Despite an overwhelming defeat of his military forces during the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was able to stay in power in Iraq. By 2003, the U.S. government saw Hussein and the Iraqi government as even more of a threat. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the northeastern United States forced many Americans to rethink the security of the nation. Much of the American public became convinced that there was a connection between the Hussein government and the threat of further terrorist actions and, also, a link between the Iraqi leadership and the terrorist organizations in the region. The U.S. government, led by President George W. Bush, was also convinced that the Iraqi government was hiding its production of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, Hussein and his Ba’ath Party did its best to not associate itself with the terrorist acts being perpetrated against America. Government intelligence agencies convinced Bush that Iraq posed a pressing danger to the security of the nation. Bush seized on the fact that much of the American public was concerned about national safety in the months and years following the September 11 attacks. The U.S. government attempted to convince the public and the rest of the world of the danger that Iraq and its president posed to the Middle East and world as a whole. As Ali A. Allawi points out in his 2007 book The Occupation of Iraq, the linking of Iraq to WMDs and regional terrorism was at the heart of such propaganda. Thus, the war was not presented to the American public as merely an attack against a rogue dictator, but it was to be one part of the larger War on Terror.
The U.S. government attempted to convince its citizens and the rest of the world of the danger that Hussein posed not only to the Middle East and world as a whole. The linking of Iraq to WMDs and international terrorism was at the heart of such propaganda. The U.S. government expropriated much from the propaganda of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but usually made the threat seem even more dire, given the interceding War on Terror and alleged WMDs. The Bush administration repeatedly charged Hussein with the manufacturing and possession of WMDs, even when many intelligence sources doubted that any actually evidence for such claims existed. There was also a concerted effort to link Hussein's regime to al-Qaeda, a militant Islamist group, even though no such connections existed. By doing so, the Bush White House was tying Iraq to al-Qaeda, Islamic terrorism, and the September 11, 2001, attacks in an attempt to justify an invasion of Iraq as retribution for September 11. During his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush claimed he had learned from British intelligent sources that the Iraqi government had obtained large amounts of uranium from Africa for use in making nuclear weapons. The claim was without merit, although, as Sheldon Rampton and Johan Stauber contend in their book, Weapons of Mass Deception, administration officials at the time knew that the allegations were likely false.
There were several ways in which the U.S. government, through various media outlets, tried to convince Americans to support the invasion of Iraq. Once the invasion began in March 2003, the U.S. media seemed to focus on human interest stories and U.S. military accomplishments in Iraq. Journalists in Iraq were embedded with the military and would, thus, often report events from the military’s perspective. A CBS News article states that in an interview with Larry King on May 29, 2003, Bush claimed that U.S. intelligent officials had located weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, no such weapons were found, but the claim was effective in rallying the American public to support the war effort. During the insurgency that followed the coalition’s capture of Baghdad, the U.S. government tried to put a positive spin on the situation. At every opportunity, generals gave positive assessments of the conditions in Iraq. An April 20, 2008, New York Times article alleges that the Bush administration used retired military personnel who were fed misleading information and were wooed with meetings with top military officials to help spread their message. These retired personnel would often be featured on news programs as “military analysts” who would paint a rosy picture of the state of affairs in Iraq. The government’s use of certain words was also important. Often, people killed by coalition attacks were described as “terrorists” or “insurgents.” However, many of these people were later discovered to be women and children who were in a house or area that was under attack by the coalition. According to an Associated Press story on October 12, 2007, a U.S. attack that led to the deaths of 15 women and children was blamed on the slain men in the house, who were said to have been terrorists who deliberately placed the women and children in harm’s way.
By 2003, it became clear that most U.S. citizens would not support a war that was simply about protecting oil interests in the Middle East. The Bush administration attempted to play down the role that oil played in the decision to go to war. Instead, Bush focused on the danger that was posed by Hussein’s supposed arsenal of WMDs. Bush, however, knew of the importance of keeping the Iraqi oil fields out of hostile hands. The issue of who would control the world’s second-largest oil reserves generated much interest in the Bush White House in the months before the invasion of Iraq. A coalition of neo-conservative think tanks with close ties to the Bush administration were planning for Iraq's post-Hussein oil industry. Some believed that U.S. control of Iraqi oilfields would destroy the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which many U.S. conservatives have long-believed to be detrimental to U.S. energy interests. In their November 2002 article in The Observer, Peter Beaumont and Faisal Islam show that Larry Lindsey, President Bush’s economic advisor stated before the invasion that a successful war in Iraq would be good for U.S. energy policy.
Iraq War Propaganda
The U.S. government attempted to convince its citizens and the rest of the world of the danger that Hussein posed not only to the Middle East and world as a whole. The linking of Iraq to WMDs and international terrorism was at the heart of such propaganda. The U.S. government expropriated much from the propaganda of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but usually made the threat seem even more dire, given the interceding War on Terror and alleged WMDs. The Bush administration repeatedly charged Hussein with the manufacturing and possession of WMDs, even when many intelligence sources doubted that any actually evidence for such claims existed. There was also a concerted effort to link Hussein's regime to al-Qaeda, a militant Islamist group, even though no such connections existed. By doing so, the Bush White House was tying Iraq to al-Qaeda, Islamic terrorism, and the September 11, 2001, attacks in an attempt to justify an invasion of Iraq as retribution for September 11. During his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush claimed he had learned from British intelligent sources that the Iraqi government had obtained large amounts of uranium from Africa for use in making nuclear weapons. The claim was without merit, although, as Sheldon Rampton and Johan Stauber contend in their book, Weapons of Mass Deception, administration officials at the time knew that the allegations were likely false.
There were several ways in which the U.S. government, through various media outlets, tried to convince Americans to support the invasion of Iraq. Once the invasion began in March 2003, the U.S. media seemed to focus on human interest stories and U.S. military accomplishments in Iraq. Journalists in Iraq were embedded with the military and would, thus, often report events from the military’s perspective. A CBS News article states that in an interview with Larry King on May 29, 2003, Bush claimed that U.S. intelligent officials had located weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, no such weapons were found, but the claim was effective in rallying the American public to support the war effort. During the insurgency that followed the coalition’s capture of Baghdad, the U.S. government tried to put a positive spin on the situation. At every opportunity, generals gave positive assessments of the conditions in Iraq. An April 20, 2008, New York Times article alleges that the Bush administration used retired military personnel who were fed misleading information and were wooed with meetings with top military officials to help spread their message. These retired personnel would often be featured on news programs as “military analysts” who would paint a rosy picture of the state of affairs in Iraq. The government’s use of certain words was also important. Often, people killed by coalition attacks were described as “terrorists” or “insurgents.” However, many of these people were later discovered to be women and children who were in a house or area that was under attack by the coalition. According to an Associated Press story on October 12, 2007, a U.S. attack that led to the deaths of 15 women and children was blamed on the slain men in the house, who were said to have been terrorists who deliberately placed the women and children in harm’s way.
Oil and the Iraq War
By 2003, it became clear that most U.S. citizens would not support a war that was simply about protecting oil interests in the Middle East. The Bush administration attempted to play down the role that oil played in the decision to go to war. Instead, Bush focused on the danger that was posed by Hussein’s supposed arsenal of WMDs. Bush, however, knew of the importance of keeping the Iraqi oil fields out of hostile hands. The issue of who would control the world’s second-largest oil reserves generated much interest in the Bush White House in the months before the invasion of Iraq. A coalition of neo-conservative think tanks with close ties to the Bush administration were planning for Iraq's post-Hussein oil industry. Some believed that U.S. control of Iraqi oilfields would destroy the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which many U.S. conservatives have long-believed to be detrimental to U.S. energy interests. In their November 2002 article in The Observer, Peter Beaumont and Faisal Islam show that Larry Lindsey, President Bush’s economic advisor stated before the invasion that a successful war in Iraq would be good for U.S. energy policy.
Comments