When Lies Lead to War: Iraq, Ukraine, and the Propaganda Connection

The Iraq War and the Deception of WMDs

In American memory does Iraqi deaths matter as much as US lives?

What were the reasons given for the Iraq war, and how do they stand up today?

Misinformation, Disinformation, Fake News: Iraq

This examines misinformation used to justify the Iraq invasion and the media's role in supporting Bush's narrative. Unlike Trump, Bush received widespread media backing, with limited scrutiny of his choices and endorsement of false information that shaped public perception of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

History

The US intervention in Iraq in 2003 toppled Saddam Hussein's regime but sparked a long conflict. The 2003–2011 Iraq War included a fast-paced initial phase followed by a long occupation confronting insurgents. The roots of the war go back to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Despite losing the Gulf War, Saddam's regime survived by crushing the uprisings. The allies created a “safe harbor”, imposed no-fly zones, and UN sanctions were aimed at Iraqi weapons programs. The audits revealed violations that resulted in the US. airstrikes in 1998. Economic sanctions eased and the US withdrew in 2011 after a decline in violence.

In 2002, President George W. Bush linked the Iraq War to post-9/11 security concerns, citing weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. Despite UN Resolution 1441, controversy has arisen over Iraq's compliance with it. The roots of the conflict lie in historical tensions between Shiites and Sunnis, as well as the repressive rule of Saddam Hussein, which contributed to the military campaign launched on March 20, 2003. The war changed the face of the Middle East, benefited Iran and sparked a refugee crisis. Initially opposed to the war, the war's unpopularity in the US grew, prompting a strategic surge in 2007 aimed at stabilizing the country amid escalating sectarian conflicts. By the end of 2007, the violence had subsided, leading to graduation in the United States. troop reduction and complete withdrawal in December 2011.

U.S. President George W. Bush announcing the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in London on Dec. 14, 2003

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)

Initial justifications for the Iraq War included false claims about Iraq possessing chemical or biological weapons and alleged ties to Al-Qaeda. While there was truth to Iraq's past possession of such weapons, by 2003, they had been eliminated, verified by UN inspectors. The evidence, including claims about an active WMD program, proved unsubstantiated, relying on unreliable sources like Ahmed Chalabi. President Bush's push for war, citing WMDs, lacked concrete evidence and conflicted with UN inspection findings. Despite acknowledging flawed intelligence, no WMDs were found post-invasion, raising questions about misinformation surrounding the war. The 2011 U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, despite reduced violence and progress in democracy, had far-reaching consequences. It allowed the rise of the Islamic State.

Two decades post-war, Iraq, now a nascent democracy, faces challenges like threats to activists and journalists, pervasive corruption, economic turmoil, high unemployment, and inadequate public services. Despite stability in government-level interactions with the US, pro-Iranian militias strain diplomatic ties, leading to attacks and military interventions. The 2021 partial US withdrawal hasn't fully alleviated the threats from extremist groups, challenges in reconciling with Sunni communities, and the unresolved Kurdish question.

The Role of the Media

Throughout the entire 20th century, propaganda has been closely associated with war. However, the sophistication and forceful influence of US information operations have significantly evolved from the iconic Uncle Sam posters of World War I.

The media plays a crucial role in both the prevention and propagation of false information. The Bush administration found support from a unified media campaign. Irrespective of their political affiliations, most publications aided Bush in his pursuit of the Iraq invasion. Journalist Gary Kamya remarked, "The period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq marks one of the most significant breakdowns in American media history."

In the Iraq War, widespread propaganda was fueled by media embedded in the conflict. Over 600 journalists provided updates, with orchestrated events like British tank displays aimed at influencing public opinion. The U.S. distributed leaflets attributing Iraqi suffering to Saddam, seeking to minimize casualties. However, conflicting messages and distrust made discerning the truth challenging for the Iraqi people. The media's influence, known as the "CNN effect," complicated the conflict, as it shaped public opinion and forced governments to address specific issues. Propaganda extended beyond external influences, as regimes, like Hitler's and Saddam's, use selective information to control narratives. During this time, the falsehoods propagated by the Bush administration largely evaded scrutiny and were occasionally actively promoted. Judith Miller, a correspondent for The New York Times, consistently provided a platform for the administration's misinformation without credible sourcing. In 2007, Miller and Michael R Gordon published a significant article alleging Iraq's intensified efforts in developing a successful nuclear program. However, neither reporter cited reliable sources, instead relying on information from an anonymous US official.

While the media claimed to offer an unbiased view of events, achieving complete neutrality was challenging due to inherent biases. These were some pitfalls in media reporting on violence, many observed in coverage of the Iraq War. "Manichaeism," portraying one side as good and demonizing the other as evil, was and is still notably prevalent in U.S. mass media.

• Decontextualizing Violence: Focusing on the irrational without examining the underlying reasons for unresolved conflicts.

• Dualism: Reducing the parties involved in a conflict to two, ignoring external forces such as foreign governments and transnational companies.

• Manichaeism: Portraying one side as good and demonizing the other as evil.

These media mistakes significantly impacted public opinion. Notably, the media's narrative shifted from a focus on the threat of biological weapons to an effort to free Iraq. Propaganda's influence was a powerful tool in shaping public perception, affecting the outcome of a war.

Saddam Hussein and His Lies as well

Saddam Hussein's Iraq used deceptive tactics, such as staged funerals and false health claims, to mislead the media. The regime blamed U.S. sanctions for issues like child deaths, but the fault lies with the regime, which prioritized personal projects over the well-being of its people. Saddam's propaganda aimed to shift blame onto the United States. There is a report that also exposes Iraq's ruse of placing military equipment near civilian areas to discredit potential U.S. attacks. Despite varying success globally, these deceptions contribute to concealing weapons of mass destruction.

U.S.-Iraq War propaganda significantly shaped public opinion, portraying Saddam Hussein as "evil" and the U.S. as a liberator. The narrative evolved from WMD justifications to framing the war as a liberation effort. Media manipulation, including "Manichaeism," impacted global perceptions and diplomatic relations, highlighting the enduring influence of propaganda on historical perspectives and support for military actions. The Bush administration thought the United States would succeed in imposing a liberal democracy in Iraq and turn this country into a close ally of the USA and a model for the rest of the Middle East. Iraqi democracy is weak today, and the country has closer allies with Iran than the United States.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict and the Disinformation Campaign

Russia employs the whataboutism method to justify its invasion of Ukraine, citing the example of the US war in Iraq.

Russian invasion of Ukraine: A visual timeline of the war

History: Russia’s strategy to confuse people

On February 24, 2022, Russia initiated an invasion of Ukraine, escalating the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict that commenced with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The repercussions of this invasion have resulted in a significant energy crisis, global food shortages, and one of the most substantial refugee crises, with over 7 million Ukrainian refugees. A prominent concern revolves around the utilization of modern warfare practices, specifically large-scale Russian propaganda campaigns, to shape the narrative surrounding the conflict. The Russian government has implemented new legislation to exert control over traditional media outlets, compelling them to align with the official narrative and garner support for the war domestically.

Almost two years into the conflict, Russia persists in disseminating unfounded and deceptive assertions to rationalize its actions, portraying Ukraine and NATO as the aggressors while disavowing responsibility for the ongoing war. This approach aligns with a strategy spearheaded by President Vladimir Putin well before February 24, tracing back to the events of 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and threw its support behind separatists in eastern Ukraine. However, the spurious claims extend beyond this timeframe. Russian media and campaigns linked to the Kremlin depict Ukraine's government as being infiltrated by Satanists and terrorists. Furthermore, they have rejected well-documented instances of atrocities committed by Russian soldiers against civilians in Bucha, asserting that the scenes were staged and the devastation was falsified. Additionally, they have propagated baseless allegations that the bombing of a maternity hospital in Mariupol was staged, employing actors. Concurrently, there are unfounded rumors being circulated that Ukraine is illicitly selling weapons provided by western nations for personal gain on the dark web. The disinformation also extended to attempts to blame Ukraine for incidents like the missile strike on the Kramatorsk rail station. Efforts to combat Russian disinformation were met with challenges. Tech companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, responded by labeling Russian state media. In response, Russia adapted by utilizing diplomats' social media accounts and creating networks of fake accounts to circumvent restrictions. The sophistication of these campaigns varied, from elaborate networks imitating reputable news outlets to simpler, easily identified efforts.

Ukraine and its allies took proactive measures in the information war, predicting and publicly revealing Russia's potential moves. Weeks before the invasion, U.S. intelligence disclosed Russia's plan to blame Ukraine for an attack as a pretext for invasion. Tech companies launched initiatives to combat misinformation, with Google's pilot program in Eastern Europe aiming to help users detect and avoid false information about refugees.

Despite these challenges, there is a growing awareness of the dangers posed by Russian disinformation. The invasion has prompted increased vigilance and strategies to counteract false narratives, showcasing a collective effort to confront the evolving landscape of information warfare. The ongoing conflict continues to underscore the need for resilience and adaptability in the face of an ever-shifting information battleground.

A Splintering Global Internet

Russia's invasion of Ukraine stands as the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II, uniquely characterized by the integration of algorithms and TikTok videos into traditional warfare tactics. The online dimension of the conflict has become a global battleground, with Russia deploying disinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories to rationalize its invasion, suppress domestic opposition, and foment discord among adversaries.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has witnessed both nations utilizing social media for propaganda, spreading rumors, and manipulating historical events to shape contemporary narratives. Instances such as the false claim of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy fleeing abroad highlight the weaponization of social media for disinformation purposes. Public opinion is shaped not only by propaganda but also by individual political affiliations and interests. Ultimately, the reliance on social media exacerbates public distrust in the media and hinders constructive solutions to international conflicts such as the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Zelensky in Kyiv on March 1

Russia has Gained more Traction in Africa and Latin America

Russian propaganda finds a receptive audience in some African communities by exploiting existing narratives and grievances. One effective tactic involves using 'but what about…' arguments to underscore perceived Western double standards, particularly in the unequal attention given to different conflicts or refugee crises. European policymakers should take note of the effectiveness of this strategy.

Furthermore, Russian disinformation emphasizes the perceived 'threat' posed by Western gender norms to societies with strong traditional family and gender roles. This narrative gains traction through social media 'echo chambers,' where like-minded individuals amplify and spread discourse, contributing to the polarization of societal views on contentious issues like feminism and LGBTQI+ rights. Putin's widely circulated speech after referendums in Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine played into this by criticizing 'perversions' such as gender reassignment surgery.

To divert attention from Russia's responsibility for the war, the speech employed a critique of Western normative imperialism, bolstering Russia's soft power even prior to the invasion of Ukraine. This critique aligns with prevailing perceptions in numerous African countries that view feminism and acceptance of homosexuality as 'unAfrican' concepts imposed by the West. This shared sentiment against the West fosters sympathy for Russia, positioning itself as a counterforce against Western hegemony. Africa's status as the largest bloc to abstain from condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine sparked Western outrage, revealing a problematic assumption of homogeneity and alignment with 'traditional' Western partners. This assumption drew criticism from African diplomats who denounced Western pressures, highlighted the West's silence on deadly conflicts in Africa, and emphasized the inaccuracy of viewing the continent as a monolithic entity.

The Kremlin's propaganda efforts against Ukraine extended well before the invasion, with a discernible escalation in the months preceding the conflict. Russia tailored its disinformation messages to specific audiences globally. In Eastern Europe, baseless rumors about Ukrainian refugees committing crimes were disseminated, while in Western Europe, the focus shifted to portraying corrupt Ukrainian leaders. Latin America received Spanish-language messages framing the invasion as a struggle against Western imperialism. Within Ukraine itself, Russia flooded the media with propaganda questioning the military's capabilities and the government's integrity. However, despite these efforts, Ukrainian defiance proved resilient, hindering the intended impact of Russian disinformation.

Iraq and Ukraine

The 20th anniversary of the illegal Iraq War and the recent illegal attack on Ukraine by Vladimir Putin reveals a stark contrast in global reactions. Despite both wars lacking UN authorization and resulting in massive destruction and loss of life, the responses differ significantly.

In the case of the Iraq War, marked by over a million Iraqi civilian casualties and numerous war crimes, there was global disapproval, but little action against the U.S. and Britain. No state-imposed sanctions or international criminal court investigations targeting the leaders occurred. The reaction to Putin's war on Ukraine, however, has been swift and extensive, with Western governments imposing sanctions and the international criminal court issuing an arrest warrant for Putin on war crimes charges. This disparate reaction underscores the vast difference in global authority between Russia and the U.S.