Eccentric Star: A Public Diplomacy Weblog

'Public Fear and Frustration' Rising in Afghanistan, CSIS Report Says

Afghanistan has (tragically) become the perfect example of why public opinion and public relationships need to be recognized and managed in attempts at post-conflict stabilization:

"Afghans See Marked Decline Since 2005," by Griff Witte - the Washington Post, p. A-11, 24 February 2007 (registration required)

Conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated markedly since 2005, with rising violence, government corruption and misguided U.S. efforts contributing to growing unease among the population, according to a report released yesterday based in part on 1,000 interviews with ordinary Afghans.

Although there were bright spots -- a better overall economy and more rights for women -- the report's authors found diminishing security as the Taliban steps up its attacks, a discredited justice system and a severe lack of basic services such as electricity. The report, produced by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies and funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development, also found that Afghans tend to be more negative in their outlook than official statistics or media accounts would suggest.

"Public fear and frustration are on the rise in Afghanistan. As a result, Afghans are beginning to disengage from national governing processes and lose confidence in their leadership," according to the report. "Dramatic changes are required in the coming weeks, or 2007 will become the breaking point."...

Among the report's recommendations are to shift the focus away from eradicating poppy fields and toward interdiction, to give local communities more control over aid money, and to abandon major military sweeps that inflict damage on civilians in favor of rapid-response forces that can protect Afghans in emergencies. "NATO and the United States' 'big army' military operations and emphasis on foot soldier 'kills' are doing more damage than good," the report said.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman, said he could not comment on the report's recommendations because he had not seen them, but he said part of the reason the United States is committing more troops to Afghanistan is to improve response times. Britain said yesterday it would also be sending additional troops....

The report is available on the CSIS webpage. The link from their homepage wasn't working this morning; try this one instead: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070223_breakingpoint.pdf.

NGO Wants Private Security Firms in Iraq Reined In

"Security Firms 'Abusing Iraqis'" - BBC News, 30 October 2006

Private security firms operating in Iraq are committing human rights abuses, a charity has claimed.

A report by War on Want says no prosecutions have been brought despite hundreds of complaints of abuse.

And the charity is calling on the government to introduce legislation to ban private security in war zones.

Lt Col Tim Spicer, whose Aegis security firm operates in Iraq, said they worked under "very strict rules" and could be prosecuted if they did anything wrong.

War on Want claims UK ministers are increasingly using private security firms with a total of 48,000 employees in Iraq - six to every British soldier.

John Hilary, the group's campaigns and policy director, said the Iraq war "has allowed British mercenaries to reap huge profits."

"But the government has failed to enact laws to punish their human rights abuses, including firing on Iraqi civilians.

"How can Tony Blair hope to restore peace and security in Iraq while allowing mercenary armies to operate completely outside the law?

"We call on the government to introduce tough legislation as a matter of urgency to ban the use of mercenaries in these conflict situations."

The report is published on the opening day of the first annual conference of the British Association of Private Security Companies in London.

Col Spicer said it was "completely inaccurate" to suggest that security firms operated outside the law.

He said: "If a British or US citizen - or a citizen of any other country - committed an offence, it is perfectly possible for the government of that country to implement a prosecution against them."

But he said he supported proper regulation of the industry because it would "dispel a lot of the myths and make the situation much clearer."

"It would add clarity to what people can and can't do and where they stand with regard to the law."...

DOS-Commissioned Poll Finds Most Iraqi Youth Want US Forces Out

"Poll: Iraq Arab Youth Want U.S. to Leave," by Katherine Shrader - AP (Washington), 22 October 2006

WASHINGTON - Majorities of Iraqi youth in Arab regions of the country believe security would improve and violence decrease if the U.S.-led forces left immediately, according to a State Department poll that provides a window into the grim warnings provided to policymakers.

The survey — unclassified, but marked "For Official U.S. Government Use Only" — also finds that Iraqi leaders may face particular difficulty recruiting young Sunni Arabs to join the stumbling security forces. Strong majorities of 15- to 29-year-olds in two Arab Sunni areas — Mosul and Tikrit-Baquba — would oppose joining the Iraqi army or police.

The poll has its shortcomings; regional samples are small and the results do not say how many people refused to respond to questions. The private polling firm hired by the State Department also was not able to interview residents of al-Anbar, a Sunni-dominated province and an insurgent stronghold.

But the findings of the summer survey — circulated to policymakers last month and obtained by The Associated Press last week — nevertheless provide a solemn reminder of the difficulty that the U.S.-backed Iraqi government faces as it tries to add ethnic diversity to its security institutions.

As Iraqi leaders try to diversify the ethnic and religious backgrounds of their security forces, the department's opinion analysis said that Arab Sunnis may be particularly hard to recruit.

In Arab Sunni areas, "confidence in the Iraqi army and police is low, and majorities oppose enlisting in either force," the analysis said. "Even recruitment in Arab Shia areas could present challenges as sizable numbers of local youth express support" for local militias, "thus clouding the issue of loyalty to national forces."

The analysis was headlined "Youth In Iraq's Arab Sunni Regions Not Eager to Enlist in National Army, Police" and highlighted views from those areas.

Yet in its assessment of the broader picture for Iraq, which includes Kurds and Arab Shiites, there were pieces of good news: A majority of young Iraqis would be willing to join the security forces or support a family member who did, the survey found....

For more about recent opinion surveys of Iraqis, see "WPO Polls Iraqis on Views of Their Country's Future."

State Dept Officer Cites US 'Stupidity' in Al-Jazeera Interview (Added 11/5: Regional Views)

So much for the benefits of getting Arabic-speaking US officials to speak directly to regional news media:

"Official Sorry for 'Stupidity' Comment" - AP (Washington), 22 October 2006

WASHINGTON - A senior U.S. diplomat apologized Sunday night for saying U.S. policy in Iraq displayed "arrogance" and "stupidity."

A day after his remarks in an interview were broadcast by the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, Alberto Fernandez issued a written apology through the State Department press office.

"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq," said Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in State's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

"This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department," Fernandez added. "I apologize."...

For background, see:

"Diplomat Admits 'U.S. Arrogance' in Iraq," by Claudia Parsons - Reuters (Baghdad), 22 October 2006

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States has shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in        Iraq, a senior U.S. diplomat said in an interview aired on Sunday, after President Bush said he was flexible on tactics, if not strategy....

"We tried to do our best (in Iraq) but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," U.S. State Department official Alberto Fernandez told Al Jazeera television, according to a Reuters reporter who heard the interview, which was in Arabic.

The State Department said that the English translation of the comments posted on Al Jazeera's English language Web site had misquoted Fernandez, its director of public diplomacy in the bureau of Near Eastern affairs.

"What he (Fernandez) says is that it is not an accurate quote," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Asked whether he thought the United States would be judged as being arrogant, McCormack said "No."

He said later: "Such statements if true would not be a reflection of U.S. policy or the views of the administration."...

"Diplomat Condemns 'U.S. Arrogance" - Al Jazeera TV website (Aljazeera.net), 22 October 2006; attributed to 'Aljazeera and [news] agencies').

A senior American diplomat has told Aljazeera that the United States has shown 'arrogance' and 'stupidity' in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best [in Iraq], but I think there is much room for criticism, because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," said Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the bureau of Near Eastern affairs at the US state department, in an interview on the Arabic channel aired on Saturday.

Fernandez also declared that the US was ready to talk with any Iraqi group - except al-Qaeda in Iraq - to end the growing sectarian violence and the continued fighting.

"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the hell and the killings in Iraq are linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation," he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington.

"The Iraqi government is convinced of this," he said.

A US state department spokesman on Saturday said that Fernandez alleged he had not been quoted accurately in the interview.

Sean McCormack said: "What he [Fernandez] says is that it is not an accurate quote."

However, Aljazeera said Fernandez' interview had been rechecked and confirmed the comments were accurate and the words "arrogance" and "stupidity" were used....

"US 'Arrogant and Stupid' in Iraq" - BBC News, 22 October 2006

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

It comes after President George W Bush discussed changing tactics with top US commanders to try to combat the unrest.

Mr Fernandez, an Arabic speaker who is director of public diplomacy in the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, told Qatar-based al-Jazeera that the world was "witnessing failure in Iraq".

"That's not the failure of the United States alone, but it is a disaster for the region," he said.

"I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq."...

[S]tate department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "What he [Alberto Fernandez] says is that it is not an accurate quote."

Mr McCormack also denied that the US had been guilty of arrogance or stupidity saying that history would be the judge of US actions in Iraq.

The BBC Monitoring Service has confirmed that Mr Fernandez did use the words "arrogance and stupidity" in his interview....

"Transcript of Remarks by a Top US Diplomat on America's Role in Iraq" - AP (no dateline), 22 October 2006, as carried on the International Herald Tribune website

In an interview broadcast on Al-Jazeera, the pan-Arab satellite channel, a senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the U.S. State Department, also said the United States was ready to talk with any Iraqi group — excluding al-Qaida in Iraq — to reach national reconciliation in the country, wracked by widening sectarian strife as well as an enduring insurgency.

The interview was taped in Washington on Friday and broadcast by Al-Jazeera Saturday night.

His remarks were in fluent Arabic and translated into English by The Associated Press. In the interview Fernandez said: "We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

Subsequently, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, in Moscow with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said that Fernandez disputed the description of his comments....

Here is a transcript of the portion of the Al-Jazeera interview in which Fernandez made the remarks about arrogance and stupidity, among other issues. The translation is by AP in Baghdad.

[Begin transcript provided by AP -- I've left out the first and last Q&A; click through to the original article to read the entire interview]

....Al-Jazeera: There is, Mr. Fernandez, now talk as was mentioned in more than one media outlet, especially in the Los Angeles Times, that a report is being prepared by the former Secretary of State James Baker. You know very well, and let us inform our viewers that the American Congress set up the committee of (inaudible) persons to discuss or present a full report and make recommendations on Iraq. We understood from what has been published that Mr. James Baker will recommend to the American administration major changes in American policies in Iraq. What do u have (interrupted)... .

Fernandez: We expect that report after the congressional elections in the United States of America, maybe in a month or two at the latest. Without a doubt that is a special committee from former experts in American administrations, not just Republican administrations, who thoroughly studied the subject with fresh eyes. Without a doubt we will see interesting recommendations in that report which may be acceptable to the administration or may possibly be rejected by the administration. But what is important, we believe, is the exercise of flexibility and self- criticism and take responsibility for correcting mistakes and policies if those policies have failed or are unable to present the Iraqi people with what they want most: Security first, second and third, and then (solutions to) a long list of problems, including economic and political one.

Al-Jazeera: I, of course, appreciate your usual candor Mr. Fernandez, especially what you just said. Does that mean, Mr. Ferndandez, in all honesty, that those who are labeled as radicals or hard-liners inside the American administration are responsible for the mistakes in Iraq? There is, in all honesty, I won't say contradictions, but a difference of policies between the State Department and the Defense Department in this respect (interrupted)... .

Fernandez: This, of course, is an important and interesting question. It is difficult for any politician in whatever administration, not just this administration, to admit mistakes, because people in the East as well as the West don't like to admit they have made mistakes or are wrong. This is the mentality of the people, the mentality of power, authority, autocratic thinking. This is reality. I think we are somewhat fortunate in America because we are a democracy and, within weeks, in about two or three weeks, we will witness the start of internal settling of scores in the United States over this question. The American people will decide the policies of the administration and the policies of representatives in the American Congress on the issue of Iraq.

Traditionally, congressional elections are linked to internal issues. In these elections, the issue of Iraq is important, maybe the most important in some congressional races in the United States. Of course, some historians, history will judge American history in Iraq. We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."...

The one report I've seen so far with a quote from Fernandez about the interview is from CNN:

"Iraqi Police Recruits Killed, Kidnapped in Ambush" (look for item under the subheadline, "Diplomat: US Arrogant, Stupid in Iraq" ), reported by - CNN (Baghdad), 22 October 2006. The link in the story will (should) take you to video from the CNN website showing first an ad and then a snippet of the interview (in Arabic, with a voiceover translation in English).

A senior U.S. State Department diplomat told Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera that there is a strong possibility history will show the United States displayed "arrogance" and "stupidity" in its handling of the Iraq war.

Alberto Fernandez, director of the Office of Press and Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near East Affairs, made his comments on Saturday to the Qatar-based network.

"History will decide what role the United States played," he told Al-Jazeera in Arabic, based on CNN translations. "And God willing, we tried to do our best in Iraq."

"But I think there is a big possibility ... for extreme criticism and because undoubtedly there was arrogance and stupidity from the United States in Iraq," the diplomat told Al-Jazeera. (Watch Fernandez on Al-Jazeera -- :19)

"I can only assume his remarks must have been mistranslated. Those comments obviously don't reflect our policy," a senior Bush administration official said.

Fernandez told CNN that he was "not dissing U.S. policy."

"I know what the policy is and what the red lines are, and nothing I said hasn't been said before by senior officials," the diplomat told CNN....

CNN also has this item:

"US Official: History May Show US 'Stupidity' on Iraq" - CNN (Washington), 21 October 2006

...Fernandez told CNN he was replying to a question [from the Al Jazeera journalist] about how people will assess the United States in the future, and he said he thought that was how the country would be judged.

He was defending U.S. policy in a region where everyone dislikes the United States, he said, and was doing so in an aggressive way that was faithful to U.S. policy and trying to put it in the best light.

He was "not dissing U.S. policy," he said.

"I know what the policy is and what the red lines are, and nothing I said hasn't been said before by senior officials," Fernandez told CNN. "Nothing I said during this interview broke new ground."

He referred to comments made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in March as an example.

Rice, during a visit to Blackburn, England, acknowledged to journalists that mistakes had been made in the war.

"I am quite certain there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush administration," she said.

"I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure," Rice said. "But when you look back in history, what will be judged" is whether the "right strategic decision" was made.

Ousting Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do, because he was a threat to the international community, she added.

Added 23 October:

"State Dept. Official Apologizes for Criticism of Iraq Policy," by Neela Banerjee - the New York Times, 23 October 2006 (registration required)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — A senior State Department official apologized Sunday night for saying that the United States had acted with “arrogance” and “stupidity” in its campaign in Iraq.

The apology from Alberto Fernandez, director of the office of press and public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in Washington, involved a comment that he had made during an interview conducted in Arabic and broadcast Saturday on Al Jazeera, the Arab television network....

In a statement released Sunday night by the State Department, Mr. Fernandez said:

“Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase ‘There has been arrogance and stupidity by the U.S. in Iraq.’ This represents neither my views, or those of the State Department. I apologize.”

Mr. Fernandez has a reputation for outspokenness that predates his comments to Al Jazeera. Though he is responsible for getting top State Department officials into the Arab news media, he has given dozens of interviews himself, he told Newsweek in a profile published in August. His popularity in the Arab news media has been bolstered by his command of Arabic and his willingness to speak passionately about issues.

Mr. Fernandez’s interview on Al Jazeera came at the end of a week when the American military command conceded that it had failed to quell violence in Baghdad, despite a two-month offensive, and fighting between and within religious sects rocked several Iraqi cities. His opinions may open him to criticism from supporters of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. But some Iraqi lawmakers welcomed the remarks.

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker, said more American officials should be willing to be self-critical about missteps in Iraq. “I have been expecting American officials, someday, last year, this year, to say something about this, that this policy has not worked,” Mr. Othman said. “It has been a failure. They should admit it before it is too late.”

Added 24 October:

"Senior US Diplomat's Candor Gets Play in the Middle East, Ire at Home," by Dan Murphy (in Cairo) - the Christian Science Monitor, 24 October 2006

CAIRO – When senior State Department official Alberto Fernandez said in an interview on Al Jazeera Saturday that US policies in Iraq have been marked by "arrogance" and "stupidity," he was expressing a sentiment widely held in the Arab world.

To many Arabs, it was a stunning moment of candor. It led front pages of newspapers across the region. Mr. Fernandez - whose fluent Arabic and dozens of regional television appearances have made him the voice of American policy to millions in the Middle East - struck the sort of tone that public policy experts say the US needs if it is to regain some of its credibility in Arab eyes.

The only problem was, his comments were immediately disavowed by the Bush Administration. Now the future of Fernandez - one of America's most potent public diplomacy weapons in the region - is clouded, and the Arab view of an America that admits to no mistakes has become more entrenched.

Fernandez's primary job is to book American officials on Arab programs, but with most officials reluctant to appear on Arab-language television, particularly on Al Jazeera, which many US officials view with barely disguised loathing, he's been mostly booking himself, doing at least 100 interviews this year.

In a laudatory piece on his efforts in Newsweek this August, Fernandez poked fun at himself. "I'm Cuban,'' he told the magazine, referring to his heritage. "We can't close our big mouths."...

Marc Lynch, a Middle East expert and political science professor at Williams College whose latest book, "Voices of the New Arab Public," examines the role Al Jazeera and other media play in shaping Arab views, says it appears that Fernandez is being slapped down by the administration for his comments. He worries that could end up seriously undermining American outreach efforts in the region.

"If you can say: 'Yeah, the security situation in Iraq isn't very good and we've made a lot of mistakes, but now we have to get everyone on board to find solutions,' you're going to be much more effective," says Lynch. "The real impact to worry about here is whether future public diplomacy people take away the message that if they display the slightest amount of honesty, they're doomed."

By now, the view that the US has made major mistakes in Iraq is hardly news. It's something that's been acknowledged in print by former senior officials of the US administration there, and retired military generals who served there.

Lost in the furor over Fernandez's remarks - from right-wing blogs calling for his head to those on the left using it as fodder to claim that US policy in Iraq has been a disaster - has been the meat of his comments, which were designed to encourage constructive engagement in the region....

Added 5 November 2006:

"Public Diplomacy," by Anna Johnson - AP (Beirut, Lebanon), 29 October 2006

Until the controversy, Fernandez's chatty, freewheeling style gave him an audience far bigger than official spokesmen or Cabinet members, whose remarks required voice-over translations, could command.

Many observers said Fernandez's style of informal debate lent itself to controversy but also spoke to young, disenchanted Arabs angry over the Iraq war and U.S. response to last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war.

"I think he's quite popular with viewers ... under the present condition in relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. To have an American who appears on their screens and talks to them in their language, it's quite a phenomenon," said Abderrahim Foukara, Al-Jazeera's Washington bureau chief.

Even before the latest furor, Fernandez, the State Department's director of public diplomacy for Near Eastern Affairs, had run afoul of conservatives for his on-the-air comments.

In February, former U.S. federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy accused Fernandez in a National Review Online article of "gushing" over the hard-line Egyptian cleric Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi during comments last year on Islamonline.net.

Fernandez referred to the cleric as a respected religious leader.

Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said Fernandez's comments about Iraq were "wholly inappropriate" and point to a larger discord between the State Department and the White House on Mideast policy.

But supporters say Fernandez is a breath of fresh air not only because he speaks Arabic but also because he appears comfortable talking to Arabs about unpopular U.S. policies.

Lawrence Pintak, director of the Adham Center for Electronic Journalism at the American University in Cairo, said Fernandez "is willing to joke and argue with people. He doesn't spout a couple of sound bites and shut down. He has earned respect here."...

WPO Polls Iraqis on Views of Their Country's Future

I suppose most US news media will, like AP, highlight the World Public Opinion poll's findings on Iraqi antagonism toward American troops. That's too bad, because there's actually some decently good news here, in that majorities of Iraqis reject extremism and civil war.

There's irony here too, of course, in that Americans and Iraqis, for all the ire being expressed, share a common goal: to get US troops out of Iraq.

"Poll: Iraqis Back Attacks on US Troops," by Barry Schweid - AP (Washington, DC), 27 September 2006

WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

The Iraqis also have negative views of  Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, [also] found:

- Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents....

- Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

- A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll....

The WPO report is available online, as a .pdf file:

"The Iraqi Public on the US Presence and the Future of Iraq" - a WorldPublicOpinion.org poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland, 27 September 2006. The following excerpts are from the "Key Findings" section.

Seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year....If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Majorities believe that the withdrawal of US troops would lead to a reduction in the amount of inter-ethnic violence and improvement in the day-to-day security of Iraqis....There is little interest in replacing US-led forces with an international peacekeeping force....

Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position -- now six in ten. Support
appears to be related to [a] widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the US were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish....

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis....

Majorities still approve of the US training Iraqi security forces and helping with community development, though most of these feel the US is doing a poor job....Were the US to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of its forces Iraqis say their support for nonmilitary forms of US involvement in Iraq would increase....

Iraqis appear to agree on having a strong central government. Large majorities among all groups
want the government to get rid of the militias....A large majority sees the current government as the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people....

Overall, a large majority expresses confidence in the Maliki government, the Iraqi army, Iraqi interior ministry forces and the police....

The continuing strife and instability in Iraq has diminished optimism among the Iraqi people....Overall, the belief that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction is at a high point and now a slight majority. Majorities of all groups do not think that the level of violence will diminish in the near future. The belief that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships entailed is down sharply, but very large majorities of Shia and Kurds continue to believe that it was worth it....

Attacks on government security forces and civilians continue to be rejected by very large majorities of all groups....

US Military Authorities Seek Better Press on Iraq

"Positive Press on Iraq is Aim of US Contract," by Walter Pincus - the Washington Post, 31 August 2006, p A20 (registration required)

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.

The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide "public relations products" that would improve coverage of the military command's performance, according to a statement of work attached to the proposal.

The request for bids comes at a time when Bush administration officials are publicly criticizing media coverage of the war in Iraq.

The proposal, which calls in part for extensive monitoring and analysis of Iraqi, Middle Eastern and American media, is designed to help the coalition forces understand "the communications environment." Its goal is to "develop communication strategies and tactics, identify opportunities, and execute events . . . to effectively communicate Iraqi government and coalition's goals, and build support among our strategic audiences in achieving these goals," according to the statement of work that is publicly available through the Web site http://www.fbodaily.com .

A public relations practitioner who asked for anonymity because he may be involved in a bid on the contract said that military commanders "are overwhelmed by the media out there and are trying to understand how to get their information out.

"They want it [news] to be received by audiences as it is transmitted [by them], but they don't like how it turns out," he said. As an example, he said, there are complaints that reports from Iraq sometimes quote Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr more than military commanders....

It's easy to understand why the contract proposal calls for monitoring and evaluation of both foreign and U.S. news media. Information flows so freely across borders today that it's often pointless to try to distinguish one body of information from another. But it would be a great mistake to try to manage relations with American and foreign media the exact same way. Different communities of reporters and editors have different concerns, priorities, and understandings of issues; so do the publics they publish and broadcast news for. Effective media work requires understanding and respecting those differences.

US Military Renews Outreach to Iraqi Public

"In Baghdad, a Push to Alter Perceptions," by Sudarsan Raghavan (in Baghdad) - the Washington Post, 18 August 2006, p. A17 (registration required)

BAGHDAD, Aug. 17 -- Hamid Ayad could not forget the last time U.S. soldiers came to his door two years ago. They tossed smoke bombs and burst into his home, then arrested his four brothers, he said. They were later jailed at Abu Ghraib prison.

Three days ago, another group of U.S. soldiers came to his home in the volatile western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah, this time accompanied by Iraqi troops. The U.S. soldiers politely asked if they could enter his large home. They asked to register his family's eight cars, and they did not confiscate the family's AK-47 rifle, their only means of protection.

That made Ayad, 24, feel more confident about the Iraqi soldiers. Only two months ago, Shiite Iraqi soldiers on patrols in Amiriyah taunted Sunnis like him, he said. They did little to shield residents from the sectarian clashes strangling their lives. But on this day, the Iraqi soldiers he met were courteous and seemed genuinely concerned.

"Their image has changed," said Ayad, who holds a business degree but is unemployed. "Now, you feel like they are there to protect you. They are not acting or faking. The Americans have them on a tight leash."

In their struggle to quell the sectarian violence gripping the capital, thousands of U.S. troops and their Iraqi counterparts are fanning out into Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods, a mission that is part security sweep, part public relations.

Even as they hunt for insurgents and weapons, they are cleaning streets, reopening shops, medical clinics and gas stations, and fixing electricity lines. In areas like Amiriyah, where insurgents melt easily into the population and sectarian distrust runs deep, success is measured not in arrests or arms confiscated, but in perceptions....

In the U.S. military's calculus of when to depart Iraq, that trust is vital. The more Iraqis there are who believe that Iraq's security forces can protect them, the sooner American troops can leave, U.S. military officials have often said. And nowhere is building such trust more crucial than in Baghdad, where sectarian violence poses the biggest threat to Iraq's stability....

"US Troops Patrol Baghdad on Foot," by Ross Colvin - Reuters (Baghdad), 17 August 2006

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops are patrolling the streets in some Baghdad neighborhoods on foot in a new bid to win the trust of Iraqis, an unusual sight for many residents more used to seeing them travel in armored vehicle convoys.

Taking a more personal approach to Iraqis long critical of heavy handed tactics is part of the strategy aimed at reclaiming Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods from insurgents and easing communal strife....

Mindful of the three-year-old Sunni insurgency fighting to expel them from Iraqi soil, U.S. commanders explain to residents that they aim to restore security in support of Iraqi police.

"I want to get this job done so I can go home and live with my family and you can live with your family," Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Peterson, commander of the First Squadron, 14th U.S. Cavalry, told one man through his interpreter in al-Hadar, an area of the notoriously violent southern Dora district.

Peterson, whose unit usually travels in Stryker armored vehicles, had dismounted to talk to residents while his men and Iraqi police swept the neighborhood for illegal weapons.

"Certainly there is a renewed emphasis on troops interacting with the people," he said when asked whether the U.S. military was adopting a new tactic with the foot patrols.

Since arriving two weeks ago, two Strykers have been hit by roadside bombs, causing no major damage, and several others have been shot at, soldiers said. The unit's base has also been rocketed and mortared. Foot patrols are far more risky.

Still, Peterson's walkabout appeared to pay off -- residents he spoke to seemed happy to see U.S. soldiers back on the streets in force after months of sectarian violence that has killed thousands and driven thousands more from their homes.

"We feel safe when we see Americans," one man said to him, before pushing Peterson to improve the poor electricity supply, and fix broken sewerage pipes, a list of complaints repeated often and one Peterson promised to take to the district council.

In many of his conversations, he stressed the role of Iraqi police in helping to restore security, a bid to boost the reputation of a force viewed by most Sunnis as an extension of the Shi'ite militias they blame for much of the recent violence.

"I am hoping this mission with the national police will stop people being killed in future," he assured one man who told him his father had been killed in a drive-by shooting this week....

NYT: Iraqi Public Attitudes Dismaying to Pres. Bush

"Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq," by Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti (in Washington) - the New York Times, 16 August 2006 (registration required)

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.

Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness.

“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”...

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

The White House would not comment on the details of the discussion but a senior official warned against drawing conclusions on what the president thinks based on questions he asked in the process of drawing out the invited guests....

Group Says US Soldiers Were Killed to Avenge Rape

For background, see Murdered US Soldiers Linked to Rape & Murder of Iraqi Civilians.

"Tape Claims 3 GIs Killed Over Rape-Murders," by Robert H. Reid - AP (Baghdad), 11 July 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web video Tuesday purporting to show the mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers, claiming it killed them in revenge for the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by American troops from the same unit.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council previously claimed responsibility for killing the two soldiers, who were snatched in a June 16 attack near the town of Youssifiyah, southwest of Baghdad. A third soldier was killed in the attack.

But the statement was the first time the group linked the slaying to the rape case.

A statement by the group said the video was released as "revenge for our sister who was dishonored by a soldier of the same brigade."

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

"God Almighty enabled them to capture two soldiers of the same brigade as this dirty crusader," said the written statement posted along with the video....

U.S. investigators had said there was no evidence linking the deaths of the three soldiers last month to the alleged rape-slaying.

The U.S. military said Tuesday it condemns "in the strongest of terms" the release of the video showing the two mutilated American soldiers. "It demonstrates the barbaric and brutal nature of the terrorists and their complete disregard for human life," it said in a statement. "Coalition Forces remain resolute in our in commitment to catch the perpetrators of this crime and bring them to justice."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

The video, first reported by the SITE Institute, which monitors extremist Web sites, has audio from previous tapes of        Osama bin Laden and slain Al-Qaida in        Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council is an umbrella organization of several Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq. It claimed responsibility for shooting down a U.S. Apache helicopter in the Youssifiyah area in April.

The bodies of the two soldiers — Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore. — were found on June 20, and the U.S. military said at the time they had been mutilated.

The council had previously issued several statements claiming responsibility for their abduction, then announcing their deaths. But none of the statements mentioned the rape-slaying case, which was made public later in June....

Andrew Bacevich on the Cost of Not Doing Body Counts

"What's an Iraqi Life Worth?" by Andrew Bacevich (commentary) - the Washington Post, 9 July 2006, p. B01 (registration required)

In Iraq, lives differ in value -- and so do deaths. In this disparity lies an important reason why the United States has botched this war.

Last November in Haditha , a squad of Marines, outraged at the loss of a comrade, is said to have run amok, avenging his death by killing two dozen innocent bystanders. And in March, U.S. soldiers in Mahmudiyah allegedly raped a young Iraqi woman and killed her along with three of her relatives -- an apparently premeditated crime for which one former U.S. soldier has been charged . These incidents are among at least five recent cases of Iraqi civilian deaths that have triggered investigations of U.S. military personnel. If the allegations prove true, Haditha and Mahmudiyah will deservedly take their place alongside Sand Creek, Samar and My Lai in the unhappy catalogue of atrocities committed by American troops.

But recall a more recent incident, in Samarra . On May 30, U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint there opened fire on a speeding vehicle that either did not see or failed to heed their command to stop. Two women in the vehicle were shot dead. One of them, Nahiba Husayif Jassim, 35, was pregnant. The baby was also killed. The driver, Jassim's brother, had been rushing her to a hospital to give birth. No one tried to cover up the incident: U.S. military representatives issued expressions of regret.

In all likelihood, we will be learning more about Haditha and Mahmudiyah for months to come, whereas the Samarra story has already been filed away and largely forgotten. And that's the problem.

The killing at the Samarra checkpoint was not an atrocity; most likely it was an accident, a mistake. Yet plenty of evidence suggests that in Iraq such mistakes have occurred routinely, with moral and political consequences that have been too long ignored. Indeed, conscious motivation is beside the point: Any action resulting in Iraqi civilian deaths, however inadvertent, undermines the Bush administration's narrative of liberation, and swells the ranks of those resisting the U.S. presence.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who commanded U.S. forces when they entered Iraq more than three years ago, famously declared: "We don't do body counts." Franks was speaking in code. What he meant was this: The U.S. military has learned the lessons of Vietnam -- where body counts became a principal, and much derided, public measure of success -- and it has no intention of repeating that experience. Franks was not going to be one of those generals re-fighting the last war.

Unfortunately, Franks and other senior commanders had not so much learned from Vietnam as forgotten it. This disdain for counting bodies, especially those of Iraqi civilians killed in the course of U.S. operations, is among the reasons why U.S. forces find themselves in another quagmire. It's not that the United States has an aversion to all body counts. We tally every U.S. service member who falls in Iraq, and rightly so. But only in recent months have military leaders finally begun to count -- for internal use only -- some of the very large number of Iraqi noncombatants whom American bullets and bombs have killed.

Through the war's first three years, any Iraqi venturing too close to an American convoy or checkpoint was likely to come under fire. Thousands of these "escalation of force" episodes occurred. Now, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, has begun to recognize the hidden cost of such an approach. "People who were on the fence or supported us" in the past "have in fact decided to strike out against us," he recently acknowledged.

In the early days of the insurgency, some U.S. commanders appeared oblivious to the possibility that excessive force might produce a backlash. They counted on the iron fist to create an atmosphere conducive to good behavior. The idea was not to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Iraqis, but to induce compliance through intimidation.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."

Such crass language, redolent with racist, ethnocentric connotations, speaks volumes. These characterizations, like the use of "gooks" during the Vietnam War, dehumanize the Iraqis and in doing so tacitly permit the otherwise impermissible. Thus, Abu Ghraib and Haditha -- and too many regretted deaths, such as that of Nahiba Husayif Jassim.

As the war enters its fourth year, how many innocent Iraqis have died at American hands, not as a result of Haditha-like massacres but because of accidents and errors? The military doesn't know and, until recently, has publicly professed no interest in knowing. Estimates range considerably, but the number almost certainly runs in the tens of thousands. Even granting the common antiwar bias of those who track the Iraqi death toll -- and granting, too, that the insurgents have far more blood on their hands -- there is no question that the number of Iraqi noncombatants killed by U.S. forces exceeds by an order of magnitude the number of U.S. troops killed in hostile action, which is now more than 2,000....

Moral questions aside, the toll of Iraqi noncombatant casualties has widespread political implications. Misdirected violence alienates those we are claiming to protect. It plays into the hands of the insurgents, advancing their cause and undercutting our own. It fatally undermines the campaign to win hearts and minds, suggesting to Iraqis and Americans alike that Iraqi civilians -- and perhaps Arabs and Muslims more generally -- are expendable. Certainly, Nahiba Husayif Jassim's death helped clarify her brother's perspective on the war. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here," he declared after the incident. "They have no regard for our lives."...