PAUL KRUGMAN: Snow Job in the Desert

[kevinmc]

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence, just pictures of buildings with big arrows pointing at them saying things like “Chemical Munitions Bunker.” But many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.

Mr. Powell’s masters got the war they wanted, and it soon became apparent that none of his assertions had been true.

Until recently I assumed that the failure to find W.M.D., followed by years of false claims of progress in Iraq, would make a repeat of the snow job that sold the war impossible. But I was wrong. The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is.

Thus Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution — the author of “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” — and his colleague Michael O’Hanlon, another longtime war booster, returned from a Pentagon-guided tour of Iraq and declared that the surge was working. They received enormous media coverage; most of that coverage accepted their ludicrous self-description as critics of the war who have been convinced by new evidence.

A third participant in the same tour, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, reported that unlike his traveling companions, he saw little change in the Iraq situation and “did not see success for the strategy that President Bush announced in January.” But neither his dissent nor a courageous rebuttal of Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack by seven soldiers actually serving in Iraq, published in The New York Times, received much media attention.......

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-snow-job-in-desert.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. That's What I Keep Asking - Where's The Evidence?

I've not seen one shred of evidence that the escalation, er, surge is working.

I'm shocked that even some Democrats are buying into this.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. As long as the media is controlled by big corporations, they will only report what serves the

interests of big business...and therefore Repukes.

[tom_paine]

3. The ability of Goebbels v2.0 to create Bushevik Reality and launder lies remains astonishing

Truly, the gift of the Bushies to every tinpot dictator and hater-of-freedom for ever and ever, is the template and formula for the New Totalitarianism, in which the slaves believe they are free.

[Skittles]

4. THIS SHOULD HAVE MADE THE GREATEST PAGE

DAMMIT

[necso]

5. I also get the impression that the propaganda surge

is having some impact on persons of influence.

But it's a complicated phenomenon.

In the first place, there are people's predispositions to consider. Most Americans, I believe, would like to see something good come out of our efforts in Iraq, so they're inclined (predisposed) to believe any "good" news. And many Americans are loathe to believe that those who hold important positions in our government (taken broadly) are unscrupulous, self-serving liars, who really don't care what harm they do to our country -- as long as they can have their way (and their pretensions to honor, integrity, professional competence, etc).

Moreover, many people will go on believing whatever they want to believe, no matter what comes down -- at least if it doesn't come down directly on them (in which case, many will still refuse to deal realistically with the problem, preferring to hide behind some common/convenient rationale (perhaps manufactured for the occasion)... which is, admittedly, easier to do when done in a herd-like fashion). Plus, some people don't like making tough decisions, have only a passing acquaintance with the broader reality, and react negatively to anything that might cast them (or "theirs") in a bad light (etc).

That is, many people are easy prey for the manipulators, because they can't even begin to master themselves, much less the broader problems of life.

And neocon propaganda is itself a thing of some cunning. Different groups are targeted in different ways (ways calculated to appeal to them specifically); and the neocons use fortresses of well-established propaganda (that is, lies: like Dems are "soft" (a scary word to neocons) on defense, terrorism... whatever) as a basis for their attacks -- while they hide behind things (persons, groups, ideas, ideals, etc: some general or generals, the troops, "victory", "democracy" -- somebody's "skirt") that their opponents can be expected to be disinclined to attack.

For example, the neocons appreciate (hell, they've helped form) the mindset of the tv talking-heads and of the wider media-garden of players, pundits and hangers-on. So the neocons target these types (generally not the sharpest knives in the drawer), knowing that if they can be "sold", then they will help "sell" (/sellout) their audiences. (The threat (implicit, otherwise) of punishments -- and the hope/promise of rewards -- play a big part in this, as these do in neocon manipulations generally.)

And the neocons expect that if the propaganda surge works, then it doesn't matter whether the escalation in Iraq works or not -- because the desired political gains will be had either way.

(That escalation, btw, doesn't appear to be accomplishing very much: that is, the ongoing, raging dynamic of multi-headed civil war (and widespread gangsterism, sectarianism, corruption) appears unchanged in character -- and changed only modestly in form. One can, however, be confident that great efforts are being made, and will be made, to try to make it appear otherwise. ... For to this, the great American polity has descended.)

...

(It's cooling off; down to a glorious 67 in town.)