posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
maelorin at 11:32pm on 20/02/2003
maelorin at 11:32pm on 20/02/2003The USA, well the executive government of the USA anyway, seems quite upset that Turkey doesn't want to play until the USA puts their pledges in writing. Surely the USA can be trusted to treat their allies well ... can't they?
Meanwhile, our media organisations are getting ready to deliver the war to our door, and into our living rooms. We can expect practically continuous coverage, across all media and probably thorugh most media organisations.
Speaking of media organisations, how about the way they go about portraying the leaders of our two main political parties? Statistics, of themselves, can't save anyone - but favourable spin from most of our media ... that is worth more than any sustained political advertising in the lead up to a possible election.
The Liberals appear to be more cohernet in their position on the war that isn't inevitable, but we have to be very prepared for - the not-inevitable, but must be fast-tracked, war we have to have - maybe.
It seems it is easy to suggest that anyone who questions the need for war is not acting in our national interest. Surely we ought to recognise that war is probably the only way to deal with Mr. Hussein? Somehow its the only/most 'moral' option.... and those who openly protest are somehow 'aiding' Mr. Hussein. For some reason it is not necessary to actually try to convince those who doubt the necessity of war that it is indeed inevitable.
Therein lies a significant flaw, a possibly fatal one, for long term propaganda interests. Unlike Vietnam, there is no need for those who oppose war (for all their many and varied reasons) to convince the population that the moral dimension of this war is questionable - it is being challenged from the outset. While a lot of lessons have been learned from Vietnam, a balanced appraisal and application to the current political situation seems to be missing.
Is a heavy hand really necessary, or conducive, to good relations domestically or in internaitonal relations? Surely, if this is all about the common good, there shouldn't bee exorbitant quibbling about who is going to help whom out and how? For that matter, how does the USA reconcile being fiercely protective of its own sovereignty, and so casual with the sovereignty of other nations?
As Hugh White, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (aspi.org.au), points out in a recent article, nothing is certain - even if the USA and its 'coalition of the willing' have overwhelming force there can be no guarantee that there will be a speedy and smooth execution of well laid plans. And it is even harder to guess what the medium and long term outcomes might be. Particularly with so much dissent being sowed (and cultivated?) at home.
Meanwhile, our media organisations are getting ready to deliver the war to our door, and into our living rooms. We can expect practically continuous coverage, across all media and probably thorugh most media organisations.
Speaking of media organisations, how about the way they go about portraying the leaders of our two main political parties? Statistics, of themselves, can't save anyone - but favourable spin from most of our media ... that is worth more than any sustained political advertising in the lead up to a possible election.
The Liberals appear to be more cohernet in their position on the war that isn't inevitable, but we have to be very prepared for - the not-inevitable, but must be fast-tracked, war we have to have - maybe.
It seems it is easy to suggest that anyone who questions the need for war is not acting in our national interest. Surely we ought to recognise that war is probably the only way to deal with Mr. Hussein? Somehow its the only/most 'moral' option.... and those who openly protest are somehow 'aiding' Mr. Hussein. For some reason it is not necessary to actually try to convince those who doubt the necessity of war that it is indeed inevitable.
Therein lies a significant flaw, a possibly fatal one, for long term propaganda interests. Unlike Vietnam, there is no need for those who oppose war (for all their many and varied reasons) to convince the population that the moral dimension of this war is questionable - it is being challenged from the outset. While a lot of lessons have been learned from Vietnam, a balanced appraisal and application to the current political situation seems to be missing.
Is a heavy hand really necessary, or conducive, to good relations domestically or in internaitonal relations? Surely, if this is all about the common good, there shouldn't bee exorbitant quibbling about who is going to help whom out and how? For that matter, how does the USA reconcile being fiercely protective of its own sovereignty, and so casual with the sovereignty of other nations?
As Hugh White, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (aspi.org.au), points out in a recent article, nothing is certain - even if the USA and its 'coalition of the willing' have overwhelming force there can be no guarantee that there will be a speedy and smooth execution of well laid plans. And it is even harder to guess what the medium and long term outcomes might be. Particularly with so much dissent being sowed (and cultivated?) at home.