Panel: U.S. Underreported Iraq Violence

[JackSpratts]

ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in
Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

Article

[vernarial]

I'm not surprised. Manipulation of information to acheive political goals is not a new idea. It has been going on to a varying degree in the USA for almost as long as the country has been around. I believe it is much more rampant these days, which is a bit disheartening. It's kind of like this thread. It only covers one side of the conflict. While we do need to recognise the good that is happening in Iraq, we shouldn't ignore or avoid the bad.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I'm not surprised. Manipulation of information to acheive political goals is not a new idea.

And what, pray tell, is our military's political agenda? Are you suggesting that our troops and their commanders in the field are opportunistically distorting the facts? Why would they do that?

The panel is questioning the way the military has determined which acts of violence are of importance to their tactics and strategy. If they're not handling the violence properly then their information gathering methods should be called into question. But the panel is not accusing them of censorship. CNN and Fox News and MSNBC and BBC World and Al Jazeera and Sky News pretty much have the whole nation of Iraq blanked in video cameras and embedded reporters. Believe me, there's no chance that the violence there is being underreported.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

And what, pray tell, is our military's political agenda?

Originally Posted by Bi-Partisan Panel

[It] minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Are you suggesting that our troops and their commanders in the field are opportunistically distorting the facts?

Originally Posted by Bi-Partisan Panel

On one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Why would they do that?

Originally Posted by Bi-Partisan Panel

To keep events out of reports and databases.

Report (PDF)

edited@9:59pm eastern

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Mazer

And what, pray tell, is our military's political agenda? Are you suggesting that our troops and their commanders in the field are opportunistically distorting the facts? Why would they do that?

The panel is questioning the way the military has determined which acts of violence are of importance to their tactics and strategy. If they're not handling the violence properly then their information gathering methods should be called into question. But the panel is not accusing them of censorship. CNN and Fox News and MSNBC and BBC World and Al Jazeera and Sky News pretty much have the whole nation of Iraq blanked in video cameras and embedded reporters. Believe me, there's no chance that the violence there is being underreported.

Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land - Google Video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23714384920696

For this reason.

Same for the time when Bush wanted the media not to show coffins of the returning dead soldiers. You don't see it, you don't think about it.


I suggest you take a look at this doco. Violence in Palestine is greatly unreported as you will see, why would Iraq's case be any different? If they can hide the suffering of the palestinians so well, they can do it to the Iraquies.

I wonder when Bush is finally gonna admit that Iraq has sunk into a civil war.

[vernarial]

I was thinking about this today, Mazer. If you look at any Military advertisement, they always show the good things about being in the military. You see people skydiving or rockclimbing or working on computers. You never see the bad side of war. You never see people maimed or dead. Or the fact that you might have to kill someone elses family member. They never show the realities of war. Of course this makes sense if you are trying to recruit people, but in my estimation it is false advertising. These tactics are also used to keep the American public backing a war. Don't show the realities of war, just the "cool stuff". Distorting or manipulating facts works almost as well as the Audio/Visual propaganda machine.

Don't get me wrong, I support the USA military, but I strongly believe they are being horribly misused and put into dangerous positions they don't need to be put in. And the military budget is misused and bloated.

For every one of these............. There are thousands of these.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I was thinking about this today, Mazer. If you look at any Military advertisement, they always show the good things about being in the military. You see people skydiving or rockclimbing or working on computers. You never see the bad side of war. You never see people maimed or dead. Or the fact that you might have to kill someone elses family member. They never show the realities of war. Of course this makes sense if you are trying to recruit people, but in my estimation it is false advertising. These tactics are also used to keep the American public backing a war. Don't show the realities of war, just the "cool stuff". Distorting or manipulating facts works almost as well as the Audio/Visual propaganda machine.

Don't get me wrong, I support the USA military, but I strongly believe they are being horribly misused and put into dangerous positions they don't need to be put in. And the military budget is misused and bloated.

For every one of these............. There are thousands of these.

First...

The AP (Associated Phables) fabricates stories for political agenda reasons. Since they no longer report events as they happen, but fabricate stories to support their political agenda, they are no longer a news organization, but a propaganda machine. **Cough** "Captain Jamil Hussein" ------ "Captain Jamil Hussein" is but one of 14 Iraqi-sounding names of sources quoted by AP that U.S. military officials say cannot be verified as credible sources. Iraqis also are trying to find out who Jamil is. Seems no one but the AP has heard of him. So who cares what the AP is reporting, unless you like a sick factious story. Ignore them.


Vernarial

By your thinking, what company or organization does not use false advertising? Maybe some drug companies because they quickly blast through all the side effects their drug may cause. But Should McDonalds show the bad side of eating there? Car companies maybe should show fatal car wrecks in there ads, how about Travel Agencies, they can have one page showing the nice warm beach and on the other the bodies of passengers whom plane crashed, oh I know, why not show the planes hitting the WTC. I can go on if you like. Let me know.

[multi]

First..

Who even mentioned AP ?

anyway here is what he is babbling about:

They cycle of violence reached new levels in Iraq last week and into the weekend, but the military is complaining that one Associated Press report — and its source — was dodgy.
Link

with the Lincoln Group' on the job now, the news should get a bit better next year

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

If you look at any Military advertisement, they always show the good things about being in the military. You see people skydiving or rockclimbing or working on computers. You never see the bad side of war. You never see people maimed or dead. Or the fact that you might have to kill someone elses family member. They never show the realities of war.

So not only are you accusing our troops of politically motivated censorship, you're also saying that they're dumb enough to believe that recruitment ads paint a complete picture of military service.

I understand that you respect our volunteer soldiers and marines even though you don't support their mission. But try to remember that the president and the military are two separate entities, and the politics of the one do not reflect on the deeds of the other. Our troops sign up to protect our country, not the party line.

That goes for you too, Jack. The troops are not trying to build up popular support for their mission, they're simply trying to accomplish it. In Iraq the military filters the relevant information from the background noise so they can plan their strategies accordingly. The filtering process makes the information suitable for military use, not necessarily for reporting in the mass media, but so what? We civilians don't actually need the pentagon to tell us what's happening over there. And when it comes to policy making here at home, well, the president already has an agenda and full disclosure isn't going to change his mind. Besides, Bush couldn't be any more unpopular than he already is so your story changes nothing. Those who believe that the military is the long arm of the Republican party will go on believing it while the troops themselves will continue to honor their oaths to obey the guy in charge no matter who he happens to be this year, all the while quietly keeping their political opinions to themselves.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by multi

Who even mentioned AP ?

anyway here is what he is babbling about:

right, ----it is only in the first line of the first post......


add

If by one AP report you mean at least eight stories since April 2006, and by dodgy you mean fabricated to make the AP story a weapon in a war of perception. – you are right -- Also It was not the American Military whom brought this to light, On November 25, the press office of Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNCI) published press release No. 20061125-09 – Which stated that an investigation showed only one mosque had been attacked and found no evidence to support the story of the six burned to death Sunnis.

An email from MNCI to the AP that states "no one below the level of chief is authorized to be an Iraqi Police spokesperson." The email also addresses the story of the Sunnis being burned alive.: "neither we nor Baghdad Police had any reports of such an incident after investigating it and could find no one to corroborate the story - We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee." The letter is attributed to US Navy LT Michael Dean.


http://www.strategypage.com/on_point...128212619.aspx

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

That goes for you too, Jack.

yes sir mr. mazer, but i think you mean james.

as in james baker and the bi-partisan iraq study group. it's their report. now as to intent i notice they're careful not to accuse editorially, but by highlighting the army's factor of 12 "error" they force the reader to draw his own conclusions so in this the study group has it both ways. it's nothing new. many establishment committees formed after disasters tread carefully and avoid overt finger-pointing when well acquainted with the players. they know their relations will continue long after the public's attention has moved on.

sinner, so it's damn the entire ap now? based the armchair blogging cult, a source’s real name and the word of iraqi officials?

catty bloggers won’t convince responsible adults an organization like the associated press is fabricating articles to damage america with some he said-she said gossip out of the thousands it reports weekly. they may be wrong from time to time, but if they are they'll say so, it will come out. if not expect them to strongly stand up for themselves, especially since a free press itself has become so threatening to many red-state americans. they have re-reported the story, found further witnesses and stand by it. for those who haven’t heard about this latest anti-american-press “event,” background is in this weeks wir. search "hyperbole." the original link is select-subscription but you may be able to see it anyway.

what these isolated conservatives have done, again, is expose their own biases and blind pro-war rage, and they’ve given us an unvarnished look at their ugly ignorance and crafty paranoia. these bloggers now resemble witch burners.

yep, life is sure swell in baghdad!

where more than sixty iraqi's were blown to bits, and over two-hundred injured. today.

- js.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

catty bloggers won’t convince responsible adults an organization like the associated press is fabricating articles to damage america with some he said-she said gossip out of the thousands it reports weekly. they may be wrong from time to time, but if they are they'll say so, it will come out. if not expect them to strongly stand up for themselves, especially since a free press itself has become so threatening to many red-state americans. they have re-reported the story, found further witnesses and stand by it. for those who haven’t heard about this latest anti-american-press “event,” background is in this weeks wir. search "hyperbole." the original link is select-subscription but you may be able to see it anyway.

what these isolated conservatives have done, again, is expose their own biases and blind pro-war rage, and they’ve given us an unvarnished look at their ugly ignorance and crafty paranoia. these bloggers now resemble witch burners.

yep, life is sure swell in baghdad!

- js.

Ok Jack, help understand your thinking, The AP is caught lying and you are not at all concerned about that. Instead you want to spew "well, then I guess everything is swell in Iraq”, hmmm who said or implied that? What does one have to do with the other - Then you want to start namecalling the blogger who discovered it, because he's not a liberal who hates the war, he has to be just a silly or stupid person along with anyone who believes him. His discovering it is just not important. – BS I say

You probably already have forgotten how the NY Times repoted just before the election and confirmed that Saddam was a year away from having nukes.…..just before they killed that story. The press loves people like you.

These events which may never have happened, make the media talk about how Iraq in a state of Civil War. Whether Iraq is in a civil war or not, the insurgents want you to believe it is. Their goal is to last long enough until our morale breaks and we run away – (Paper Tiger). They've stated that time and again in their internal documents. When insurgent propaganda or unsubstantiated rumor are passed off as verified news, it does nobody any good, except the people who want to drown Iraq in blood.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

now as to intent i notice they're careful not to accuse editorially, but by highlighting the army's factor of 12 "error" they force the reader to draw his own conclusions so in this the study group has it both ways.

Well if their report is ambiguous on that account then I'm sure it's by mistake. The study group wouldn't be doing its job if it believed but failed to report that the military had suspicious intentions. Clearly, not all the crime that occurs in Baghdad directly relates to the insurgency, hence the apparently shallow reporting done by the military. I gather that the study group wants the filtering process to be refined so it makes better use of available data, but would that necessarily result in a 12 fold increase in the number of reports they add to their database? Probably not, 90% of everything is crap after all.

[Drakonix]

Some corrections are necessary to make the statement true:

"What these liberals have done, again, is expose their own biases and blind anti-war, anti-USA rage, and they’ve given us an unvarnished look at their ugly ignorance and crafty paranoia."

[vernarial]

Originally Posted by Mazer

So not only are you accusing our troops of politically motivated censorship, you're also saying that they're dumb enough to believe that recruitment ads paint a complete picture of military service.

I'm not accusing the troops themselves, but rather those in the Pentagon, and yes I do believe some of the troops are dumb enough to believe the recruitment ads paint a complete picture.

I understand that you respect our volunteer soldiers and marines even though you don't support their mission. But try to remember that the president and the military are two separate entities, and the politics of the one do not reflect on the deeds of the other. Our troops sign up to protect our country, not the party line.

Actually the President is the ultimate head of the military. He can use the military to further his own political motives. And not all of our troops sign up to protect our country. Some sign up to see the world, or so their college education can be paid for, or a host of other reasons.

@ Sinner
Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right. And there is alot of difference between McDonalds and the USA military. And yes, I would like it if McDonalds would show the bad side of eating their food. I wish all advertising and business was more honest and open. Just as I wish my government was more honest and open.

[Mazer]

I take it back. It doesn't sound like you have any respect for our armed forces at all.

[vernarial]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.
If you are referring to the dumb part, I would attribute that to everyone, not just soldiers. I'm sure there is a segment of the whole population that is fooled by the ads. I'm sure there is a segment of the troops that are fooled as well.
If you are referring to why people join the military, that's just from personal experience. I have talked to quite a few soldiers and once you get past the obligatory "I'm doing it to keep my country free" part you will learn that there are many different reasons for people joining the military.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I take it back. It doesn't sound like you have any respect for our armed forces at all.

Speaking about the people in the military and not the organization: there are all kinds in there and no need to pretend they're some class of nobility.

My favorite acquaintance in the navy was nicknamed "pigfucker" because he freely admitted he used to fuck pigs on the farm in Iowa and his taste carried over to hookers, which he pursued with considerable enthusiasm and little selectivity.

No doubt people like him have been labeled "heroes" in the past and people like you would idolize them, but he was just another character to his buddies who covered his back like he covered theirs.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

he was just another character to his buddies who covered his back like he covered theirs.

Well, that's the one thing that makes them different. Even below agverage people can have honor, even people with ulterior motives for joining up can be credited with altruism when they put their lives and health at risk. It doesn't elevate them to superhero status to join the military, but it does make them special.

Mostly what I'm concerned with is the idea that the armed forces are somehow subverting the democratic process when all they are attempting is to complete their mission. If those service men and women have something to speak out about they can wait to say it when their terms of service end, and in all but rare cases that's what happens. I'm certain that they all have different opinions about the war in Iraq, but in the interest of solidarity they keep their opinions private. If the military did have a political agenda it simply would not be able to function as a single unit, and recruitment rates would drop sharply. This is the one American institution that has to be perfectly neutral, and the fact that it has accomplished anything is evidence that it is neutral.

The commander in chief is a civilian. Not only is he allowed to be biased, his job often requires him to be biased. In no way does that reflect on the motives of the military because their oath mentions the president's title, not his name. Whoever the president happens to be, that's who they've sworn to obey. Sure, the president can abuse his power for political purposes, but because the military obeys all of his orders and not just the ones they agree with, all the blame for their actions lies with the president.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals

DUH.

Originally Posted by Mazer

...they all have different opinions about the war in Iraq, but in the interest of solidarity they keep their opinions private. If the military did have a political agenda it simply would not be able to function as a single unit, and recruitment rates would drop sharply. This is the one American institution that has to be perfectly neutral, and the fact that it has accomplished anything is evidence that it is neutral.

HUH? Dude, I barely know where to begin.

Of course the military has a political agenda, it's the embodiment of a political agenda. The current agenda is to win the "war on terror," "spread democracy" and make Americans "feel safer" by fighting in Iraq. Now granted this might not seem in the least bit logical to anyone with half a brain, but if it's not a political agenda then I can't imagine what would fucking qualify.

You maintain that it's the duty of soldiers to keep their mouths shut about their own political opinions lest recruitment should suffer, but it's apparently lost on you that that in itself is a political agenda, and you go on to argue that the military has ascended to a state of neutrality! Of course the military isn't neutral, the aggressive sterilization of individual opinion itself is a hard political line which is precisely designed to allow it to function as a unit toward a goal. A military goal is anything but "perfectly neutral."

Also you suggest that Iraq is blanketed by free agent reportage in a journalistic orgy that must be filling virtual warehouses with videotape as evidence that there's no chance the violence is underreported, and yet oddly you could compile all the footage and reports that have emerged from Iraq and been shown to the American public since the outset, edit it together and probably view it in a single evening. Seems to be a small margin of discrepancy there, no?

Originally Posted by Sinner

"well, then I guess everything is swell in Iraq”, hmmm who said or implied that?...
...When insurgent propaganda or unsubstantiated rumor are passed off as verified news, it does nobody any good, except the people who want to drown Iraq in blood...

Ah yes, funnily you know it seems people only use the word PROPAGANDA when they're in denial of the message.