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.

[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.