Operation Persuasion

[Hazel]

A quality video aired on Australian TV in 2003, that talks about the unprecidented access of the world press organisations and their journalists to the Iraque war. Old news on one front, but 'the Devil is in the detail'... and the insights given here give confirmation in a way that is unassailable. And no point in betting that this video, or anything like it has ever been screened in the US. Hope my cynicism on this one can be proven wrong?

No wonder we inflamed Arab nations... but also this information is something to keep in view as we enter the Syrian conflict! For the record Australia's then prime minister (the Right wing, Mr. Howard)... has recently announced his flip on our nations involvement.. and spoke of the undue persuasion exerted upon him by the then American administration.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GINVv9-9s

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/operation-persuasion/

More journalists were sent to cover the beginning of the Iraq Invasion in the early 2000's than were in Vietnam at the height of that war, and they were given more access both in governmental allowance and via more advanced technological means than they had ever had before. ABC Australia's documentary Operation Persuasion looks to dissect just that - what has changed in the war coverage game, and how the proliferation of information and our access to it has changed the way we view that coverage.
After the negative press fallout of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military leadership had been very wary in what it allowed press to have access to in their operations. The Tet Offensive being portrayed as an utter failure, despite the overwhelming victory American forces actually achieved, is cited as the breaking point in military leader faith in the homeland press. The numerous military operations that occurred throughout the 1980's were well shielded from the press as a result, and this policy remained in place until Desert Storm, the first United States Iraqi invasion under George Bush Sr. Following that experience, where they were able to wage a relatively "smart" war of precision missile and air strikes that painted the military actions in a more favorable light, their resistance to press coverage eased considerably.
That positive experience led to similarly eased policies heading into the George W. Bush-led U.S. invasion of Iraq, where they had decreed the intent to locate and finally remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power. The results were not nearly as ideal this time around, as networks with less American-minded coverage angles such as the United Kingdom's BBC network and the upstart news network out of Qatar, Al Jazeera, did not shy away from showing gruesome imagery of civilian injuries in Baghdad and similar stories that created sympathy for Iraq.
The ease of access to information, and the constant bombardment of public sentiment with it, led to a criticism of the military campaign that the public had never had the resources to stage - questioning of the validity of intelligence cited as the reasoning to start the war in the first place. Whether Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, or was near the capability to create them, was the reasoning Bush cited for invasion, and that almost immediately came under fire as a blatant falsehood.

[Hazel]

Here is a recent Australian news item reporting ex Prime Minister Howards' retrospective 'embarrassment' re the countries Iraque war involvement, that he 'persuaded' us to enter with such conviction, during his heady Bush alliance days. But he denies that the war was a lie.

27570

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-21/howard-embarrassed-by-intelligence-that-iraq-had-wmds/5759132

Former prime minister John Howard says he was "embarrassed" intelligence he used to take Australia to war in Iraq was inaccurate and denies it was a "deliberate deception".

In an interview broadcast on the Seven Network, Mr Howard said he and the then National Security Committee of Cabinet in 2003 sent Australian troops into Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the West.

"I was struck by the force of the language used in the American national intelligence assessment late in November 2002," he said.

"It brought together all the American intelligence and paragraph after paragraph, they said, we judge Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

However, he said as evidence emerged that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he sought to explain the government's decision.

"I felt embarrassed, I did, I couldn't believe it, because I had genuinely believed it," he told interviewer Janet Albrechtsen.

"So, I felt embarrassed and I did my best to explain ... that it wasn't a deliberate deception.

"It may have been an erroneous conclusion based on the available information but it wasn't made up."

Mr Howard also chided his successor as prime minister, Kevin Rudd, who he said initially supported the intelligence findings before later accusing him of "going to war on a lie".

"Kevin Rudd made a speech saying that it was an empirical fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he later on said that I had taken the country to war based on a lie, despite the fact he said it was an empirical fact, never one to understate things," he said.

So much of the Islamic State operation comes out of what's occurring in Syria and to suggest that it's purely or predominately a result of what happened in Iraq in 2003 is a false reading of history.
Former prime minister John Howard
But former intelligence analyst turned independent MP Andrew Wilkie said Mr Howard should feel ashamed of his role in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"John Howard should be feeling a damn sight more than embarrassed. He should be feeling quite ashamed of himself," he said.

"He should be feeling quite lucky that, conceivably, he hasn't been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder.

"The fact is that Australia joined in the invasion of Iraq 11-and-a-half years ago on lies."

Mr Howard denied the conflict - led by United States and Britain - sowed the seeds for the formation of militant group Islamic State (IS), which has since seized control of large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

"If you're seeking to locate the responsibility specifically to the 2003 invasion, let me put it to you that Syria was not involved in any outside military operation, but more than 200,000 have died in the Syrian civil war," he said.

"And so much of the Islamic State operation comes out of what's occurring in Syria and to suggest that it's purely or predominately a result of what happened in Iraq in 2003 is a false reading of history."

US president Barack Obama last month launched strikes against IS targets in Iraq and has foreshadowed the formation of a multi-national coalition to "destroy" the brutal Sunni militant group.

Australia has supported US efforts by delivering humanitarian and military aid to Iraqis under siege by IS fighters and sent fighter jets and about 600 troops, including special forces soldiers, to the Middle East to prepare for possible deployment in coming weeks.

Authorities last week said they had uncovered a plot by IS-linked operatives to abduct and execute a "random member of the public" from the Sydney streets.

**And the insanity goes on...