# Columnist Criticizes "Propaganda" from AFG



## The Bread Guy (2 Feb 2009)

My own questions peppered in as well - shared with the usual disclaimer...  

*Propaganda infuses news from Afghanistan*
Norbert Cunningham, Moncton Times & Transcript, 2 Feb 09
Column link - Link to share comments

(....)

_Disconnect_

I've been increasingly noticing a consistent and big disconnect between the facts and what the seemingly soothing words from Canadian military spokespeople appear to be saying about the war in Afghanistan. It's time Canadians begin reading very critically indeed if they wish to form a logical opinion of our role over there, whatever the opinion may be.

And the place to start is with the acknowledgement that Canadian journalists covering this war are almost entirely dependent on the same military for all their information and safety. Their stories are suspect and can't help but be highly one-sided. Still, I marvel at the tremendous skill displayed by our military's spin-doctors (light years ahead of our standard government spin doctors). And yes, they do let us occasionally glimpse the more stark reality, if only because they seem to know better than to outright lie about the obvious, unlike government spin-doctors often.

_For instance. . ._

For example, a fairly typical Canadian Press story in the early new year citing a military source told us the Taliban planted "roughly twice as many makeshift bombs in Kandahar province during the last quarter of 2008 as they did during the same stretch of 2007." So things are getting a lot worse, right? No! Not according to the source, the second in command of the anti-roadside bomb squad. At least, that's the impression he tried to leave: "We are more successful in dealing with them, but there are a lot more of them."

Then we get into the real manipulation of words and facts. We're told "some 355 bombs were either detonated accidentally, detonated intentionally or disposed of before they could do any harm. . . compared with about 170 during the same period of 2007. . ."

What's with meaningless, distracting detail about detonation/disposal? All this tells us is there were 355 roadside bombs compared to 170 the year before, period. And if you're watching the numbers, that is not "roughly twice as many" but actually "more than twice as many." Fifteen more. Why is this downplayed?

_(Question:  If one is unhappy with what's *written* or what you *read* (as opposed to what's *said*), whose fault is it:  the entity holding the news conference, or the writer?)_

_Looks better_

The answer is that it looks better and the military and its political masters worry about public support for the war slipping.

Back to the numbers. Next the story tells us that in the last quarter of 2008 the number of "accidental detonations" of these bombs was 180, "nearly three times as high" as the same period in 2007. That is 10 more than total bombs planted the previous year! And note that "accidental detonation" means that our troops managed to trigger the bombs, as the enemy intended. These are not "accidents" by any reasonable definition of that word. More than twice the number of bombs were planted and just over half (50.7 per cent, half plus five) exploded as they were meant to do. Is it any wonder Canada's casualty rate has been so high lately?

But wait, silly me, this is a good news story! It says 10 Canadian soldiers died as a result of all those explosions, "which represented just four per cent of the overall number of IED attacks in Kandahar province during the period."

It isn't clear what number of explosions this four per cent refers to, but never mind. It also doesn't tell us how many died the same way in the same period in 2007. Why not? It is a crucial number. We have every right to be highly suspicious and wonder just how bad things are going. And we should bristle at that word "just" referring to the dead.

_(Question:  Is a lack of stats the fault of the source of the info, or the lack of research by the writer/journalist/his-her editorial support team?  For example, here are some sources for exactly such info, in no particular order: 

icasualties.org
wikipedia
Canadian Forces
CBC.ca
Ottawa Citizen
Surely, not ALL of these sources were out of order when the stories were being written)

Other factors

Maybe I'm cynical. The story and military source promptly give us an explanation for the situation. It isn't that the enemy is getting stronger or deadlier. No, it was the weather. It rained a lot in the fall of 2007 and not so much in 2008, so it was easier to plant bombs. Taliban don't like getting wet, apparently.

Still, December was one of the deadliest months of the whole war for Canada. And a Taliban spokesman said they were deliberately targeting Canadian troops, a claim the facts appear to substantiate. But it's not so, according to our "military officials" (unnamed this time). The story says they "insist they're just having a run of bad luck."

Or maybe not! Back to the named source, he didn't deny bad luck was had, but "he also acknowledged that changing insurgent tactics may also be partly responsible." Did he mean planting more than twice as many bombs in an area our troops allegedly "control"? Lots of room for "accidents" there. In fact, he admitted it. The story says he acknowledged the Taliban have "all but abandoned face-to-face fighting . . . choosing instead to concentrate on planting homemade bombs."

Lessons unheeded

I'd perhaps not be writing this if it were just one story, but I've seen this disconnect via clever wording for several months now. The message differs from the facts cleverly glossed over and presented (or omitted). Gooooood Morning Kandahar! I've seen this before during the Vietnam war. As you may know, that war didn't end well for the foreign invaders "doing good" for the Vietnamese. We keep hearing progress is being made, and anecdotes to that end, yet the facts keep telling us the opposite. Propaganda? You bet!

The last word

The first line here from Joseph Goebbels is well-known; the rest is equally insightful:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

Lex Talk! is researched and written by Times & Transcript editorial page editor Norbert Cunningham. It appears in this space every Monday.
_


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2009)

I wonder what the author would have thought had he replaced all the words "bombs","IEDs", etc. with the word "cancer"?  Is cancer more prevalent in our society today, or is it that we have discovered more strains and developed better methods of detecting the disease?


----------



## theoldyoungguy (2 Feb 2009)

It is my personal belief that the vast majority of the Canadian Public have a false sense of what actually is going on in Afghanistan, and an unrealistic or false view on what could be considered winning this conflict in relation to Canada's national interest. 

To me, the military is an instituation to project Canada's national interest and provide national security. Frankly helping the ordinary afghan is a part of the mission in Afghanistan to acheive those goals, I dont believe it should be Canada's sole goal, as our national interests and security comes first before anything else. However I additionally don't think the average Canadian has put it in proper perspective. Instead choosing to believe we are in Afghanistan solely to help your average Afghan. That being said, when hearing about increasing violence in Afghanistan you would be extremely discouraged about the mission. In my personal belief, we only need to be their long enough for the local, western friendly, government and security forces to have enough control of the situation on the ground for us to leave. Then we can dump our usual aid monies into organisations like CIDA and let them fly. Henceforth, in my view, winning would be described as having enough local national security forces in place to deal with the security situation effectively.

Now regarding this article and how it pertains to what I just said. I completely disagree with propoganda in any form, however I understand that everyone does it, and being an informed individual I choose to read between the lines every day and seek out enough sources for and against to garner my own opinion. A public that is easily manipulated by the military this article is bashing, is just as easily manipulated by cbc, ctv or any other news agency. There will always be some sort of propoganda, it is up to the individual to read between the lines.


----------



## Teeps74 (2 Feb 2009)

The author of this article (I shall not call him a journalist, as it is clear he is far too lazy to be one of those) needs to learn to dig...  Find those facts.  If he is not there to ask the question, it is his bloody job to go out and research the question before writting any article. 

A more insidious idea here, is the laziness may be purposefull.  Any question posed in an opinion piece, that can be answered on page one of a Google search, is laziness (unless it is an instructive rhetorical), or posed for the purpose of discrediting something then spinning out your own answers.  The average human being is just too lazy to hit Google themselves.  The average human being will trust their favorite sources, be they journalists, religious figures, politicians or who ever.

I would argue that this peice *IS* a propaganda piece, and a skilled one at that.  Whether he intended it as such or not, that is how it is reading to me.


----------



## Sonnyjim (2 Feb 2009)

I wonder if this journalist has been over to the pit to see for himself first hand, or how about imbed himself with the Taliban to get the real news? Why doesn't he write an article about the Taliban propoganda where every infidel invader is killed with every bomb they detonate. Seems to me like a more well put together jumble of reused information, no more than a high school student could muster for an PoliSci essay.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Feb 2009)

Do you believe what's in the paper is actually whats happening in Afghanistan?

Many of those stories are spun or juts plain made up on the crapper by public relations officers in Ottawa. Just like every other war. Though I do expect we will declare "Victory" and come home in 2011.

Truth stings. I know.


----------



## 40below (5 Feb 2009)

I don't know what CP story the reporter is referencing but I was in Kandahar for one of these briefings recently. The total IEDs are up, but so are the discovery of these IEDs - 65 per cent or more are found before they go off – because the CF is out looking for them more and just generally patrolling not just outside the wire but in areas where IEDs are more likely to be placed. Guess what? You're more likely to find them then, one way or another. You want to reduce the total number of IEDs found or triggered to close to zero, never leave KAF, but it's not really part of the strategy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2009)

Here's one Canadian Press story addressing the stats, and here's a blog posting showing a bit more context behind the stats.


----------

