How has it come to pass that the Bush Administration believes their main Iraq problem is one of public relations? (Washington Post) It's not the unrest? The violent resistance to occupation? The loss of American and Iraqi lives? Should we believe that those issues are less relevant than Bush's 'message?'

While it's entertaining to hear the President complain that the media isn't cheerleading loudly enough (!!!! where has he been this year, in a cave with Cheney?), it appears that the Administration is a victim of building up high expectations through prior PR efforts. All that talk about all the WMDs we were going to find, and how we were going to catch Saddam Hussein certainly caught the media's attention. It doesn't seem quite right to blame the media for having done such a fine job publicizing the previous ad campaign that it stuck in people's minds.

Especially that Weapons of Mass Destruction part.

Right up until the end, Saddam lied to the Security Council. And let there be no mistake, right up to the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction and to hide his illegal weapons activity.

-Dr. Condoleezza Rice

Perhaps the flaw in the previous PR campaign was that it had the wrong emphasis. Perhaps, instead of speaking of actual WMDs, they should have spoken of Hussein's nasty ambitions, since that's all they've been able to document.

Pesky details!

Here is a short video (also at Washington Post) discussing the strategic reasons for admitting that a PR campaign is in full swing.

*

Well, there's always all that great rebuilding effort the Bush Admin. can emphasize instead, right? Just as great a success as in Afghanistan's, certainly.

Um, forget I wrote that.

Debate is erupting over the funding for the military and rebuilding efforts. "Of the $4 billion a month already being spent in Iraq, as much as a third is going to the private contractors who have flooded into the country." (Washington Post) This article raises concerns that initially arose when only donors to the Republican Party appeared to be pre-approved for work, and has continued as the number of foreign contractors and consultants exceeded the number of foreign military personnel.

The Iraqi gold rush has raised concerns on Capitol Hill that the administration may be losing control of the taxpayers' money. As the task of rebuilding shifts from government employees to for-profit contractors, members of Congress are worried that their oversight will diminish, cost controls will weaken and decisions about security, training and the shape of the new Iraqi government will be in the hands of people with financial stakes in the outcome. Avant calls it "the commercialization of foreign policy." (from the same Washington Post article)

To address some of these concerns the Senate is attempting to add penalties for profiteering and to require an open bidding system.

*
It's "interesting" that, as the Administration attempts to justify its actions (BBC), that there is chronic insecurity and unemployment, while foreign contractors are snapping up billions of dollars. And some of those contractors are earning hazard bonuses for... protecting Iraqi oil facilities.

Are the locals supposed to take comfort in that? "My daughters can't go to school any more, and women are disappearing off the streets in broad daylight, but at least the oil refinery is being guarded!"

Do you think that the tactics used by Americans in the Revolutionary War for independence from England would be considered terrorism by today's new standards? Hiding in the trees to snipe at soldiers? Not wearing bright uniforms? Not following the rules of war as they existed then, which required open country and lines of soldiers exposing themselves to their opponents in an orderly way?

The US broke a lot of rules to win its freedoms. It was for a good cause, but I still think the US' tactics would be judged in the current political climate.

It's been very sad to read of the violence that has cost so many lives in Israel and Palestine. It's very tragic. It seems very unnecessary, the death, destruction, terror. But it also seems very... desperate, and I'm not quite sure why observations about the desperation involved are not examined so that such sad events can be prevented elsewhere.

It appears from looking around the world that, in places where people have enough to eat, adequate shelter, and can live comfortably on available resources in relative freedom, the citizens tend not to blow themselves up. Where there are opportunities and people have something to live for, people tend to choose to live. Even in places where there are vast disparities between the rich and poor, systems which at least appear to offer opportunities for upward mobility and some earthly comforts tend to keep people invested in their local system of governance, whatever that system may be. When there is an injustice, people generally organize to try to improve the system. [This has been especially apparent in Central and South America lately, where all sorts of groups are attempting to improve the systems which have been disenfranchising them. They have enough hope for improvement that they have not resorted to blowing themselves up.]

Do you see where I'm going with this?

If people suffer constant collective punishment in an externally imposed and arbitrary system, there is no reason to invest in that system or the "order" it brings. [As if government sponsored assassinations and bulldozing homes could ever result in peace or order!] None. Punishing the peaceful or the moderates radicalizes the survivors. Creating an occupation that leaves people hopeless and gives them nothing to live for creates people who are available for suicide attacks.

I'm not condoning the violence of the desperate - I'm just pointing out that hopelessness and desperation can lead to terror. And if we, collectively, want to eliminate terror, we should eliminate the circumstances that give rise to it as best we can. The US itself resorted to violence to free itself from unjust rule, so I don't feel that we are in a position to criticize the quest for anyone's freedom, (though we CAN criticize the methods). The US' culture also had many violent fantasies during the Cold War about how WE would never ever ever tolerate a Communist occupation, with the firm belief that nearly any sacrifice would be worth our particular system of freedom to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Apocalyptic novels of self-sacrifice were hot sellers, despite their formulaic, torrid worldview. If we thought like that... Well, why wouldn't people who actually find themselves occupied think the same way?

Other people in the world are no different from us. It seems that we can use our vast technology and experience to make life more hopeful for people everywhere if we REALLY want to combat terror. If we export hope and improved lives, fewer people will be available to be used as tools of terror. That may not eliminate terror, but reducing it is worth a try.

*

[Ingredients to such an effort: aid where needed; very fair trade that REALLY benefits the poorer nations; information exchanges, including health care worker exchanges; appropriate technology, for those of you who know what that is... These things are done on a small scale currently by NGOs to positive affect with limited NGO resources. If governmental organizations, especially in the industrialized and wealthier parts of the world, made a significant committment for the sake of increased world security, the existing efforts could be analyzed, a series of best practices for each region and culture could be developed, and the best work could be reproduced on a much larger scale for all interested countries. Doesn't that sound better than bombs and military bases? Of course it does.]