Mediaboss Marketing

Millions of casual news consumers began their week believing that over the weekend, Iraq expelled the U.S. military from the country. The United States, they thought, now faced the decision to quickly leave or illegally occupy.

Had they flicked through many of the cable or network stations, or read a few headlines on their phones or at the gas station, these Americans had heard the presidents decision to kill the general of Irans elite Quds force was made with no understanding of the potential reactions. If they read The New York Times or caught any of its parroting on friendly news shows, they might even think the president had stunned the Pentagon officials who had only offered the kill option to make other options seem reasonable.

The problem presented here is none of these three scenarios is accurate. The U.S. military is not currently under any order to leave Iraq, though in Americas interest they should, and they might. Further, the Pentagon does not present a president with military options thats ramifications have not been considered, nor does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ever present the president a fake option.

For non-Arabic speakers, reporting in the main news outlets [New York Times] and [Washington] Post is so misinformed (either on purpose or because of incompetence) that you might think that the Iraqi State has officially voted for ejecting U.S. forces from Iraq, wrote Hussain Abdul-Hussain, the Iraqi-Lebanese chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rais Washington Bureau.

The vote, he explained, was a party-line vote by Shia Iran supporters in the parliament. Kurdish and Sunni lawmakers had boycotted the session despite threats from the very same Shia militia that kicked off the current cycle of violence, leading to a barely functioning quorum in the chamber.

Of course, to admit threats of political violence from pro-Iranian militia would undermine the media narrative that the parliament, like the militia mob that attacked our embassy, represents everyday Iraqis. What these pro-Iranian lawmakers passed was no United States ouster, but a non-binding, partisan resolution that the United States should leave. The quorum, Abdul-Hussain writes, was 170 of 328 (half + 4, just like Hezbollah designated a [prime minister] in Lebanese parliament with half + 4).

Iraqi Parliament Passes Resolution to End Foreign Troop Presence, The New York Times blared. Four paragraphs down into the copy, by Reuters, the reader learns the resolution is non-binding.

Repercussions mount over U.S. strike, with Iran nuclear deal pullback and Iraq call for U.S. troop pullout, the Los Angeles Times tells us, waiting 14 paragraphs to explain the resolution is not binding, objectively failing the reader. That the president played golf, by contrast, is treated to the fifth paragraph.

The Washington Post, which elected to use the Associated Presss write-up, didnt include the important non-binding information at all. Iraqi Parliament calls for expulsion of U.S. troops from the country, it says. Thats it. Headline, as well as copy.

Fine, you might think. Headline space is limited; in todays digital environment reporters and editors must more than ever grab a readers attention in the first few moments; the intricacies of the process can wait further down for the more committed news consumer. Sounds reasonable. Any editor currently in the business is familiar with the struggle. Then, since the purposes of a headline and opening are to inform the reader with reliable information they can use, these outlets failed. [Either] on purpose, Abdul-Hussain writes, or because of incompetence.

So what, you might ask. The United States might actually leave, so whats the harm? The harm lies in the either the incredible ignorance of journalists or, worse and sadly just as likely, the willing manipulation of readers to serve a political end.

The vast majority of Americans are casual consumers of the news. They have families, jobs, bills dozens of concerns more pressing and tangible than world news consumption. These news consumers rely on headlines, television chyrons, and brief summaries to stay generally informed on what is occurring in the world, and when those things are misleading they are misled, regardless of if reality is buried deeper in the story.

But what about the more committed consumers? Maybe those who have family serving in the military and want to know whats going on? These readers and viewers might have been treated to The New York Times reporting that top military officials were flabbergasted and immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region after the presidents decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable, the story reads.

The amazing thing here is its almost certainly factually true while also deeply misleading: The four reporters on the byline found at least two top military officials who said they were flabbergasted by the presidents call. Notice the information here isnt sourced. Its not according to Pentagon officials involved in the decision process, Pentagon officials involved in the drafting of options, or even Pentagon officials with first-hand knowledge of the presentation. Its what we call Voice of God it is simply said, and so it is.

No decent editor would let that pass without digging in deeper, and the Timess editors certainly did. Who are your sources? What is their knowledge of the situation? Why arent we naming them? Do you have confirmation? These were all asked as a matter of basic practice, yet none of the answers are even hinted at in the article. Even descriptions of the officials level of involvement or reason for request for anonymity were excluded. This, to be clear, requires a level of comfort with displaying an incredible disdain for the reader.

Further, is the outlined scenario at all plausible? Keep in mind this is a president the Times has repeatedly and breathlessly warned is crazy, impulsive, callous, vicious, and constantly feared by patriotic government employees doing their best to restrain him. Still, these reporters are willing to believe the career military and civilian leaders of the Pentagon float ideas they consider dangerous or stupid? Of course not, but disbelief is routinely suspended in the face of bias-confirming story lines.

Were any of these people in the room or involved in the planning process? Certainly not, or they would not have been surprised by the call. Additionally, they would have reviewed the potential repercussions.

The options that go to the executive are vetted through the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense before they are presented to the president, Alex Plitsas, who served for a time as chief of sensitive activities for the assistant secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama, told The Federalist. Legal counsel reviews them, as does everyone else [in the chain].

You dont, he stated emphatically, do throwaway COAs [course of actions].

There is also zero reason to believe Join Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley or Secretary of Defense Mark Esper were doing any of what The New York Times reported. So why was this a story at all? Short answer: it fit The Narrative of an irrational president making decisions that terrify his own commanders. A Narrative, in this case, teed up for reportersby Obamas own Iran man.

But often, The Narrative is false. Or, as President Donald Trump prefers, fake news.

Read more from the original source:
Media Coverage Of Iraq Is A Case Study Of Ignorance And Manipulation - The Federalist

BAGHDAD (AP) U.S. troops fired tear gas on Wednesday as Iran-backed militiamen and other protesters gathered outside the American Embassy in Baghdad for a second day set fire to the roof of a reception area inside the embassy compound.

Dozens of Iran-allied militiamen and their supporters had camped out at the gates of the embassy overnight, a day after they broke into the compound, trashing a reception area and smashing windows before pulling back. It was one of the worst attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in years.

The U.S. Marines guarding the embassy fired tear gas Wednesday as more crowds arrived and after the protesters lit a fire on the roof of the reception area. Smoke rose from the building. There have been no reports of any injuries since the protests began.

The militiamen were protesting deadly U.S. airstrikes that targeted an Iran-backed militia over the weekend, killing 25 fighters. Those strikes were in response to a rocket attack on an Iraqi army base that killed a U.S. contractor.

The violence comes as Iran and its allies have faced unprecedented mass protests in recent months and after heavy U.S. sanctions on Iran that have cratered its economy and raised tensions across the region. In Iraq, the protesters have been angered at their own governments corruption and economic mismanagement, as well as its close ties to Tehran.

President Donald Trump blamed Iran for the attack on the embassy and Defense Secretary Mark Esper later announced the immediate deployment of an infantry battalion of about 750 soldiers from the Armys 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. He did not specify their destination, but a U.S. official familiar with the decision said they will go to Kuwait.

Iran has denied any involvement in the attack on the embassy. Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi was quoted by state media on Tuesday as warning the U.S. against any miscalculation in the worsening standoff.

Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, criticized the U.S. airstrikes on the Iran-backed Iraqi militia on Sunday. In remarks carried by the semi-official ISNA news agency, he accused the U.S. of taking revenge on Iran for the defeat of the Islamic State group, which he said was an American creation.

In an apparent reference to Trumps allegations of Iranian involvement, Khamenei said that if the Islamic Republic makes a decision to confront any country, it will do it directly.

The U.S. and Iran have vied for influence over Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Iran has close ties to Iraqs Shiite majority and many of its major political factions, and its influence has steadily grown since then.

Iran helped to mobilize tens of thousands of mostly Shiite militiamen to battle the Islamic State group when it stormed across northern and western Iraq in 2014 as the armed forces collapsed. In the subsequent campaign against the extremists, the U.S. and Iran both provided vital aid to Iraqi forces, who eventually declared victory in December 2017.

The political influence of the Iran-backed militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, has risen in recent years, and their allies dominate the parliament and the government. That has made them the target of mass protests since October that are unrelated to the attack on the embassy.

The anti-government protesters have attacked Iranian diplomatic missions and the local headquarters of parties affiliated with the militias across southern Iraq. They have also set up a major protest camp in central Baghdad.

For weeks, the anti-government protesters have been trying to enter the Green Zone housing the government and the U.S. Embassy, but have been beaten back by security forces, who have killed hundreds of demonstrators.

The militiamen and their supporters, however, were able to quickly enter the Green Zone and mass in front of the embassy, with little if any resistance from authorities.

By Wednesday morning, they had set up a small sit-in of their own, with around 50 tents set up between two main gates about 500 meters (yards) apart. Demonstrators set up a makeshift clinic and cooks with aprons reading Popular Mobilization Forces logistical support served meals out of giant pots. Mobile toilets were also set up in the area.

Vehicles belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces, with government plates, were parked nearby, and the militiamen manned checkpoints where they searched all those arriving at the site of the demonstration.

Outside one of the gates, a Shiite cleric recited verses from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, through a loudspeaker. Another cleric led the protesters in midday prayers.

Demonstrators could be seen hurling rocks over the walls of the embassy compound, where U.S. troops responded by firing tear gas from the roofs of buildings. Iraqi security forces deployed nearby watched the standoff unfold without intervening.

___

Associated Press writers Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, Bassem Mroue in Beirut and Joseph Krauss in Ramallah, West Bank, contributed to this report.

Read more:
US troops fire tear gas at pro-Iran protesters in Iraq - The Associated Press

Over the New Year holiday,pro-Iran militiamensurrounded the United States embassy in Baghdad. Ultimately, and thankfully, the American personnel remained unscathed, but it was a further reminder of the political unrest that continues to dominate that country. It also reminds us of the potential disruption that more unrest in Iraq could impact global oil markets.

TOPSHOT - A handout picture received from the US embassy in Iraq on December 31, 2019, shows a US ... [+] army apache helicopter dropping flares over Baghdad's high-security Green Zone on December 31, 2019, after Iraqi supporters of pro-Iran factions breached the outer wall of the US embassy over weekend air strikes that killed pro-Iran fighters in western Iraq. - The US State Department said that embassy personnel are safe and there are no plans to evacuate, after Iraqi supporters of pro-Iran factions attacked the compound. It is the first time in years that protesters have been able to reach the building, sheltered behind a series of checkpoints in the high-security Green Zone. (Photo by - / US EMBASSY IN IRAQ / AFP) (Photo by -/US EMBASSY IN IRAQ/AFP via Getty Images)

In recent months, Iraq has experienced large-scale protests by citizens who oppose Iranian interference in their country. The country also saw themurderofhundredsof theseprotestors. Earlier this week, the U.S.struck targetsin Iraq and Syria that were linked to Iran-backed militias.

This political unrest brings with it a potential for a real disruption to the global energy markets. In 2018, Iraq produced more oil than all but four other countries. Though reliable and updated numbers are not yet available, its oil production increase in 2019 and it is probably now the fourth largest oil producer in the world. This past summer, it produced4.88million barrels per day. But just this past week, on December 28 and 29, protestors were able toshut downan oil field that produces 90,000 barrels per day.

Iraqi oil has been less than reliable on the global market forsome time. Until recently, ISIS controlled some of the countrys oil. In the last 17 years there were also disruptions due to the military engagements caused by the U.S. invasion, conflicts between the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities and efforts to rebuild the countrys oil infrastructure after Saddam Husseins regime and then war. In the 1990s, international sanctions and the United Nations Oil For Food program limited the sale of Iraqi oil. In the 1980s, Iraq engaged in an eight-year war with Iran that disrupted oil production and exports.

However, lately Iraq has been producing and exporting record amounts. It typicallyoverproducesits OPEC quota. If the situation in Iraq deteriorates further in 2020, we could see real disruptions to the oil market that last more than just a couple of days, which could scare the market.

More here:
Unrest In Iraq Reminds Us Of Geopolitical Risks To Oil - Forbes

Iraqs Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have become involved in an open confrontation with the Iraqi protesters who have been demonstrating since Oct. 1 and calling for major reforms. Over the last three months, the PMU have been accused of participating in a crackdown on protests.

On Jan. 5, Dhi Qar provincein southern Iraqwitnessed the killing of two protesters who were among others protesting a symbolic funeral procession held by a group of armed men forthe Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force Cmdr.Qasem Soleimani, who was assassinated at Baghdad International Airport Jan. 3.

When we refused the gunmen [entrance to]the protest square, they threatened to open fire at us. They fired live bullets at us in the skirmish with the protesters, a protester in Dhi Qar told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. In response to the shooting, as shown in video footage, the protesters burned the PMU headquarters in the province.

Dhi Qar incurred the most deathsin the war between the Islamic State and the PMU and Iraqi security forces. Also, the province had the biggest share of victims in the Camp Speicher massacre in June 2014, when IS killed 1,700 people.

On the same day of the armed attack against the protesters during the symbolic funeral for Soleimani, PMU supporters burned down protesters' tentsin Basra province, in the south, for the same reasons.

A YouTube account that seems to belong to a PMU member or a supporter havinga photo of Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandisa top PMU leader who was killed in the same drone strike as Soleimanishared a video of the burning tents in Basra, saying it was punishment for protesters who celebrated the death of the two men.

The protesters objected to the funeral procession of Soleimani and Muhandis, which prompted the Hezbollah Brigades to fire live bullets at them and burn down their tents, killing one man and wounding another, Hussam al-Khamisi, a Basra activist told Al-Monitor.

Khamisi, who has been participating in Iraq's protests since 2015, believes thePMU will further crack down on protests in the coming days.

While the PMU have been widely accused of participating in the crackdown, a PMU source denied these claims in an interview with Al-Monitor.

Telegram channels close to the PMU have been sharing information within groups, which Al-Monitor was able to check, about the possibility of Iraqi protesters burning PMU headquarters in someprovinces. This could portend some major open confrontations between the armed PMU and the protesters.

The demonstrators in Baghdads Tahrir Square said they were innocent of the attack on the US Embassy Dec. 31, which seemed to have provoked the PMU, which accused the protesters of betraying their homeland.

Liqaa Makki, a researcher atAl-Jazeera Center for Studies, told Al-Monitor, What happened in Dhi Qar and Basra is an indication that the PMU are now ready to use their arms freely and without accountability,since there is no authority to deter themexcept formeager local influence.

The protesters are being accused of treason, which for the PMU is a valid excuse to attack them. I think the PMU will also take advantage of the tense situation with the United Statesto further suppress the protests, Makki added.

The US statements on the protests in Iraq are provocative for the PMU factions that claim Washington orchestrates the ongoing demonstrations.

David Schenker, assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs at the US State Department, also implicated PMU leadersin the killing of Iraqi protesters.

Aqeel Abbas, an assistant professor at the American University of Sulaimaniyah, told Al-Monitor, Some PMU leaders and members believe this would be the right time to squash the protests given the critical situation in the country. The protesters should hold their breath for a little longer to overcome this phase.

There is a real danger that the most radical PMU groups would seek to dismantle the demonstrations, Abbas added.

A video showed a member of the coordination committee of the protests in Karbala provinceaccusing PMU gunmen ofharassing and killing protesters in the last two days of December,calling on demonstrators to ready their sticks and rods to repel any attacks.

It appears this is a favorable opportunity for the PMU to crush the ongoingprotests, especially with the media blackout on the demonstrations after the attempt to storm the US Embassy and the death of Soleimani and Muhandis.

In sum, the accusations of treason against Iraqs protesters since the outbreak of the demonstrations are likely to serve as a valid religious and political justification to suppress them. This is true despite the fact that some PMU leaders have previously stated the protests were justifiable and understandable.

Some radical PMU groups, however, are openly opposed to the protests, which have seen 600 protesters killed and nearly 22,000 wounded over the past three months.

Visit link:
Iraq Are Iraq's PMU militias planning to put an end to protests? - Al-Monitor

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it was taking control of the most indebted nation in the world.

Why it matters: Iraq's debt at the time was an astonishing $130 billion, and the eradication of that debt was a rare example of international unity and cooperation in the interests of a debtor country.

The big picture: Iraq had very few debts before the Iran-Iraq war of 19801988. Western countries armed Iraq during that war, and accepted IOUs for their weapons despite knowing that Iraq was already insolvent.

After the war, the UN took the extraordinary step of immunizing all of Iraq's assets from attachment by creditors. That put Iraq in an extremely strong negotiating position, and ultimately the country managed to persuade creditors to accept a reduction of 80% in the value of their debts.

Where it stands: Iraq today may be facing political turmoil, but its sovereign finances are in good shape, with a low debt-to-GDP ratio, substantial foreign reserves, and a healthy fiscal surplus.

Go deeper: U.S. to send "additional forces" after embassy in Baghdad attacked by protesters

More:
Tracing Iraq's transformation from the most indebted country in the world in 2003 - Axios