The Good News in Iraq (finally!)

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
November 30, 2005 latimes.com

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ

U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press


Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the practice.

By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.

It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.

Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.

The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.

"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.

The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.

The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."

Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment.

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.

The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks.

U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets.

"There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon.

[...]
One senior military official who spent this year in Iraq said it was the strong pro-U.S. message in some news stories in Baghdad that first made him suspect that the American military was planting articles.

"Stuff would show up in the Iraqi press, and I would ask, 'Where the hell did that come from?' It was clearly not something that indigenous Iraqi press would have conceived of on their own," the official said.

Iraqi newspaper editors reacted with a mixture of shock and shrugs when told they were targets of a U.S. military psychological operation.

Some of the newspapers, such as Al Mutamar, a Baghdad-based daily run by associates of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, ran the articles as news stories, indistinguishable from other news reports. Before the war, Chalabi was the Iraqi exile favored by senior Pentagon officials to lead post-Hussein Iraq.

Others labeled the stories as "advertising," shaded them in gray boxes or used a special typeface to distinguish them from standard editorial content. But none mentioned any connection to the U.S. military.

One Aug. 6 piece, published prominently on Al Mutamar's second page, ran as a news story with the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism." Documents obtained by The Times indicated that Al Mutamar was paid about $50 to run the story, though the editor of the paper said he ran such articles for free.

Nearly $1,500 was paid to the independent Addustour newspaper to run an Aug. 2 article titled "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development," the records indicated. The newspaper's editor, Bassem Sheikh, said he had "no idea" where the piece came from but added the note "media services" on top of the article to distinguish it from other editorial content.

The U.S. military-written articles come in to Al Mutamar, the newspaper run by Chalabi's associates, via the Internet and are often unsigned, said Luay Baldawi, the paper's editor in chief.

"We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."

Yet other Al Mutamar employees were much less supportive of their paper's connection with the U.S. military. "This is not right," said Faleh Hassan, an editor. "It reflects the tragic condition of journalists in Iraq. Journalism in Iraq is in very bad shape."

Ultimately, Baldawi acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about the origin of the articles and pledged to be "more careful about stuff we get by e-mail."

After he learned of the source of three paid stories that ran in Al Mada in July, that newspaper's managing editor, Abdul Zahra Zaki, was outraged, immediately summoning a manager of the advertising department to his office.

"I'm very sad," he said. "We have to investigate."

The Iraqis who delivered the articles also reaped modest profits from the arrangements, according to sources and records.

Employees at Al Mada said that a low-key man arrived at the newspaper's offices in downtown Baghdad on July 30 with a large wad of U.S. dollars. He told the editors that he wanted to publish an article titled "Terrorists Attack Sunni Volunteers" in the newspaper.

He paid cash and left no calling card, employees said. He did not want a receipt. The name he gave employees was the same as that of a Lincoln Group worker in the records obtained by The Times. Although editors at Al Mada said he paid $900 to place the article, records show that the man told Lincoln Group that he gave more than $1,200 to the paper.

Al Mada is widely considered the most cerebral and professional of Iraqi newspapers, publishing investigative reports as well as poetry.

Zaki said that if his cash-strapped paper had known that these stories were from the U.S. government, he would have "charged much, much more" to publish them.


According to several sources, the process for placing the stories begins when soldiers write "storyboards" of events in Iraq, such as a joint U.S.-Iraqi raid on a suspected insurgent hide-out, or a suicide bomb that killed Iraqi civilians.

The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic.
 
1) If I were an Iraqi without electricity, water, safe access to food, or a home for my children, no amount of propaganda is going to make me think differently about the forces occupying my country and their 'success'

2) American taxpayers are getting ripped off again by contractors - what do you bet the Lincoln Group employee who claimed he paid $1200 to plant the story when the paper said they only received $900 pocketed the difference?

3) We ARE getting desperate, aren't we?
 
You folks never stop, do you?

There are also radio and television broadcasts going not just into Iraq, but the entire middle east from Coalition sources to promote a free society.

Just as in world war two, there was radio free america, millions of pamplets dropped in Japan and Nazi Europe, telling the people the liberation was on the way.

The United States and 30 other nations making up the coalition, is involved in one of the most honorable pursuits in human history. Sacrificing life and valuable resources to bring individual liberty and human freedom to a people who have never known freedom.

I am embarassed by those of you who continually criticize each and every move made to bring a free life to Arab people.

I wonder what your real motivation really is?

amicus...
 
amicus said:
You folks never stop, do you?

There are also radio and television broadcasts going not just into Iraq, but the entire middle east from Coalition sources to promote a free society.

Just as in world war two, there was radio free america, millions of pamplets dropped in Japan and Nazi Europe, telling the people the liberation was on the way.

The United States and 30 other nations making up the coalition, is involved in one of the most honorable pursuits in human history. Sacrificing life and valuable resources to bring individual liberty and human freedom to a people who have never known freedom.

I am embarassed by those of you who continually criticize each and every move made to bring a free life to Arab people.

I wonder what your real motivation really is?


The Iraqui constitution lays the groundwork for selling off oil assets and privatizing the Iraqi National Oil Company, which to date was to serve the Iraqi people. It serves to open up Iraq’s oil reserves to the big oil corporations. It paves the way for the eventual acquisition of Iraqi assets by foreigners or multinational corporations.

Gee, guess what the motivation is behind that? Freedom? Or Bush & Co. self-interest?
 
amicus said:
Y

I am embarassed by those of you who continually criticize each and every move made to bring a free life to Arab people.
amicus...

A free life to Arab men... be exact about what you mean, dammit.

Women earned their place as second class citizens and to have men do all their thinking for them.

Come on... from post to post... be consistent.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
elsol said:
A free life to Arab men... be exact about what you mean, dammit.

Women earned their place as second class citizens and to have men do all their thinking for them.

Come on... from post to post... be consistent.

Sincerely,
ElSol


You can be fun sometimes...that gave me a chuckle.

Here's an inconsistency for you: Slavery can be freedom.

I rather suspect that being denied the rights of men, that women, not only in the middle east, are set free to be women.

Freedom and independence is a heady mixture for some people. In fact many people prefer slavery, I think, they are comfortable having their lives guided and directed by others and need never make a decision.

A good woman is a truly valuable asset to everyone. If the family is to remain an integral part of human relationships(and I doubt that) then it is a woman that makes that family function.

There used to be a few television things that portrayed women as 'good' people in a family context. The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, a few others.

Oh, well, anyway, you know where that is going...


amicus...
 
amicus said:
Freedom and independence is a heady mixture for some people. In fact many people prefer slavery, I think, they are comfortable having their lives guided and directed by others and need never make a decision.


*grin*

Awfully nice when you show your true colors so openly, dear ami.
 
LadyJeanne said:
The Iraqui constitution lays the groundwork for selling off oil assets and privatizing the Iraqi National Oil Company, which to date was to serve the Iraqi people. It serves to open up Iraq’s oil reserves to the big oil corporations. It paves the way for the eventual acquisition of Iraqi assets by foreigners or multinational corporations.

Gee, guess what the motivation is behind that? Freedom? Or Bush & Co. self-interest?


Offhand, I can neither confirm nor deny what you said about privatization.

However, the oil industry in Iraq was totally controlled by Saddam Hussein, who used the proceeds as he saw fit.

Aside from your ongoing hatred of Bush, America, Capitalism, et cetera, the Iraqi government will profit from the sale of oil, no matter to whom they sell and that profit will be spent by decisions made within the government which, they say, is to be a democratic one in some form.

I just hope there is enough time for the Iraqi economy to diversify and create new industry before the oil runs out.


amicus....
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
*grin*

Awfully nice when you show your true colors so openly, dear ami.


Actually, Sweets....there is more meat there than one might expect.

If you consider that for most of history, women have been dependent of fathers and husbands to decide for them, it makes some not insignificant point about women and politics.

Perhaps much of the push towards socialistic governments comes from women who just want to be 'taken care of' by big brother since they don't have the male imperative working for them...

That's not a new idea...but you reminded me of it. Thanks...


amicus...
 
amicus said:
Actually, Sweets....there is more meat there than one might expect.

If you consider that for most of history, women have been dependent of fathers and husbands to decide for them, it makes some not insignificant point about women and politics.

Perhaps much of the push towards socialistic governments comes from women who just want to be 'taken care of' by big brother since they don't have the male imperative working for them...

That's not a new idea...but you reminded me of it. Thanks...


amicus...


You live alone, don't you -
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
You live alone, don't you -


Ah, yes the subjective personal retort....I do live alone, yes, by choice, but those left wing liberal ladies just love a man who reads at a poetry slam and hustle me off to their little festooned nests just to pour me a tea or two.

smiles...
 
amicus said:
Offhand, I can neither confirm nor deny what you said about privatization.

However, the oil industry in Iraq was totally controlled by Saddam Hussein, who used the proceeds as he saw fit.

Aside from your ongoing hatred of Bush, America, Capitalism, et cetera, the Iraqi government will profit from the sale of oil, no matter to whom they sell and that profit will be spent by decisions made within the government which, they say, is to be a democratic one in some form.

I just hope there is enough time for the Iraqi economy to diversify and create new industry before the oil runs out.


amicus....

The point, which you have failed to acknowledge as you so often do, is that we did not go into Iraq to become 'involved in one of the most honorable pursuits in human history' nor to spread freedom, liberty, or democracy. We went in there to protect our oil interests. If you ignore those motivations, then of course you cannot understand why those who do see that's why Bush & Co. invaded and now occupy that country feel the need to unmask the lies and deception perpetuated by our administration.

I have no hatred for Bush; I pity Bush for his selfish and misguided beliefs, and I am disgusted by his corrupt administration and their abuse of power. Bush is a tool of his political party and the religious right who thrust him into power and his family's and friends' financial interests. I am certain he will be much happier when he is no longer in the public arena - being President is clearly very hard work for him.

Disagreeing with the administration's policies is not tantamount to hating America. On the contrary, I feel Americans are being abused by this administration's policies and I am appalled that the administration does so with impugnity. This administration has given America a bad name - imperialist.

I value democracy which is why I continue to make my views known and make them known to my elected representatives so that they may represent me when voting.

As for capitalism, it has its good points. And bad. So does every other economic system.

I would hardly apply the word hatred to any of those views.

It would be lovely if the Arab world, and the Christian, Judaic, agnostic, Wiccan, and atheist worlds all lived a free life. However, do not confuse what America is doing in Iraq with bringing a free life to the Arab world. You will be sadly disappointed if that is your illusion.
 
Lady Jeanne: "...The point, which you have failed to acknowledge as you so often do, is that we did not go into Iraq to become 'involved in one of the most honorable pursuits in human history' nor to spread freedom, liberty, or democracy. We went in there to protect our oil interests. If you ignore those motivations, then of course you cannot understand why those who do see that's why Bush & Co. invaded and now occupy that country feel the need to unmask the lies and deception perpetuated by our administration...."


Your left wing, anti war, anti Bush, anti big oil company rhetoric is quite familiar.

You may believe whatever you wish. But you mouth the standard litany of the far left.

If you review a little history of the involvement of the United States in foreign wars, you will discover that we have always gone to protect freedom and never to conquer and occupy.

Economic interests, thus middle east oil, obviously play a role in foreign affairs as most of the industrial world imports oil from that region.

You will most likely live long enough to watch the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq. Perhaps then you will note what has been accomplished and attribute the motivations for world involvement in the Middle east in rational terms.

I don't particularly like President Bush, nor do I like Republicans in general, but in a world of few choices, it is about the best we can do.

History is long and in general I feel a sense of pride in what the United States of America has done around the world in terms of foreign wars and giving assistance to oppressed and impoverished peoples.

Great Britain gets some of the same credit, but the Colonization by the British Empire has always left a sour taste in my mouth.

Are you proud of that?

amicus...
 
amicus said:
If you review a little history of the involvement of the United States in foreign wars, you will discover that we have always gone to protect freedom and never to conquer and occupy.

An impassioned appeal to Congress to absorb the Phillipines into an American empire

Small article on American Samoa and Guam, both of which are American territories in the Pacific. Note must be made to the reference of the 1899 treaty between Germany, USA and Britain that allowed America sovereignty over American Samoa as part of her empire

Let's not forget Hawaii, Alaska, California and other states that were bought, invaded, colonised or coerced into the USA as well.

I'm not really making any kind of a point here. Apart from pointing out the truck-sized holes in your rhetoric, but that's by the by.

The Earl
 
I was curious to see who would be the first to attempt to make the case that America was a colonial power.

You never disappoint...

amicus...
 
amicus said:
I was curious to see who would be the first to attempt to make the case that America was a colonial power.

You never disappoint...

amicus...

Sadly amicus, you always do.

I note you have not admitted you are completely wrong?

The Earl
 
amicus said:
I was curious to see who would be the first to attempt to make the case that America was a colonial power.

You never disappoint...

amicus...


I'm more concerned about our current activities as occupiers of a sovereign nation under specious grounds, and my responsibility as an American citizen to protest same.

FYI, calling me liberal and my views far left doesn't faze me in the least, regardless of the insult you intend it to be.
 
Protest all you want, it's a free country. But I hope, a few years down the road when the middle east blooms with democracy and you notice we did not 'occupy' the country, perhaps you will recant?

Or are you just 'anti war' no matter what?
 
amicus said:
Protest all you want, it's a free country. But I hope, a few years down the road when the middle east blooms with democracy and you notice we did not 'occupy' the country, perhaps you will recant?

Or are you just 'anti war' no matter what?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Blooms with democracy? What are you smoking?

I wasn't in the least opposed to war in Afghanistan - 9/11, al Quaeda, Osama bin Laden (remember him?), Taliban, sure.

But Iraq? A web of lies and deceit took us there, and a web of lies and deceit continues to keep us there.

I am not anti war. I am anti this particular war. And the lies of this administration that sent our military there. And the motivations of this administration that lied to us about why we invaded and then changed their story when their lies were uncovered.
 
amicus said:
Protest all you want, it's a free country. But I hope, a few years down the road when the middle east blooms with democracy and you notice we did not 'occupy' the country, perhaps you will recant?

Or are you just 'anti war' no matter what?

Oh, I have no doubt that the US won't 'occupy' Iraq indefinitely. The eyes of the world are there.

Interesting to note that, even though the UN passed a resolution in 1959 to decolonise, American Samoa and Guam are still territories of the USA. Despite those two nations being specifically mentioned in the UN resolution.

Also interesting to note that amicus still hasn't admitted he was wrong.

The Earl
 
I'm sorry, but I really have to laugh at the comments on women in Iraq. I am neither pro Bush or anti Bush. Yet I do know women have more rights now, than they did under Saddam.
Is this a reason to go to war? That is for governments to decide. But as a former soldier, I do know the last thing a soldier wants is war. To call America a colonial power is riduciulous. Colonialism ended with Britain and the control and rule of local governments.
America, as I see it, is not attempting to do that. It is the ousting of a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people. Our soldiers are fighting and dying until the locals can defend themselves.
I don't doubt there is politcal pressure behind the scenes. If not, then what will we have? A civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis? With the Kurds waiting in the background? Each of which will leave our troops in Iraq longer.
Bush gave the public a warning at the beginning of the war that it might take 10 years to get Iraq back on it's feet.
But this is a fast food society. We want results now. We're use to small actions like Panama and Grenada.
If you want to understand what is going on in Iraq, think like all the tribes there. Think like a Sunni being attacked by a Shiite, think like a Shiite who was persecuted by a Sunni under Saddam.
Once you begin to understand the way locals think, you'll realize, this is not a short war. As writers, you have that imagination. So put yourselves in the shoes of those who are fighting.
Repub or Democrat, it doesn't matter. We're there now. Our kids are dying fighting for freedom. Now, imagine what it would take to do it right and bring freedom to the people.
 
Lord DragonsWing said:
Colonialism ended with Britain and the control and rule of local governments.

Because Britain was obviously the only country to have an empire. No-one like France or Spain or Germany ever possessed colonies and certainly not the USA who still hold Guam and American Samoa.

I'm not suggesting America is attempting to colonise Iraq at all. I'm just contradicting amicus and pointing out the gigantic flaws in his sweeping statements, but comments like that aren't helping your case at all.

The Earl
 
Oh God!

Don't tell me my government has lied to me!

Now whom shall I trust?
 
Back
Top