Advertise here: Contact FM.

Media Misinformation
October 3, 2003 6:25 AM Subscribe

From the Asia Times — "The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday." [more inside]
posted by grrarrgh00 (44 comments total)

The story continues: "And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)."

· PIPA's website
· The press release [PDF]
· The questionnaire behind the survey
posted by grrarrgh00 at 6:33 AM on October 3, 2003

It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.

More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found.

Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely" to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.

The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent.

IOW, it has been scientifically proven that Bush / war suporters are likely not to have a grip on reality. Not exactly breaking news, but nonetheless a handy link.
posted by magullo at 6:42 AM on October 3, 2003

This reminds me of the studies pointing out that people who watch a lot of TV are convinced that going outside is a dangerous proposition, for, while the crime rate has held steady for decades, a higher and higher proportion of TV news has been dedicated to the coverage of violent crime.
posted by kozad at 6:52 AM on October 3, 2003

IOW, it has been scientifically proven that Bush / war suporters are likely not to have a grip on reality. Not exactly breaking news, but nonetheless a handy link.

Actually, I think it proves that those who don't have a good grip on reality--or at least of the evidence regarding the wrongdoing of the Iraqi regime--tend to be Bush/war supporters. Still quite interesting, though.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:57 AM on October 3, 2003

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong.

I'm shocked. Why did nobody tell me this earlier?
posted by PrinceValium at 7:06 AM on October 3, 2003

I guess Bruce doesn't watch Fox.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:10 AM on October 3, 2003

al Qaeda links? No. Nothing "close".
Troops found WMD? No, not yet.
World opinion in our favor? Hah, you've GOT to be joking.

Did I, and do I continue to, support the war? Yes.

Sorry, guys, can't explain all of your opponents away as clueless nitwits yet. Keep trying.
posted by jammer at 7:37 AM on October 3, 2003

No one said anything about "all" the supporters. We're just talking about a good number of your like-minded travelling companions. How does it feel to have them support the cause for all the wrong reasons?

FYI: "Not yet" flies in the face of all available evidence
posted by magullo at 7:53 AM on October 3, 2003

al Qaeda links? No. Nothing "close".
Troops found WMD? No, not yet.
World opinion in our favor? Hah, you've GOT to be joking.

Did I, and do I continue to, support the war? Yes.

Sorry, guys, can't explain all of your opponents away as clueless nitwits yet. Keep trying.

Maybe not all, precisely, but there's you, it would seem. So, you know, that's one down.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:59 AM on October 3, 2003

(Sorry. Not often someone hands you a straight line like that.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:10 AM on October 3, 2003

Next thing you're gonna be telling me that WWF wrestling matches are rigged and fake!

Bunch of whiny, hippy, dope smoking, baby Jesus hating liberals! Just shut up! :-)
posted by nofundy at 8:14 AM on October 3, 2003

jammer, I'd have supported the war as well if and only if North Korea didn't exist.

There was a much more justified war waiting for us as far as WMD and humanitarian concerns went. That was the war I supported, not the one we had. Three concentration camps the size of DC? A cruel dictator threatening to bury my hometown (Seattle) "in a sea of nuclear fire?" Hell, I might have even enlisted under those circumstances.

But instead we went for a war where roughly three months prior to our engagement it became obvious that tales of the existence of WMD were greatly exaggerated. Regardless of whether the real reason for the war on Iraq was PNAC highjacking our foreign policy or simplistic oil-greed (or more probably a combination thereof), it wasn't the right war at the right time.
posted by Ryvar at 8:19 AM on October 3, 2003

The end of the article alludes to something I've been pondering for a while. First the quote:

Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions.

Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.

So, same news, different perceptions. I am constantly amazed at how folks with different ideologies can take the same set of information and use it to reinforce their own world view. I am just as guilty, but then again, if it's part of the human condition, is there anything to be "guilty" of?

We are all like the blind men with the elephant: "it's a snake!" "no, it's a tree!" "no, it's a wall!"
posted by whatnot at 8:25 AM on October 3, 2003

Sometimes these polls can be less than scientific, and often the results are overblown. I won't go into the statistical problems inherent in polling, but I do want to take issue with how the questionaire in this case matches up with the touted results. Question 17 asks "[i]f ONE of the networks below is your primary sources of news please select it." It then goes on to state "[i]f you get news from two or more networks about equally, just go on to the next question." In other words, the people who answered this question, and by extension, the people the poll labels as Bush and/or war supporters, are, by definition, people who watch only one news network. The problem, then, is not watching more commercial news, it's not getting enough news in the first place, commercial or not. We have no corresponding measure of how people who watch a combination of networks or obtain news stories about the war think about Bush, only that people who presumably did not answer that last question tend not to support the war as much as people who did answer it.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:26 AM on October 3, 2003

[Also, you link to the wrong press release. Press release, full findings.]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:30 AM on October 3, 2003

Stavros? No need to insinuate jammer is a clueless nitwit. That's getting too close to namecalling which is rude and juvenile and there's no place for such behavior in this thread. Besides, like Rush Limbaugh (or myself at times for that matter including now), give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself with it. No need to state the obvious, is whut ah'm a tryin' ta say. And speaking of the obvious:

Did Saddam ever have WMD? We may never know.
Did he actively make people think he did? Absolutely.
Was he trying to get WMD? Without a doubt.
Did he destroy or remove what evidence he could of what little he may or may not have had prior to "the coalition"s invasion? Evidence suggests that, but we don't know for sure.
Was Saddam a tyrant who bullied his own people and deserved to be toppled? Absolutely.
Did he need to be removed from power before his unruly behavior and refusal to play by the rules of the U.N. lead to more and bloodier deaths outside Iraq? Begrudgingly, I'll grant that.
Should America have done so without U.N. support? Absolutely not, and why? In for a penny in for 87 hundred billion pennies.
Should we have attempted to convince the world based on his tyrannical treatment of his own people? No, because it would not have been enough, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
Does the Bush Administrations faux pas set a precedent? Absolutely.

Whether we like it or not, North Korea's gonna be next, unless we remove Shrub from office. But then I get most of my news off the web, and National Public Radio, and I'm a liberal meat popsicle.

Should we have gone in on the pretense that he did have WMD when in hindsight its probable that he did not? No, but we didn't know that then, so the argument's pretty stupid.
Did the Bush Administration know there were no WMDs three months prior to launching the Iraq War? That my friends, is the $87 Billion Dollar Question. The answer could lead to impeachment.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:31 AM on October 3, 2003

Did the Bush Administration know there were no WMDs three months prior to launching the Iraq War? That my friends, is the $87 Billion Dollar Question. The answer could lead to impeachment.

I agree completely with you there. Bush's handling of the post-war era, to date, has been pretty bungling, from my point of view, and I'm getting pretty unhappy about it. If it turns out that, in the eyes of many, he invalidated what I would still consider to be a worthy effort by launching it on pretexts that he new to be false, well... any support for the man that I may continue to have would disappear.

But then I've only been a Bush supporter as a matter of convenience. When his ineptitude begins to threaten our national security and our necessary, imo, campaign to liberalise the middle east, I'll call as loudly as any one else here for his removal. But I suspect we'd disagree about who to replace him with. ;)

BTW, ZachsMind, thanks for the defense, however mild, against Stavros' namecalling above, but I think he was just taking the easy comedic bait, rather than being deliberately malicious. I'd expect a comment like that from the likes of quonsar or F&M, but not Stavros, I think.
posted by jammer at 8:57 AM on October 3, 2003

you're dreaming if you think the democrats could organize themselves well enough to rally public support for impeachment.
posted by mitchel at 9:00 AM on October 3, 2003

You know, people keep implying that if the administration was simply mistaken about the WMDs, then everything is fine and there's no problem. If we had seeked and received UN approval, then I'd go along with it, but the international community didn't think we had a case, so clearly we're left with two explanations.

The first explanation is that the administration purposefully misled us, so they could fight a war that they could win, since they failed to capture or kill Bin Laden, failed to destroy Al Qaeda, failed to permanently end the Taliban and failed to create a non-terrorist state in Afghanistan. In this case, we're being led by liars who care more about their political ambitions than the end of terrorism and the security of the United States.

The second explanation is that the administration was manipulated by external forces into believing in a non-existent Iraq/Al Qaeda link, a non-existent WMD program and a non-existent direct threat against America. I find this scenario far more frightening because it implies that people of unknown origin have the ability to manipulate our government so thoroughly that the whole administration was duped into a war which killed thousands of iraqi civilians, thousands of iraqi conscript soldiers and hundreds of americans.

So what's better? An administration full of politically motivated liars, or an administration full of fools?
posted by mosch at 9:08 AM on October 3, 2003

So what's better? An administration full of politically motivated liars, or an administration full of fools?

I had no idea they were mutually exclusive. I doubt we've ever had one that wasn't full of politically motivated liars, for that matter.

Seriously, though, I would go with the former as an explanation. I don't really think that the administration's behavior has been foolish. I think much of it is indefensible, but I'm actually (relatively) impressed by the outcome. Peace in the Middle East seems to require some drastic change to the status quo, and 9/11 handed this administration a (tenuous) excuse to make that change, after seeing how well Afghanistan worked out. (I know there are still serious problems there, but it didn't turn out to be the unmitigated disaster that many expected.)

As long as I've been alive, things have essentially been the same in the Middle East - few democracies, lots of tensions between Arab states and their own citizens, said states willing to foster hatred of the faraway Americans to relieve their own internal pressures, lots of problems between Israel and all the other Arab states. As I see it, the current administration wanted to do something which would break the stalemate. Prior to 9/11, this regional stalemate didn't really affect us in any serious way, now it does.

I don't think that the administration pursued war in Iraq because they "care more about their political ambitions than the end of terrorism and the security of the United States," I think they honestly believe that the security of the United States, in the long term, depends on fundamental change in the Middle East, and that the US, as the "sole superpower," can effect that change single-handedly. I think they lied about their motivation for the war for the simple reason that their true reason is much less likely to be acceptable to the American public or the rest of the world, but that doesn't make it a bad reason.

You may disagree with the efficacy of their actions, you may argue that they were unacceptable regardless of their outcome, but things have certainly changed for better or worse. I think it'll be ten years at least before we know the answer to that. I think that the Bush administration is the Raskolnikov of our times, the "extraordinary man" not fettered by conventional morality in using the end to justify the means, and I'm deeply torn about this.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:40 AM on October 3, 2003

"al Qaeda links? No. Nothing "close".
Troops found WMD? No, not yet.
World opinion in our favor? Hah, you've GOT to be joking."

I was told that we needed to nuke the middle east and turn it into a parking lot to take care of the ragheads once and for all.
It doesn't matter what channel an ignorant fuck-wit watches, the answer is still the same.
posted by 2sheets at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2003

Wasn't there a study by the University of Texas School of Journalism that concluded the more TV news you watched about the first Gulf War, the less likely you were to have correct information? I can't Google anything ATM
posted by infowar at 10:41 AM on October 3, 2003

I was and am in favor of invading Iraq in spite of a) not having watched any TV in twenty years and b) getting all my news and opinion from metafilter. I'm also in favor of invading Cuba, Colombia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Tibet and Zimbabwe. That's just the A list.
posted by jfuller at 10:42 AM on October 3, 2003

Should we have attempted to convince the world based on his tyrannical treatment of his own people? No, because it would not have been enough, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

On the precedent part,

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has said his country does not rule out a pre-emptive military strike anywhere in the world if the national interest demands it.

Russia follows US in small nukes plan
posted by y2karl at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2003

Troops found WMD? No, not yet.

But what is the surveyed's definition of WMD? Ask as we know educated people read. News will have you living in fear.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:02 AM on October 3, 2003

The question shouldn't be whether the average person is getting their information from television media, but whether they are concentrating on current events or world history. More often than not, all forms of media fail to see the Big Picture. Can't see the forest for the trees.

Jammer: "..taking the easy comedic bait, rather than being deliberately malicious.."

Oh absolutely, and I wanted to get my comedic insult in there but didn't wanna take the easy route, so accusingly played with potential malicious intent just to spin it into a sucker punch. it's a classic Don Rickles technique. In other words **wink** it wasn't a defense. No hard feelin's though. This place is a cream pie flyin' contest.

mitchel: "you're dreaming if you think the democrats could organize themselves well enough to rally public support for impeachment."

I had similar sentiments for the republicans around a decade ago, regarding WhiteWater, prior to Lewinsky's dress debacle. So don't count yer chickens. I mean you didn't honestly think Clinton's impeachment was about the dress, did you? They couldn't get him on Whitewater or the long list of deaths surrounding him, alleged in his stead, so the republicans kept plugging away and got him on something more sexy that they could sell to the public. That won't be a problem this time around. The majority of the country's been sold on impeaching Shrub since the minority voted him in.

Mosch: "So what's better? An administration full of politically motivated liars, or an administration full of fools?"

Reagan convinced the country that he wasn't responible for Iran Contra or other alleged practices done in his stead, but that he was just incompetent. That he was napping or was otherwise not in the loop. And the public bought it cuz they loved the guy. Hey, what can be said. Then and always, Ronnie was a lovable guy.

Shrub's incompetence reads as an antithesis of Reagan, and even tarnishes our memory of the 80s. Did Ronnie successfully snow us? Is that what Shrub's been doing too? Is a political snow job on the part of the republicans towards the American people how they ALWAYS operate?

Well, I hazard to believe yes, but so do the Dems. The difference HERE... Shrub's getting caught. Kinda like Nixon. Just worse. I mean at least Nixon opened China. I gotta grant him that. However, Shrub's closing Korea. Shrub's style of diplomacy makes James Kirk look like Jean-Luc Picard.

I mean let's completely miss out on walking a mile in someone else's shoes here. We have nukes and we're not giving them all up. Same for Russia. Y'know, if'n I were North Korea I'd be pretty pissed about that too, and not a little scared. The Bush Administration Reloaded completely misunderstands how to use diplomacy to defuse what could ultimately make our carcass' bones glow in the dark for a couple centuries. Shrub is reckless behind the Oval Office 'wheel' that drives this country. If I behaved as he did on the streets of Texas, I'd have my license revoked, yet he gets away with it?

me & my monkey: "...I'm deeply torn about this."

Torn? How can you be torn? You said yourself Shrub is like Raskolnikov. A leader needs to be fettered by the conventional morality of the people he serves. Right now it's a double standard. A democrat stains a dress, they throw the book at him. A republican puts military in harm's way without just cause? Creates more new enemies while unsuccessful in bringing in old ones? Not even a slap on the wrist, eh? Well. We'll see about that. Might does not make right. No matter how many times a war is claimed as won, that's still gonna be true.

By the way, who's Raskolnikov? *smirk*

jfuller: "...That's just the A list."

I would agree with you on one condition: that we turn them into states of the union. Add some stars to our flag. No more of this mamby pamby shit. No more giving billions of dollars away in restoration if we can't claim ownership of the property and convert the people to OUR way of thinking..!

Now. Once we come back from that cloud of completely absurd and irrational fantasy, we can get back to the purpose of this thread, which is to completely avoid finding a real solution to this problem that'll actually work.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:08 AM on October 3, 2003

you're dreaming if you think the democrats could organize themselves well enough to rally public support for impeachment.

I can see Fox News coverage of the proceedings already: "Impeachment 2: The Revenge"
posted by nath at 11:17 AM on October 3, 2003

Once we come back from that cloud of completely absurd and irrational fantasy, we can get back to the purpose of this thread, which is to completely avoid finding a real solution to this problem that'll actually work.

Call me a free-market nut, but I think this problem can at least be improved by some pretty basic (and likely) economic factors. This study--if it is shown to methodologically sound and its conclusions at least trenc correctly--can be a good first step. The polls that show a majority of Americans now thinking the war was a bad idea in some way have to represent some real people who have changed their minds. If these people stop watching FOX News en masse, it will go away or change. Certainly Rush's segment of the brainwashed masses are in the market for a new bullshit-regurgitating Mama Bird.

I think that there are people out there who suspect that they were lied to, and an ingrained distrust of the media in general is already common in many circles (including populations of poor/poorly educated people, but I can only assert that from personal anecdotal experience). People like to personify and simplify their problems, and in this situation that could well jive with the truth of the matter: some media outlets were demonstrably more slanted and propagandistic than others, and they have ruined their credibility as information outlets.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:37 AM on October 3, 2003

me & my monkey: I think that the Bush administration is the Raskolnikov of our times, the "extraordinary man" not fettered by conventional morality in using the end to justify the means, and I'm deeply torn about this.

Well, if it's any consolation, don't forget that in the end, Raskolnikov is undone by his guilty conscience, helped mightly along by the woman he wanted to help, who was offended by his offer of ill-gotten gain.
posted by mkultra at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2003

OH! THAT Raskolnikov! *blank stare*... I don't think Shrub has a conscience.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:50 AM on October 3, 2003

Torn? How can you be torn? You said yourself Shrub is like Raskolnikov. A leader needs to be fettered by the conventional morality of the people he serves. Right now it's a double standard. A democrat stains a dress, they throw the book at him. A republican puts military in harm's way without just cause? Creates more new enemies while unsuccessful in bringing in old ones? Not even a slap on the wrist, eh? Well. We'll see about that. Might does not make right. No matter how many times a war is claimed as won, that's still gonna be true.

Well, first, I agree with what I perceive as the underlying justification for the war - the breaking of the logjam that is the Middle East.

Second, I think it's unrealistic to judge governments as if they were individuals, or even to judge the individuals who run a government the same way that one would judge private actions. I think there's some potential validity to Isaiah Berlin's interpretation of Machiavelli - essentially, the state may have to violate accepted morality in order to allow its citizens to live moral lives of their own.

Third, bringing up Clinton is irrelevant to me. I don't care how many plo chops he got, as long as he performed his official duties well. I don't think he did that consistently, actually, when it comes to foreign policy, but I don't think he did anything worthy of impeachment. So expecting condemnation for Bush because others condemned Clinton for lesser offenses doesn't do anything for me.

Finally, I'm not convinced that, ten years from now, the end result won't be a better world overall. From that perspective, who cares that we've pissed off the French and the Russians right now? What, really, have either of those governments ever done for world peace or the betterment of mankind? It's not like they're acting out of anything other than their own base self-interest.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:07 PM on October 3, 2003

It's not like they're acting out of anything other than their own base self-interest.

the crux of your self-delusion is that the bush administration is.
posted by quonsar at 12:13 PM on October 3, 2003

Roskolnikov is the central character of Crime & Punishment, who murders an elderly pawnbroker and her retarded sister, justifying his actions on the grounds that he is a kind of "enlightened being", able to act above society's laws on the grounds that he can put her money to better use. There's a whole lot in there about society, faith, and redemption, but it's essentially a very nuanced take on whether the ends justify the means. Never personally read the book, but my g/f was in an excellent theatrical adaptation of it in Chicago over the summer.

An apt analogy, btw.
posted by mkultra at 12:30 PM on October 3, 2003

the crux of your self-delusion is that the bush administration is.

No, the crux of my self-delusion is that I think I can still behave like someone half my age, and I won't be really sore the next morning.

I guess what I mean by self-interest is that the French and Russians, like us, are acting to further the interests of their citizens. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, although I do think that in the long term, their true interests may lie in different directions than they currently perceive.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:00 PM on October 3, 2003

So you don't know what their intentions are, but since they've taken a different course of action they are to be distrusted? To spell it out for you, your delusion is that we're somehow more concerned and more moral than the French and Russians.

The French and Russian solution to Iraq was free trade. It is a slower process with just as many pitfalls as our strategy of forced liberation. The one major difference is trade has successfully changed societies. China is the biggest example of this. On the other hand liberation like this has only ever worked twice (Germany & Japan), but it was a dramaticly different to,e and had the support of nearly the entire world. We've tried for 50 years to reproduce that result, but we've never had the same conditions. unfortunately when this process fails, it fails horribly. See the post-colonial Middle East and South America for examples.

Your opinion is probably fueled ny a misconception that I hear almost daily on the news. That the reason that the Iraqi infrastructure is so bad is that Saddam Hussien chose to build palaces rather than water treatment plants. When in fact it was the US (with strong French and Russian protest) whose policy of broad sanctions created this environment. How do you maintain a clean water supply when the U.S. doesn't allow you buy chlorine?

Has there ever been a case where sanctions against a dictator didn't cause him to be more brutal to his people? I surely can't think of any. Is it a surprise that he'd use force to crush the internal rebellion that sanctions are supposed to encourage? How are the citizens supposed to overthrow their oppressor when they are worried about obtaining food, water, and shelter? In fact the logic behind this is so screwy it make my head hurt. How are people supposed to rise up against a leader who is the only one that is legally able to import anything?

We've reaped exactly what we've sown in Iraq because we've neglected history. I hope that we can realize this and change our policies in the future.
posted by betaray at 3:03 PM on October 3, 2003

So you don't know what their intentions are, but since they've taken a different course of action they are to be distrusted?

No, I'm just acknowledging that all parties involved, us included, are acting out of our own selfish motives. I'm more invested in our selfish motives than those of others, of course.

To spell it out for you, your delusion is that we're somehow more concerned and more moral than the French and Russians.

I love having my delusions explained to me. What would I do without the insights of others, who clearly understand me better than I understand myself!

Seriously, I have no illusions about our standing on the moral high ground. Let me say this as clearly as I can. Our government is no more moral - or less moral - than those of France and Russia with regard to foreign policy. We were happy to support Saddam when we were concerned about Iran, we were indifferent to his atrocities until he threatened our oil supply by invading Kuwait, we were content to let the Shiite resistance fend for themselves after we'd promised their freedom. Our hands are certainly covered with plenty of blood, through our own indifference and self-interest if not malice.

We, the French, and the Russians, are all equally concerned. Our concerns are clearly different. We wouldn't be concerned at all if it weren't for people flying into our buildings and blowing them up. But they are, and that does change things. It increases our willingness to overturn the status quo, because that status quo is now unacceptable to us. We, as a country, don't give a damn if we piss off France and Russia if we think it'll potentially increase our security, and I'm convinced that the administration does think that invading Iraq will, in the long term, increase our security. Assuming that we're ever able to withdraw from Iraq, we presumably won't have to station troops in Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam.

We'd have been happy with the French and Russian "solution" of free trade, if not for 9/11, because we really wouldn't care that much one way or the other. And to call free trade a "solution" for the problem of Saddam Hussein is patently ridiculous. The French & Russians would've been perfectly happy to leave Saddam in power forever, as long as it didn't affect them any. As I recall from Gulf War I, it wasn't the French or the Russians who expended blood and treasure to push Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:03 PM on October 3, 2003

me & my monkey:
1. How will an invasion and occupation of an Arab country increase american security exactly? Israel provides a strong counter-example (as does Russia in Chechnya, and the UK in N. Ireland) that occupation and military violence leads to more, not less, terrorist activities.
2. Why exactly is Saddam invading Kuwait for allegedly pumping oil from Iraq's reserves and disposing of a despotic and undemocratic regime, different from Bush invading Iraq (for ?????) and disposing of a despotic and undemocratic regime? Yes, Saddam was a more violent thug but on the other hand Iraq's claims on Kuwait are certainly more valid than those of the US on Iraq.
3. If my memory serves me well, the French and the Germans (who were and are if anything even more anti-war than the French) did take part and, among many others, paid for the first Gulf war:
Throughout the Cold War, including both the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States used its dominant economy to finance overseas bases and military actions, but relied increasingly on contributions from allies, especially Japan and Germany. These culminated in the Gulf War of 1990-1991, in which all outlays by the United States were covered by allied payments, reminding historians of the way the Athenian navy had been financed by the Delian League in antiquity.
Also this:
In the first Gulf War, about 90% of the $61 billion tab was picked up by U.S. allies, which included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, Germany and South Korea. Since the administration has signaled a willingness to go it alone this time, Democrats insist that the U.S. will end up bearing the brunt of the new cost.
4. Why is it France's business, anyway, to finance America's colonial wars? America certainly (and rightly) didn't finance France's Algerian war, despite the cold war.
5. What exactly is the connection between Iraq and 9/11 again?
posted by talos at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2003

We wouldn't be concerned at all if it weren't for people flying into our buildings and blowing them up.

So you believe that our sanctions are indifference? You need to face the reality that things like 9/11 don't occur in a vacuum. We must realize that our actions have repercussions. The average Arab would be just as happy to ignore us as we would be to ignore them. However our government isn't ignoring the Middle East in their eyes we're working to make it just like the rest of the Western World. They don't appreciate it, and it's wrong for us to continue to force our lifestyle upon them.

And to call free trade a "solution" for the problem of Saddam Hussein is patently ridiculous.

So you're just going to ignore China? All right, let's break down your solution: armed conflict.

1. Do you honestly believe by killing conscripted soldiers did anything to improve the Iraqi opinion of America?

2. Can you show me a conflict where the victor was able to so fundamentally change the defeated society?

It hasn't worked yet in Afghanistan.

Colonial imperialism didn't bring about change towards Western viewpoints in the Middle East. If you were aware of your history you'd realize that most of the current problems in Middle East and Africa are in fact because of Colonialism.

U.S. Cold War intervention did more to help the proliferation of armed rebel groups in the South America than anything else. Don't forget this is the same kind of intervention that led to Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

If you had any knowledge of foreign affairs, you might point to Kosovo as successful military operation of this kind. However, again as with WWII there are the same fundamental differences. Regional and global support, and we had a clear mission: stop ethnic cleansing. Our mission in Iraq has never been that clear or strong.

Again, I ask you to give me any examples of lasting, stable, and free governments being imposed externally. There has to be some if I'm being so ridiculous, right?

3. Prosperous populations hate wars. What stopped the thousands of years of war in Europe? Do you think they suddenly decided to stop? No the reason is that they now have to much to lose by starting wars. Do you think it's just a coincidence that none of the terrorist states are First World countries. What drove Germany to invade Poland? History, it's more important than you think.

You've heard of the Cold War, right? Do you understand why it was a Cold War and not all out aggression? Answer: Because both sides had far too much to lose by entering real hostilities. Sure that's the ultimate simplification of the issue, but it's still true. Most people become a lot less interested in Jihads and destroying other cultures if it will cost them their warm bed and daily hot meals. Now if they don't have those things to begin with, you better watch out.

4. You make no attempt to argue that the U.S. created the conditions that Saddam thrived under. This is important. Saddam only had the Iron gripped control over the country because the U.S. pursued a policy that made only his enemies weaker. That sounds like a flawed policy to me.

As I recall from Gulf War I, it wasn't the French or the Russians who expended blood and treasure to push Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

While I respect differences of opinion, with this statement you prove that you are simply ignorant. Reading this statement makes me see red. I wish there was something worse I could call you than just ignorant because you are the worst kind of ignorant you are willfully and maliciously ignorant.

France and gave neither treasure or blood? Tell that to the 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missile cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates that were deployed by France during the war. Tell that to the 2 French casualties, and the 25 French wounded.

I'll give you that the U.S.S.R. didn't have military involvement since Iraq was a strong ally of the U.S.S.R, but the U.S.S.R. itself was highly unstable at that point. They were, however, key in pre-war and post-war diplomacy and disarmament. It's difficult to make any direct comparisons, because this is not the same as present day Russia. You did know that Russia didn't exist in 1991, right?

You are just a wealth of misconceptions, and where is it exactly that you get your news?
posted by betaray at 8:57 PM on October 3, 2003

1. How will an invasion and occupation of an Arab country increase american security exactly? Israel provides a strong counter-example (as does Russia in Chechnya, and the UK in N. Ireland) that occupation and military violence leads to more, not less, terrorist activities.

I don't know that it will. I do hope that it will, but obviously it very well might not.

I don't think Israel or Chechnya provide especially good examples, for various reasons, though. Israel never intended to stabilize Lebanon, it just wanted to disrupt it as a base of operations for their enemies, as far as I can tell. And the Russians and Chechens have been fighting for many, many years, if I recall correctly.

But, regardless of whether those are good comparisons or not, whatever we were doing before 9/11 doesn't seem to be doing much for our security. I'm sure

2. Why exactly is Saddam invading Kuwait for allegedly pumping oil from Iraq's reserves and disposing of a despotic and undemocratic regime, different from Bush invading Iraq (for ?????) and disposing of a despotic and undemocratic regime? Yes, Saddam was a more violent thug but on the other hand Iraq's claims on Kuwait are certainly more valid than those of the US on Iraq.

I'm pretty sure Kuwait is undemocratic, but I doubt it's despotic. In addition, we're not asserting any claims on Iraq, in the sense that Iraq was with Kuwait. We're not going to make it a US territory, or the 51st state, or anything like that. At some point in the relatively near future, Iraq will again be self-governed, whether we succeed or fail at our goal of creating a democratic state there.

4. Why is it France's business, anyway, to finance America's colonial wars?

I don't believe that I said that it was France's business or obligation to finance anything. I don't think it's fair to categorize this as a colonial war, though. The US doesn't have the stomach to be a colonial power anymore, which is good.

5. What exactly is the connection between Iraq and 9/11 again?

Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was repelled by the US military and others, but Iraq's government was left in place because we were afraid of leaving a regional power vacuum, as far as I can tell. Because of this, to prevent further Iraqi antics in the region, we stationed troops and equipment in Saudi Arabia. One of Osama bin Laden's stated motivations is getting US troops out of the holy places of Islam, which I presume includes King Khalid Military City. That, and that alone, is the connection, in my opinion. No more Saddam means, in the long term, no more troops in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even a distancing of the US from the corrupt House of Saud.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:26 PM on October 4, 2003

So you believe that our sanctions are indifference?

I believe that, in general, the American public was indifferent to the state of affairs in Iraq since the first Gulf War, until the current administration invaded Iraq again.

You need to face the reality that things like 9/11 don't occur in a vacuum. We must realize that our actions have repercussions. The average Arab would be just as happy to ignore us as we would be to ignore them. However our government isn't ignoring the Middle East in their eyes we're working to make it just like the rest of the Western World. They don't appreciate it, and it's wrong for us to continue to force our lifestyle upon them.

I'm well aware that things like 9/11 don't occur in a vacuum. But all actions - and omissions, for that matter - have repercussions, and unintended consequences.

I'm not sure what you mean by "forcing our lifestyle upon them", either. If you mean "supporting Israel", that's one thing; if you mean our "cultural imperialism", that's another. I'm not sure how we should behave differently in either case, though. I'd be happy if you expanded on this thought, though.

So you're just going to ignore China?

Yes, I'm going to ignore China, that bastion of individual freedom and democracy, where political prisoners get to be organ donors. I acknowledge that China is probably much better now than it was in, say, the 70s, but I'm not sure I'd chalk that up to US policies.

All right, let's break down your solution: armed conflict.

Well, that's not my solution. I simply stated that it is possible to justify that solution without an imminent WMD threat from Iraq. I sincerely hope that the current administration is replaced in the next election, and am working toward that goal with the meager resources at my disposal. I just disagree with what I perceive as the overly simplistic characterizations of every action of the US government.

1. Do you honestly believe by killing conscripted soldiers did anything to improve the Iraqi opinion of America?

I believe that it probably improved the opinions of some Iraqis, and degraded the opinions of others. I'm pretty sure that many people there are happy that Saddam is gone.

There were a couple of interesting articles in the Washington Post Magazine today. One of these was about an Iraqi-American woman's recent visit to Baghdad, and about the ambiguity of the Iraqi people toward Americans. I can't link to it because it's in tomorrow's paper, but it should be at washingtonpost.com tomorrow. I do think that, if in ten years the Iraqis are governing themselves, they'll generally be glad that we invaded.

2. Can you show me a conflict where the victor was able to so fundamentally change the defeated society?

Yes, I can.

It hasn't worked yet in Afghanistan.

No, it hasn't, yet. I hope that it will have, in ten years or so. Things don't change completely overnight. I am disappointed in how little the current administration is providing support for change there, though. One of my biggest complaints with the administration is that it's not willing to spend enough in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Colonial imperialism didn't bring about change towards Western viewpoints in the Middle East. If you were aware of your history you'd realize that most of the current problems in Middle East and Africa are in fact because of Colonialism.

Well, yes, I am well-versed with the evils of colonialism and imperialism, thank you. But, you know, that's in the past, and there's nothing that any of us can do to prevent the ill effects of past colonialism. We have to work with what we have.

3. Prosperous populations hate wars.

I've heard that a lot since Fukuyama's "end of history", but I'm not convinced, actually. All I can be sure of is that prosperous populations like prosperity; the British didn't seem to mind sending troops to half the world to ensure their prosperity.

There's plenty of historical evidence that representative government grew from the desire to increase the warmaking powers of the state - it takes a republic to pay for the armory.

What stopped the thousands of years of war in Europe?Do you think they suddenly decided to stop? No the reason is that they now have to much to lose by starting wars.

As I recall, it was American intervention and the creation of NATO.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that none of the terrorist states are First World countries.

No, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's commonly understood that weaker states resort to "asymmetrical warfare", as my military history teacher often called terrorism. I don't really see where this is relevant to this discussion, though.

What drove Germany to invade Poland?

Well, as I recall, Mr. Hitler claimed "lebensraum", but I don't buy that, myself. I don't think anything "drove" Germany to invade Poland, though. It certainly wasn't economic need, or the Treaty of Versailles.

Most people become a lot less interested in Jihads and destroying other cultures if it will cost them their warm bed and daily hot meals. Now if they don't have those things to begin with, you better watch out.

Yes, that's right, Osama bin Laden is poor. For some reason, I'd thought he was a member of the extremely wealthy Saudi construction family of bin Ladens. Oh, and all the 9/11 hijackers came from poor families. Ideas, they're more important than you think.

4. You make no attempt to argue that the U.S. created the conditions that Saddam thrived under. This is important. Saddam only had the Iron gripped control over the country because the U.S. pursued a policy that made only his enemies weaker. That sounds like a flawed policy to me.

I certainly agree that we've pursued flawed policies in the past. Lots of bad things have happened in the past. I think that we should've driven to Baghdad in '91, and supported the Shiite resistance. The current administration has to deal with the present, though.

France and gave neither treasure or blood? Tell that to the 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missile cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates that were deployed by France during the war. Tell that to the 2 French casualties, and the 25 French wounded.

From the very link you cite:

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

So, the US lost 293 people, and France lost two. Forgive me for thinking that's a statistically insignificant amount. I personally knew more than two of those 293 people.

While I respect differences of opinion, with this statement you prove that you are simply ignorant. Reading this statement makes me see red. I wish there was something worse I could call you than just ignorant because you are the worst kind of ignorant you are willfully and maliciously ignorant.

Well, it wasn't my intent to upset you. If it makes you feel better, you can call me anything you like. I do think it's interesting that, on the one hand, you say that you respect differences of opinion, but on the other, you presume to know my motivation - I'm "willful" and "malicious". How one can be willfully ignorant is beyond me, though. I submit that your respect for differences of opinion is shallower than you believe, and your condescending attitude is uncalled for. But then again, maybe when I know everything I'll be condescending too.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:36 PM on October 4, 2003

As much as I'd like to, I'll refrain from making another point by point argument. I feel it'd be redundant, and more off-topic than even I normally get. I do want to address your statements on the French. It's basically a microcosm of the issues addressed in the article.

Were I of a cynical nature, I'd interpret this as an intellectual cop-out on your part, but I doubt that's actually the case. I will disagree with your statement that my statements on the French are a microcosm of anything beyond your own ability to take umbrage.

You moved the goal post on me by now claming, due to the low French casualty rate, their contributions were "statistically insignificant". Let me remind you that the statements that prompted my response was:

As I recall from Gulf War I, it wasn't the French or the Russians who expended blood and treasure to push Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

You incorrectly spoke out on a subject using your own hazy recollection of events without the smallest effort to verify your assertions when you had the resources to do so at your very finger-tips just as the administration had the resources to know those now infamous 16 words in the State of the Union "... should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech." I admit "willful" might be a stretch, but there's absolutely no source that would back up your claim. I guess you could just be parroting someone else, or you might have a mental condition that causes you to create these fallacies unknowingly. I could say the same thing for the President.

You may quibble with me by taking an absolutist stance, but the fact is that the French effort in the first Gulf War isn't comparable to the US effort at all. Period. You may want to read those links you were so quick to throw at me:

... French troops saw little combat ...

In fact, the French strongly disagreed with any ideas about toppling Saddam's regime at the time - they thought it was enough to repel the Iraqi military from Kuwait.

People are complaining now about our lack of involvement on the ground in Liberia - the ratio of US to other forces there now appears to be about the same as the ratio of French to all Allied forces in the first Gulf War.

To turn this on its head, proportionately there were more US casualties in Vietnam in 1954, while the French were fighting Ho Chi Min. At the time, US troops were officially there as observers. Here's a taste:

First Vietnam casualties make final trip home

At the time, of course, no one thought of us as contributing in any major way to the French war effort, and if some Frenchman said the US wasn't expending blood and treasure to support French colonialism, no one would've disagreed, I suspect.

I'd be much less vicious if it was just some minor misconception, but you used your ignorance as a tool to debase an entire ally (though admittedly contrarian) nation. That's malicious in my book, but at least you didn't use it to send our country to war.

I disagree with your assertion that I've debased France. I've never said that they should've done more, or that they've let us down in some way. I completely understand their reluctance to get involved in "round 2" at all. Given that you stated that armed conflict never solves anything, how could I have made any statement that would be offensive?

Finally, I just want to say again for the record that I don't support the actions of the current administration, and that I fervently hope that Dean wins in the next election, and that I'm working toward that goal. My only point in posting was just to say that we really don't know how this will turn out, and that a lot of the doomsaying around here is a bit premature. That's not a justification for anything, just an observation.

I would, however, welcome an expansion on that "pushing the Western lifestyle" point from your earlier post.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:17 PM on October 5, 2003

You may quibble with me by taking an absolutist stance, but the fact is that the French effort in the first Gulf War isn't comparable to the US effort at all.

OK, fine. You've moved the goal post far enough that you are now correct, but remind me again how this invalidates the idea of trade as the gateway to peace? Again, can you give me any proof as to why this approach is "ridiculous"?

My only point in posting was just to say that we really don't know how this will turn out, and that a lot of the doomsaying around here is a bit premature.

And my point was that we've got a lot of history to look back on, and there's never been a situation like we've got in Iraq where we've succeeded despite many attempts. This is not some after the fact revelation. We knew this going in. Japan is not proof that we can pull this off. Look at your own link about Japan. This article does say if the situation were the same we could theoretically do what we did in Japan, but then points out how the situations was different from Iraq:

1. Broad international support.
2. Japan was defeated as a nation, and as a nation agreed to unconditional surrender
3. Careful concern for the perceptions, traditions, and desires of the Japanese.
4. The established political powers went along with the occupation.
5. The Japanese had a solid national image, unlike the fractured nature of Iraq.

Plus a couple choice quotes from the experts:
"It does mean that when you put a different administration in place, partly run by a civilian administration, partly by a military commander, you impose a new set of structures that is not going to be all that straightforward. You start with a divided society that has no recent experience of democratic participation or negotiations among themselves. And there are no clear structures ready-made. So it's going to be far more problematic than in the case of Japan."

"John Foster Dulles, who at that stage was the Truman administration special envoy to Japan, played a key role in brokering an international coalition of the willing, that was willing to support many of the American objectives. It's hard to see that there's anyone with similar stature who would command comparable cross-body respect in the case of future planning for Iraq."

I explained this before, and specifically asked you for an example outside of Japan and Germany because of these very reasons. Can you provide that example?

I would, however, welcome an expansion on that "pushing the Western lifestyle" point from your earlier post.

I don't think anyone is going to come around to our point of view at the tip of a gun. Lasting change only comes from within. People resent being told what to do, but I believe that people will always choose freedom if given the option.

The problem is that through broad sanctions we removed all options from the Iraqi people. This counter productive policy didn't start with this current administration, and has been supported across party lines. Rather than trying to work with the Iraqi people we chose to starve them and then eventually attack them without provocation.

Convince me that war was the best course of action in this case. I think we are waging war for political reasons, and the real path to peace has nothing to do with killing people. I hope we can realize this before we have to deal with North Korea.

A separate issue you raise is now that we are stuck with the actions of the past few months how do we move forward? Well the only way is if we start addressing each of those bullet points above and make this into a situation like Japan, but the administration isn't making any progress on that front. Again I believe this is for political reasons. You want to establish a democracy in the Middle East today? Stop enforcing the borders laid down by the Colonial British (which were designed to "divide and conquer"), and give the northern Kurds their own state. That way we can separately address the problems of the already more integrated Sunni and Shiite populations.
posted by betaray at 10:54 PM on October 5, 2003

Thank you for your response. I'm sure we're the only ones reading this thread now, and I didn't really expect a response.

OK, fine. You've moved the goal post far enough that you are now correct, but remind me again how this invalidates the idea of trade as the gateway to peace? Again, can you give me any proof as to why this approach is "ridiculous"?

I disagree with your contention that I moved anything, but that's not going to get us anywhere, so I'll let it drop. I do think it's ridiculous to think that trade, by itself, is the gateway to anything except, well, trade. You pointed out China as a case where US trade policies changed the country; I don't fully agree with that assertion. I think there are plenty of historical examples where it would have been foolish to expect free trade to cause better behavior. There are plenty of bad actors who've embraced free trade, after all - we were happy to trade with European fascists, but I doubt that it would've been enough to change their behavior.

And my point was that we've got a lot of history to look back on, and there's never been a situation like we've got in Iraq where we've succeeded despite many attempts.

To what attempts do you refer?

Japan is not proof that we can pull this off.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. I suspect that, even if we'd done this countless times before, this administration would still find a way to screw it up with it's penny-wise, pound-foolish ways. But there is no proof that we can't pull this off, either, and everyone wants to draw their final conclusions now, already. It's far too soon for that.

I explained this before, and specifically asked you for an example outside of Japan and Germany because of these very reasons. Can you provide that example?

I can't find where you specifically asked for that example within this thread, but that's neither here nor there, I guess - there's a lot of stuff in this thread. But the simple fact is, you're not going to find what you're looking for. There simply aren't that many examples of democratic governments, period, much less democratic governments created from the ashes of totalitarian governments. I disagree with your contention that useful analogies can't be drawn. Neither Germany nor Japan were as simply different as you seem to think. Germany was partitioned for over thirty years, after all. That's hardly "broad international support".

I don't think anyone is going to come around to our point of view at the tip of a gun. Lasting change only comes from within. People resent being told what to do, but I believe that people will always choose freedom if given the option.

I generally agree that people resent being told what to do, but I can't figure out how to apply this broad advice to the current situation.

The problem is that through broad sanctions we removed all options from the Iraqi people. This counter productive policy didn't start with this current administration, and has been supported across party lines. Rather than trying to work with the Iraqi people we chose to starve them and then eventually attack them without provocation.

So, the Iraqi government deserves no blame for this situation? Do you think that it should've been overthrown in the first place during Gulf War I? Because, honestly, I don't think there's much we could do to "work with the Iraqi people" as long as they were being controlled by the Iraqi government.

Convince me that war was the best course of action in this case.

How can I convince you of this when I don't believe it myself? I've never once said that I supported the war, or that I believed it was the best option, or anything that could remotely be misconstrued as meaning that. I simply stated that there are understandable reasons for pursuing war, and that it's too soon to tell what the outcome will be.

I think we are waging war for political reasons, and the real path to peace has nothing to do with killing people. I hope we can realize this before we have to deal with North Korea.

All wars are waged for political reasons. But, very often, the real path to peace goes through the entrails of another. Modern Germany is, after all, very peaceful today, isn't it?

... give the northern Kurds their own state ...

Much as I agree with that sentiment, I suspect that the Turks would have something to say about that.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:18 PM on October 6, 2003

« Older It's friday, go ahead, whack it.... | Sitcoms Online: an archive.Be... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Media Misinformation October 3, 2003 6:25 AM Subscribe

Media Misinformation
October 3, 2003 6:25 AM Subscribe