Propaganda In Iraq

Walter Lippmann once said, “We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy’s side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace”. Every conflict is fought on two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people as a means of propaganda. The “good guys” and the “bad guys” can often be guilty of misleading their people with distortions, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracy, and even fabrications, in order to receive support and a sense of legitimacy (Shah, 2005). After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the use of propaganda signified a need to invade Iraq, and expressed both an urgency and obligation to do so. In the years

following these attacks the use of propaganda skyrocketed by the U.S state department. In particular, the evolution of propaganda exercised under the Bush administration was evident throughout the Iraq war. Throughout this article we will explore various forms of propaganda and the powerful impact they had on our communities.
Before we further investigate the different forms of propaganda it is important to know what this term signifies and how propaganda can be used. A clear cut definition according to Merriam-Webster explains that propaganda includes ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a particular cause, a political leader, or a government body (Definition of Propaganda). However, propaganda is more complex than the translation affixed and works in a multitude of ways. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 there were undisputed feelings of anger and hatred by Americans towards the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda. The Bush administration responded quickly to this devastation. Funds were quickly set up for the affected families, plans to rebuild parts of Manhattan were developed, and most significantly the War on Terrorism was born, including plans to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The most notable use of propaganda by the United States came in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. As U.S. tanks stormed into Baghdad television viewers got their first “feel-good” moment of the war. They were able to have a live-feed view of the toppling of a giant statue of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. A crowd of Iraqis helped to bring down the statue and were viewed by the U.S. public eye as overjoyed for the help from our soldiers. For months leading up to the invasion pro-war correspondents predicted that soldiers would be greeted as liberators for the people of Iraq, and this scene proved them right. With millions of U.S. viewers watching this historical event take place support for the war quickly strengthened (Rampton, S Stauber, 2003).
Another use of propaganda by the U.S State Department which intensified the War on Terrorism included the 2002 “Shared Values” campaign. “Share Values” was directed by Charlotte Beers, previously a Madison Avenue advertising executive. The “Shared Values” campaign was a program aimed at exhibiting the fruitful lives of American Muslims. It showcased their successes and freedom all while promoting American values and beliefs. The overarching goal behind “Shared Values” was to advertise the lifestyles of American Muslims to those overseas. This campaign was planned to broadcast in Muslim countries during Ramadan, a holy month of fasting, self-reflection, and prayer, which runs from early November through December (Plaisance, 2005) However, this campaign came under heavy fire for its propagandistic approach and ethical shortcomings.
“Shared Values” was defined as new propaganda, which is characterized by targeting mass audiences and not just the elite publics. Beers’ campaign can be considered a “classic case of ‘political’ propaganda” (Plaisance, 2005). Along with illustrating the idea of prosperity this politic shema included underlying themes of arrogance and national-glorification. In particular, the videos released emphasized that American egalitarianism is without exception to American Muslims. The “Shared Values” videos can be viewed as an attempt at selling the ideals of one culture to the receptive members of another. Overall, the “Shared Values” campaign contains multiple facets of propaganda. The videos used repeated verbal and visual representations of the American ideology of universal egalitarianism. Beers’, along with the U.S State Department, explain that their intent was to provide the framework necessary so that Muslim perceptions and misperceptions were not cultivated. This being said, these messages presented the United States as blameless and wronged. Special techniques were used in order to supplement a more positive message. Using an “in their own words” format, these videos represented authenticity and portrayed American Muslims throughout their [supposed] everyday life (Plaisance, 2005). The intent was to have an emotional impact on Muslims overseas and to portray American culture as both impartial and enjoyable.
The use of propaganda leading up to and during the Iraq war had a powerful impact on our society.

As mentioned previously, several different forms of propagandistic material were used under the Bush administration. The use of broadcasting as a form of propaganda was used when the United States first entered Iraq. The live view of U.S troops entering Baghdad helped foster support for the war and portrayed our army as a necessary means in order to provide stability for Iraq. According to the article Media Propaganda and Spectacle in the War on Iraq (2004), “Different media platforms followed the Bush administration and Pentagon slogan ‘shock and awe’ and presented the war against Iraq as a great military spectacle, while triumphalism marked the opening days of the U.S bombing of Iraq and invasion”. Throughout the entirety of the war U.S broadcasting networks created several different channels through which the Bush administration was able to carry out different forms of propaganda. Portrayed as an attempt to “seize weapons of mass destruction”, it seemed as though the Bush administration had a hidden agenda embedded within their War on Terrorism. This included the control of Iraqi oil and a mass media spectacle that would help him win the 2004 presidential election. During a press conference in March of 2003, president Bush is explicit with his decision to go to war with Iraq. He incessantly mentions Saddam Hussein and terrorism throughout his speech and numerous times ties

him to the September 11 attacks (Kellner, 2004). Instead of laying the groundwork for a plan that legitimizes the occupation of Iraq he instills a general fear and hatred towards all Muslims. This speech, along with the other forms of propaganda, had a trickle-down effect on many communities. Information regarding this conflict would start with opinionated leaders and eventually make its way to those who lacked any knowledge regarding the war. This was a significant factor throughout the 2004 presidential election.
Interestingly, the Iraq war was presented differently throughout varying countries.

U.S broadcasting networks framed it as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” or the “War in Iraq”. The Canadian CBC channel worded it as “War on Iraq”, and several Arab networks presented it as an “invasion” and “occupation” (Kellner, 2004). U.S broadcasting networks presented an extremely limited take on the war while Canadian, British, other European, and Arab networks presented frightening images of casualties and war. U.S television leaned towards “pro-military patriotism, propaganda, and technological fetishism, celebrating the weapons of war and military humanism, highlighting the achievements of heroism of the U.S troops” (Kellner, 2004). Other countries outside of the U.S and U.K viewed the military assaults as horrific and unjustifiable. It is clear that U.S citizens were receiving a single sided story conceived of inequitable and biased information. For those who knew little about the situation it was only reasonable that the United States invade Iraq and work towards developing a more free and democratic

state.
In conclusion, the use of propaganda under the Bush administration largely affected both foreign and domestic communities. The differing forms of propagandistic material used was mostly represented by U.S broadcasting networks. These networks provided live-feed action of the Iraq war and displayed programming that included the “Shared Values” campaign. Minimal aspects of the war were advertised to U.S citizens presenting a distorted view of the fight in Iraq. The use of propaganda in an attempt to foster support for the Iraq war was indisputable. Not only was a biased picture of the war provided, but the effects from this conflict are still felt to this day.