The "onion effect"

[grandpa]

No, I'm not talking about the influence of the great farcical newpaper. Instead, I'm talking about layers of propaganda.

I've often argued that, regarding Iraq, America will try to justify doing virtually whatever it wants. If things improve in Iraq, "we" can take the credit and even stay there to make sure things keep improving, and if things worsen we can stay to "make things better."

For example, the opportunistic Bechtel Corporation signed [an] infrastructure repair/rehabilitation contract on April 17, 2003: "One of the agreements of this contract states that
Bechtel is to repair or rehabilitate critical water treatment,
pumping, and distribution in 15 urban areas in central and southern
Iraq within the first 6 months.
Sadr City, obviously, is not too high on their priority list."
6.3 Baghdad Dispatches

Note how avoiding Sadr City could function in terms of propaganda. If Bechtel (or some other corporation) ever would fix some of their infrastructure, they could take credit and perhaps receive credentials and accolades. If, on the other hand, they refuse to repair certain areas deemed as "terrorist strongholds," then it's a victory because they're taking a stand against aiding and abetting terrorists. It's a fascinating position either way, and the propagandistic (bullshit) possibilities are endless. So, in a way, you have an "onion effect" with propaganda. One layer leads to another.
Now, how might the onion peel for the following story?

BAGHDAD — When Gen. David H. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker brief Congress this week, they will be hard-pressed to depict Iraq as moving toward stability in the wake of recent violence that sent deaths soaring to their highest level in seven months. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's move against Shiite Muslim militias has revealed the gravity of the country's Shiite rivalries, just as U.S. forces are decreasing their presence. Officials foresee no ebb in Iraq violence

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa No, I'm not talking about the influence of the great farcical newpaper. Instead, I'm talking about layers of propaganda. I've often argued that, regarding Iraq, America will try to justify doing virtually whatever it wants. If things improve in Iraq, "we" can take the credit and even stay there to make sure things keep improving, and if things worsen we can stay to "make things better." For example, the opportunistic Bechtel Corporation signed [an] infrastructure repair/rehabilitation contract on April 17, 2003: "One of the agreements of this contract states that Bechtel is to repair or rehabilitate critical water treatment, pumping, and distribution in 15 urban areas in central and southern Iraq within the first 6 months. Sadr City, obviously, is not too high on their priority list." 6.3 Baghdad Dispatches Note how avoiding Sadr City could function in terms of propaganda. If Bechtel (or some other corporation) ever would fix some of their infrastructure, they could take credit and perhaps receive credentials and accolades. If, on the other hand, they refuse to repair certain areas deemed as "terrorist strongholds," then it's a victory because they're taking a stand against aiding and abetting terrorists. It's a fascinating position either way, and the propagandistic (bullshit) possibilities are endless. So, in a way, you have an "onion effect" with propaganda. One layer leads to another. Now, how might the onion peel for the following story? Grandpa h.

This sounds a little bit like my post about brainwashing the public.

[Domino]

"We're trying to smooth this blanket out, and all the wrinkles have been piled up on the edge. We just need one more big push."

"It is clearly evident that the Iraqi government is not yet ready for us to withdraw. To support their efforts in the South while maintaining stability elsewhere, we need another surge immediately, and another $120 billion to upgrade infrastructure in the parts we already hold."

I'm guessing they'll try to play both cards: "It's oh, so easy, we're almost done," and, "Oh, can't you see how much help they need from us?!" We are desperately needed, and it's going to be a cakewalk.

I bet they'll find some way to praise the Iraqi military for their failure. This administration really loves to praise failure.

"The Maliki government is finally working towards those key points that must be resolved to bring peace to Iraq."
"This cease-fire is an important step toward political reconciliation, and a difficult goal for the Iraqi military to achieve."
"In achieving this cease-fire, the Iraqi military has proven themselves capable of resisting the Shiite influence from Iran."

Of course, what really happened is that a pair of Shiite militias were fighting over who would control Iraq, and our guys lost. This is a fact which the propaganda must paper-over as soon a possible. Make it sound like the cease-fire was our idea, and exactly what we wanted, as opposed to being Sadr's generous offer to stop slaughtering the soldiers we sent at him.

I think I could go on all day. I've already thought of several things I forgot before I could type them :)

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Domino "We're trying to smooth this blanket out, and all the wrinkles have been piled up on the edge. We just need one more big push." "It is clearly evident that the Iraqi government is not yet ready for us to withdraw. To support their efforts in the South while maintaining stability elsewhere, we need another surge immediately, and another $120 billion to upgrade infrastructure in the parts we already hold." I'm guessing they'll try to play both cards: "It's oh, so easy, we're almost done," and, "Oh, can't you see how much help they need from us?!" We are desperately needed, and it's going to be a cakewalk. I bet they'll find some way to praise the Iraqi military for their failure. This administration really loves to praise failure. "The Maliki government is finally working towards those key points that must be resolved to bring peace to Iraq." "This cease-fire is an important step toward political reconciliation, and a difficult goal for the Iraqi military to achieve." "In achieving this cease-fire, the Iraqi military has proven themselves capable of resisting the Shiite influence from Iran." Of course, what really happened is that a pair of Shiite militias were fighting over who would control Iraq, and our guys lost. This is a fact which the propaganda must paper-over as soon a possible. Make it sound like the cease-fire was our idea, and exactly what we wanted, as opposed to being Sadr's generous offer to stop slaughtering the soldiers we sent at him. I think I could go on all day. I've already thought of several things I forgot before I could type them :)

Good grief. People are still pro-Bush on this?

How goofy is that?

We pay them a wage to train to be in the Iraq military and then a bunch of them turn-tail and refuse to acturally fight, you call that progress?