries, and George Bush made it quite clear to the UN that he didn't give a shit about their input by moving troops into the area and preparing for war BEFORE bothering to ask them for a resolution on the issue. And Rumsfeld is just getting on everyones' nerves; can someone get rid of him?

How could the country with the world's most pervasive mass-media presence and probably most of the world's best spin-doctors and marketing specialists botch the publicity portion of this war so badly? How could a two-bit asshole like Hussein be winning the propaganda war? Doesn't this seem exceedingly strange?

[Joe]

Maybe a lot of it has to do with Bush himself. Bush was not well-liked abroad even before 9/11. The world views him as a spoiled, trigger-happy, millionaire cowboy and perhaps they aren't completely wrong in that regard. If McCain were President, I bet he would have been able to sell the war much better, with more support abroad.

[Crown]

Saddam has the easy side of the coin, all he has to do is sit back and watch as 'collateral damage' pile up. There have been some serious screw-ups leading to the war (Colin's forgerd documents about the Uranium sale from Niger being one of them), however when the war begins, the offensive side is always at a PR dis-advantage.

The only thing that could possibly help them is if Saddam actually started doing some of the shit he is known to have do to the Kurds and the Shi'ite muslims in the past, now. Short of that, perhaps an actual find of the WMD that this war is supposedly being fought over for, you know as opposed to oil.

[Stormbringer]

I blame Bush and Colin Powell. Bush doesn't know foriegn relations at all and doesn't know how to handle himself in world politics. He's got the mentality that he can do as he pleases without consequence.

Colin Powell should have pointed out the sheer stupidty of it. He's the Secretary of State and god damn it he should have set George down and explained it to him. I think it's as much his fault that we never made a clear cut, consistent arguement as to why we needed to go into Iraq.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Rumsfield and his group made the mistake of under estimating the Iraqi's willingness to fight on their own turf. Rumsfield has come across and looking a little bit like the leadership in Vietnam. A number cruncher that is more obsessed with his plan, than listening to what the military wants. Even if this is not the case, he is coming across that way.

I think the press is obsessed with a time frame to point I just dont understand.

Since the previous post is quoted entirely, with a lot of text added, I am deleting your previous post. Thanks Jawa, The Yosemite Bear.

[Crown]

Colin Powell should have pointed out the sheer stupidty of it. He's the Secretary of State and god damn it he should have set George down and explained it to him. I think it's as much his fault that we never made a clear cut, consistent arguement as to why we needed to go into Iraq.

To be fair, it was the influence of Powell and Blair that guided Bush into at least trying to go to the UN and seek international support.

[Axis Kast]

Wong, you seem to enjoy pointing out that we moved troops into the theater before the invasion was even discussed in too much detail.

So? It doesn't necessarily mean we intended to give a big, "Fuck you!" to Kofi Annan and Co. You'll notice that even the French insisted we keep our troops in place to coerce Hussein into compliance.

[MKSheppard]

Colin Powell should have pointed out the sheer stupidty of it. He's the Secretary of State and god damn it he should have set George down and explained it to him. I think it's as much his fault that we never made a clear cut, consistent arguement as to why we needed to go into Iraq.

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.

[irishmick79]

Powell thought that he could get France to sign off and endorse the Iraq War. The administration made a huge mistake and let him try. The resulting diplomatic clusterfuck could have been completely avoided had the United States just simply said, "screw you" to the UN. Granted, most nations who were inclined to disagree with the US would have still been pissed anyways, but they wouldn't have had the added indignity of getting US sponsored resolutions shoved down their throat in the UN.

[Crown]

Wong, you seem to enjoy pointing out that we moved troops into the theater before the invasion was even discussed in too much detail.

So? It doesn't necessarily mean we intended to give a big, "Fuck you!" to Kofi Annan and Co. You'll notice that even the French insisted we keep our troops in place to coerce Hussein into compliance.

You would have a point, if the leader of you country hadn't named Iraq as part of the 'Axis of Evil' with the set aggenda of going after the for-mentioned axis with any and all means necessary.

[Joe]

Colin Powell should have pointed out the sheer stupidty of it. He's the Secretary of State and god damn it he should have set George down and explained it to him. I think it's as much his fault that we never made a clear cut, consistent arguement as to why we needed to go into Iraq.

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.

I don't know if you can blame that solely on Colin Powell. If we had finished the job in Iraq twelve years ago, that would have just unleashed the international shitstorm we're seeing now then.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

And yet, had we finished the job 12 years ago, we wouldn't have our men and women out there dying. We had a huge advantage in 1991. Not as much so now.

[Axis Kast]

Bush was doomed from the beginning.

Half the country, still smarting over Al Gore’s electoral defeat and looking to “stick it” to a President they blame for a post-9/11 recession immediately cried, “Foul!’ and identified the war in Iraq as a means by which to deflect legitimate attention from domestic policy.

The rest of the world, already wary over the War on Terror – an agenda pressed on them by the U.S. in the first place – was utterly startled, wondrous at the idea that George Bush now planned a peacekeeping mission halfway around the world in a country with which they had concerned themselves very little since 1991. Some – those in France and German – saw a means to “test the waters,” see what “stuff” this new White House and its President were made of, and begin to play shell games on the Security Council, hopeful that they could in the process coalesce a European Union ostensibly more in line with their own policies. It seemed a sure bet.

Chirac had all the advantages in the world. Bush intended that UNMOVIC would merely confirm violation of Resolution 1441 and provide an easily acquired façade of legitimacy. The French hit on a new plan: let Hans Blix effect disarmament if that was the new goal. Not only would they block the American power-play with a seemingly legitimate move, but Bush was slow on the uptake. It took months before he was able to articulate what he should have harped all along; there can be no true disarmament until Saddam himself is gone. The rest of the world rallied around Hans Blix, a man closer to European sensibilities and obviously eager to avoid an expensive war for which they would be asked to foot the bill. Russia and China were only too happy to follow suit, relying on the French to mouth their concerns while adding fuel to the fire. Moscow and Beijing both avoided being pasted as anti-American – that would have been far easier than tarnishing Paris and Berlin, longtime American allies. Hell, Putin even felt so confident as to sequester Saddam for new oil concessions three weeks out. The Chinese, planning their own holding action in North Korea - and absolutely pinning for the U.S. to enter into embarrassing engagement with Kim Jong-Il – did little more than make critical comments, feeding into the hands of American protestors, eager to get the U.N. stamp of approval before moving and in the process neglecting any real memory or understanding of realpolitik.

Could Bush have saved face? Perhaps by repeating the same “Saddam must go” message from the start and insisting that the UNSC was waffling out of self-interest would have earned him some points. He should have played up the French connection to Iraq far more – i.e. the weapons shipments – and also made a more clear presentation of his post-war plans, even if only preliminary. It would have legitimized the whole process that much more.

That said, I agree with Trailer Park Jawa. It’s been ten days and already people are screaming that it isn’t over yet. Give me a break.

[Queeb Salaron]

In times like these, I always remember a great quote from a friend of mine.

"So I was watching TV, and all of a sudden there was this Colin (colon) on TV spouting the most vile hot air, stinking up the entire room with just the merest thought of the nastiness incurred in that TV studio by its flatulent presence.

"And then it stopped, and there was this funny commercial about a guy farting."

[Stormbringer]

Wong, you seem to enjoy pointing out that we moved troops into the theater before the invasion was even discussed in too much detail.

So? It doesn't necessarily mean we intended to give a big, "Fuck you!" to Kofi Annan and Co. You'll notice that even the French insisted we keep our troops in place to coerce Hussein into compliance.

You would have a point, if the leader of you country hadn't named Iraq as part of the 'Axis of Evil' with the set aggenda of going after the for-mentioned axis with any and all means necessary.

Kast isn't ours. He's South African.

[Axis Kast]

You would have a point, if the leader of you country hadn't named Iraq as part of the 'Axis of Evil' with the set agenda of going after the for-mentioned axis with any and all means necessary.

Wong’s argument is that we shafted the United Nations by moving troops into the region in the first place. Keep in mind that UNMOVIC would never have been possible – hell, wasn’t possible without or until the arrival of American and British ground troops. What did the French and Germans send? A pair of old reconnaissance planes that did more harm to our logistical backbone than good for Blix?

Kast isn't ours. He's South African.

No, I’m “yours.” American. From New York.

[Crown]

Could Bush have saved face? Perhaps by repeating the same “Saddam must go” message from the start and insisting that the UNSC was waffling out of self-interest would have earned him some points. He should have played up the French connection to Iraq far more – i.e. the weapons shipments – and also made a more clear presentation of his post-war plans, even if only preliminary. It would have legitimized the whole process that much more.

That said, I agree with Trailer Park Jawa. It’s been ten days and already people are screaming that it isn’t over yet. Give me a break.

I would give you a brain if I could. The point is the Administration's handeling over 'the case for war' was horrendous. It provided at best suspect evidence and at worse total fabrications. The point is, rather than providing actual proof of their claims (like Iraq possessing biological agents like Anthrax supplied to it in the 80's by *shock* *gasp* *pause* the US), the Administration rather chose to present fabrications to launch an offensive war. This is what is meant by PR 'clusterfuck'.

EDIT: Spelling error corrected.

[Alex Moon]

Some thoughts...

The first part of the problem is the media especially the 24-hour cable news networks, who were constantly anylizing everybit of detail and bringing on hordes of "experts" to give their opinions. Yes, we've faced tougher opposition than was expected by some. However no plan survives first contact with the enemy, and after less than two weeks of fighting, Coalition forces are 50 miles from Bagdahd, and are advancing on other cities in the south. The war is still very successful, with few casualties compared to other conflicts. However, a successful war doesn't sell as many papers or as much air time.

As for the failure internationally, I think that some of it is overblown. We have support from a number of East European countries, as well as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Great Britain. However, much of the resistance from Europe comes from Politics in the EU, a rising muslim population that is changing the face of Europe, and a more extreme left wing that looks to it for support is partially responsible for the French and German opposition to the US.

It should be noted that France never seemed serious about any sort of action to disarm Iraq. They agreed to Resolution 1441 which essentially agreed that Iraq had not disarmed. They did this even though they have argued before that Iraq was disarmed. They had also encouraged an end to the sanctions in 1999, although the last proposal from France and Germany called for a continuation of sanctions, including keeping a large number of US troops in the Middle East to enforce the sanctions and increasing overflights in Iraq by UN nations. If they didn't agree to the situation before, we have no reason to believe that France will honor any new sanctions and inspection plan now. In fact, it's more likely that they will agree to it just long enough for war to be removed as an option, at which point they will demand an end to sanctions again.

In Asia Japan, still a major economic power, has supported our actions. While China has not, this can be seen primarily due to fears about the current tensions on the Korean penninsula. Tensions that could be worsened if N. Korea fears that it's next to be attacked.

[Tsyroc]

I don't know if you can blame that solely on Colin Powell. If we had finished the job in Iraq twelve years ago, that would have just unleashed the international shitstorm we're seeing now then.

I don't think you can lay the blame entirely on Colin Powell either. I do think that if Saddam and Co. had been given the boot 12 years ago we wouldn't have had troops on Saudi soil for 12 years and perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Which is also interesting because 9/11 caused us to go into Afgahnistan without a whole lot of bitching from the public. I also think that the conflict in Afghanistan and 9/11 made it much easier for Bush to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public. Round and round it goes.

[Axis Kast]

I acknowledged that Bush blundered, didn't I? You're just spoling for an argument.

Crown, the man was doomed from the get-go. He couldn't have won this time around even if he'd played a good hand.

[Darth Wong]

I acknowledged that Bush blundered, didn't I? You're just spoling for an argument.

Crown, the man was doomed from the get-go. He couldn't have won this time around even if he'd played a good hand.

How do you know that the world reaction would have been the same without his unique ability to piss off other countries?

[Durandal]

Bush took international sympathy and threw it back in the world's face by making an ultimatum. You make ultimatums to the people that hurt you, not to people that are offering you sympathy. You don't tell the world that if they don't follow your lead, they're considered enemies. He was disliked enough before 9/11; now people just hate him because he couldn't graciously accept sympathy or even ask for help. He demanded it. That makes him come off as a hot-tempered brat.

Yes, we were wronged. Yes, we suffered as a nation. Does that make it everyone else's problem? No. Some countries just aren't at a high enough risk of terrorism to justify expending resources fighting it. We happen to be.

The problem I foresee with the War on Terror is that it'll turn out exactly like the War on Drugs: never-ending. When can we declare that the War on Terror has been won? What definitive goals can we set? Even after al Qaeda is eliminated, what's to stop independent factions from springing up? That's the problem with all these bullshit wars we wage. There's no end in sight. What are we going to do? Invade every country that we think might possibly be supporting terrorism and install democracies there?

[Joe]

I acknowledged that Bush blundered, didn't I? You're just spoling for an argument.

Crown, the man was doomed from the get-go. He couldn't have won this time around even if he'd played a good hand.

How do you know that the world reaction would have been the same without his unique ability to piss off other countries?

It's true that Bush could have done a lot of things better, but this guy was pretty thoroughly disliked abroad even before 9/11, like I said earlier. He could only ride the 9/11 wave so long before that reality kicked in again.

[Tsyroc]

How do you know that the world reaction would have been the same without his unique ability to piss off other countries?

He does have some spetacular skill at it doesn't he.

Maybe he needs to get naked an roll around with Clinton so whatever made him appeal to other countries rubs off on him. Even a little bit would help.

[Axis Kast]

How do you know that the world reaction would have been the same without his unique ability to piss off other countries?

As Durandal mentioned, we were fucked when after September 11th Bush made the "with or against us" speech. It's truth, but that didn't mean it had to be said.

We set ourselves up for a challenge. At best we might have wrangled the Germans. France is a bit too heavily-invested in Iraq. The protests might have been a little smaller. Nothing really changed.

Bush dug his own hole, but he certainly made use of some prior digging.