The deception of the story of UK troop withdrawals
Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:31:24 PM PDT
I have decided to diary about the statement in Parliament today by Tony Blair. This concerned the planned British withdrawal of troops in Iraq. I do so because of the nature of what was being done; it is a brilliant piece of political spin that has been widely misunderstood in our blogs.
There is one reason only for my repeating here much of what I have been writing on ePluribus Media over the last two days. It is a clear forewarning to us of what will happen in the lead up to the 2008 elections if the Republicans handle themselves as adroitly as Blair did today in the Commons
It is a salutary lesson. As I write later:
"It is a classic example of why, when you are on "the other side" of this type of spin you develop a rather cynical and manipulative view of what politics and opinion is all about and why you talk about "our reality" and "their reality".
This whole story is a rather cynical feeding of "our reality". It is a well designed one that satisfies the need to sell newspapers and for TV to provide info-tainment, give talking heads employment and to wrong foot the left whilst giving the appearance of success to Blair and, if handled properly, to Bush."
I shall let you be a judge of the soundness of my interpretation by repeating much of what I said in chronological order, from when the news first broke that an announcement was going to be made, through this morning’s anticipation in UK news broadcasts, the subsequent reaction and onwards to my forecast as to how the news would be handled by the White House.
It began yesterday as I learnt that a deliberate leak had been made of the intention of Prime Minister Tony Blair to read a statement in Parliament announcing troop withdrawals. I was taken aback by how this was being interpreted by blogs on both the Right and the Left in the United States. So commenced a developing diary on ePluribus Media.
YESTERDAY
Blog after blog is reporting the BBC story that Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq.
The prime minister is due to make an announcement in the House of Commons on Wednesday in which he is expected clarify the details.
Mr Blair is expected to say hundreds of troops will return from Basra within weeks with more to follow later.
Some 7,000 UK troops are currently serving in Iraq and about 1,500 are expected to return within weeks.
Where this is commented upon, it is producing headlines and posts such as:
Blair's Body Blow to Bush Co. Drudge headlines it as "The British Endgame". The vast number of comments on Huffington Post almost all completely misinterpreted the story.
Markos Moulatis frontpages with::
"While Bush and his Republican allies fight to escalate the war in Iraq, Tony Blair will announce a huge withdrawal from the country -- reportedly 1,500 of 7,200. The US is increasingly left without allies willing to shoulder even a sliver of the load."
I think that we need to get a reality check, or at least read the BBC report properly.
Firstly, let us look at the "huge" withdrawal of 1,500 troops within weeks. Immediately after the reported number expected to be withdrawn the report comments:
BBC political correspondent James Landale said: "We have been expecting an announcement for some time on this."
He said by Christmas a total of 3,000 troops were expected to have returned to the UK from Iraq.
I believe that Blair was originally talking of a withdrawal beginning last September. That it didn't happen was because conditions worsened from the relatively stable situation in Southern Iraq that had been achieved, after the very optimistic handing over of key areas to Iraqi troops and a withdrawal to their bases by the Brits.
No one seems to have read the report of the Defence Correspondent's comments in the very short article, that hardly requires a great deal of attention span:
He said by Christmas a total of 3,000 troops were expected to have returned to the UK from Iraq.
However, he said reports that all troops will have returned home by the end of 2008 was "not a fair representation of what is true at the moment".
So the troops will remain until after 2008 and the number that is publicly stated to be planned to be pulled out is at best around 40% by the end of 2007.
This is bad commentary by our blogs. It is not a slap in the face for Bush, however much one may wish it to be, nor is it a dramatic refusal by the British Government to continue to support the United States in Iraq.
The UK military is, of course, a relatively small operation by US standards. It has a massive commitment, by far the largest of any European country, to assisting the Afghanistan government and US forces in that country. After four years, it has some of the same problems of deteriorating equipment and over-stretched troop resources that the US has experienced.
A number of European countries with a small presence in Afghanistan, such as France, are operating under what is called, I believe, a "red card system", that limits their role and which is designed not to expose them to combat such as that being experienced in trying to maintain control on the Pakistan border (their rules of engagement are purely defensive to support reconstruction work).
British troops and resources from Iraq are urgently needed to replenish and re-supply the forces struggling with deteriorating position in Afghanistan as the Taliban prepare for their Spring offensive. That it has not occurred is an indication of how less well Iraq has gone since the last estimates were made in the middle of last year.
I hope we on ePluribus Media can interpret this report properly without the knee jerk reaction being seen elsewhere. I am not even bothering to check this out with the Ministry of Defence press office like last time because it is quite clear that this story reflects a desire to assuage UK opinion, whilst expressing an optimism about Iraq, and steadfastly avoiding the fact that these troops are urgently needed to support the US in Afghanistan.
After past promises, an update in the situation in the form of a statement such as this is necessary to reduce any embarrassment that Blair may have in Parliament because of previous similarly highly qualified announcements. (As an aside, statements such as this should first be made in Parliament and not announced as a "leak" from "sources. To do so in advance is a sign of disrespect to that institution. This has been a regular feature during Blair's premiership. The obvious intent is to make it "old" news by the time MPs come to discuss it, so that their comments are not covered in the media and the issue is buried)
None of this troop withdrawal may happen, of course. Really the meat of the story is contained in the last paragraph, giving the only direct quote from government sources, that no one seems to have read:
Our correspondent said senior Whitehall sources told him that the pullout was "slightly slower" than they had expected and "if conditions worsen this process could still slow up".
By this morning, what was likely to be said in the statement had escalated to the point that it was being suggested that a full withdrawal by May 2008 would be in the statement. (Journalists in the UK have an off-the-record breakfast briefing by Downing Street on the events for the day. I think this may have bee the source of this added information. As I wrote later: "Blair did not announce the May deadline that Downing Street had led reporters....to expect. He was obviously given advice not to be so stupid in making such a dramatic public commitment. It is fascinating to see last minute changes in speeches and for these to reveal some of the inner workings behind the news".
My post this morning, whilst you were all in bed, responded to a point made by Standingup about the presentation of it that he had heard on CNN and if the intyerpretation of it could be changed.
THIS MORNING
This story will run and nothing will stop it
This morning, Downing Street have stoked it up and are saying that the "aspiration" will be announced to have all troops out of Iraq BY MAY 2008 with now 3000 back by Christmas.
What is happening to make this hesitantly expressed story so big?
I have explained the logistics regarding the current over stretched resources of the British military. You will remember the British Army chief came out three or so months ago and talked about the need to get out of Iraq and told the press in an extraordinary article that he didn't want to see the British Army "broken".
So the military are taking a somewhat ruthless view of the situation in Southern Iraq and the ability to handover security there to the Iraqis themselves. Not all Iraqi commentators share their optimism and are nervous about the opinions coming out of the Ministry of Defence.
The rest is politics and it is this that is fuelling the story.
Speculation this morning here is that Blair is trying to clean up his legacy and improve his profile, as well as that of the Labour Party, before he steps down in mid-year. To announce the "success" of beginning troop withdrawals now allows him to leave on a positive note. His expected successor Gordon Brown will be happy with this cautious but optimistic expectation being given voice as it will take the pressure off him about a highly unpopular war as he assumes power. Back bench Labour MPs will be relieved and help give credibility to this story.
The main opposition Conservative Party have always supported the war. Together with the right-wing press, they will talk up this statement as it is a win-win situation for them. If troops do start coming home on the basis of this aspirational plan then it removes the embarrassment of their support, that the Liberal Democrats have tried to exploit, of having been in favour of something that public opinion has moved strongly against. If the plan does not come to fruition, then the Conservatives and their press lackeys can attack the Labour Party for mismanagement.
The left on both sides of the Pond are talking up this story as they look at the apparent contradiction of the US building up their troops in Iraq and the Brits pulling theirs out. In it, they see justification for their opposition to the "surge". They see in it a non existent rift in US/UK relationships. They will deride Tony Snow when he explains to his base that the ability of the Brits to withdraw is a clear sign of the Iraq policy working. ur blogs will call it as being "unreal" as the administration explains that the ability of the UK forces to "hopefully" step down in Southern Iraq is an example that shows that the administration is on a "successful course" for the same strategy in Baghdad.
So everyone wants this smoke and mirrors story to run - the Left, the Right, the politicians and the media. It is perfectly timed, although flagged up some weeks ago. (You will remember Condi Rice's visit to London recently. There was some speculation in the media that there was a bit of a rift between her and the UK. It was almost certainly simply a thrashing out of how to handle this scenario of Brit troop withdrawal, the need for assurance that it won't happen if the situation deteriorates and discussion as to how to spin the story to mutual advantage).
Expect today that if Afghanistan is raised and the comment made that this is a forced move on the UK army to be denied (no additional troop enhancements have or can realistically be planned over and above those that have recently taken place. Perhaps later if the Iraq withdrawals can take effect). Expect it to be all placed in the context of "success" in Iraq and any rift between Blair and Bush to be denied (and correctly so).
Blair will be delighted with the way this story has taken off - he has refused and did not attend an earlier debate on Iraq in Parliament and this will offset a strengthening demand for an enquiry into how the war was initiated.
Slightly more tricky for Bush but really it will be clumsy if his media advisers cannot get positive results out of this story.
Our blogs will continue to misinterpret it but move quickly onto some other matter.
The words "aspirational" and the MOD spokesman's "if conditions worsen this process could still slow up" will remain as future alibis.
Alert the media to interpret this properly? Don't joke. I am spoiling every one's entertainment. No one wants to interpreted this story properly and much of the background given here is deniable and would be denied.
I would love to be responding on this in a fuller commentary rather than simply as an addendum to a hastily written one. It is a classic example of why, when you are on "the other side" of this type of spin you develop a rather cynical and manipulative view of what politics and opinion is all about and why you talk about "our reality" and "their reality".
This whole story is a rather cynical feeding of "our reality". It is a well designed one that satisfies the need to sell newspapers and for TV to provide info-tainment, give talking heads employment and even slightly wrong foot the left whilst giving the appearance of success to Blair and, if handled properly, to Bush.
Our blogs don't come out of this particularly well and if I push this too hard, I will simply get a backlash. Everyone wants this story to be of significance and will not welcome anyone who says that, if it is of any signifance in signalling what may happen, it is not of significance in the way that they are interpreting it.
It does illustrate, however, why it is so important for ePluribus Media to maintain its professionalism in the exercise of its citizen's journalism. And to also understand why so many professional journalists are hamstrung like I am over explaining this story more widely. Simply, too many people want this story to run - damn you Welshman for your spoiler!
Mid-day, I heard Blair give his statement in Parliament and reported it as I listened as follows:
LUNCHTIME
I have now heard the Statement in Parliament (5.00 / 1) (#4)
A brilliant exposition that he will hope will be the judgement of history. Supports the Bush strategy entirely whilst giving him his "personal victory" in Basra and the South. Ties it in with broad statements about peace in the Middle-East that even his fiercest critics will not be able to do other than agree.
Fully supported by the Conservative opposition - with its qualifications that provides the basis for future criticism and some references to the failure to implement all of the "Baker-Hamilton" criteria - a nice playing to the majority in the UK of those against the war. Careful raising of Gitmo and rendition by Conservative leader Cameron - just enough to try and spoil Blair's party within the artfully designed context of giving support to the overall strategy.
The Lib-Dem leader tries his best to oppose Blair's statement but is wrong footed because the announcement is all about withdrawal - albeit not to the Lib-Dem timetable. Ming Campbell has to sink back to those areas of Baker-Hamilton not implemented, raise concerns about Iran and point out the mess that the wrongful invasion of Iraq leaves behind. It does not add up to a strong rebuttal.
This may be a useful forerunner of what may happen in the States in the run up to the 2008 elections.
At your seminars on citizen journalism, please remember this example of the interaction between politicians, the media, the blogs and that Britney Spears absorbed mass of our fellow citizens.
I said earlier that this is a classic example of this type of news management. It is not a great conspiracy, not a huge and outrageous set of lies. It is simply a very well worked piece of politics, superbly presented which will play very effectively.
It is not, of course, the truth. But whose truth are we talking about when I make this last comment?
Later, I added a comment:
MID AFTERNOON
The Lib-Dems are settling on a "Let's see what happens" reaction - in the hope that they can hold the Labour Party to account later on.
It really is a very clever move by Blair. It is a "get out of jail free" card for him. I am certain the lesson will not be lost on the Republicans for 2008 - the actual facts contained in such a statement need not even be real.
The anti-war protest movement will have to be quiet for a few months while this is all allowed to play out.
I think the Brits just want out of the whole mess and to do what they do best - hide the memory of it under the carpet. We have a whole past Empire of similar experience that gives us the ability to forget and move on - oh, and send Price Harry there to enable us to provide some royal ceremony to dignify the whole indignity of our becoming involved.
Let me give one ugly perspective. Basra was pretty evenly split 60/40 ethnically before the war. It is now almost completely dominated by one group, with many having fled and allowing the area to become voluntarily or involuntarily quietly ethnically cleansed. This is a major reason why, like for the Kurds in the North, it is now more peaceful than the rest of Iraq.
This is just a detail. If Prince Harry does actually ride in and ride out in his tank, any such comment will be treasonous. I don't want to end up in the Tower of London, so please take my last comment as possibly deletable.
CONCLUSION
You will have heard the White House statements by now and will be able to judge if my forecast was correct as to how they would handle the "good signs" of this British success in Iraq, despite Kennedy's magnificent atempt to forestall the spin being put forward by Condi Rice and other spokespeople.
"The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits," she said during a visit to Germany. "The coalition remains intact and, in fact, the British still have thousands of troops deployed in Iraq."
-Condi Rice
In the UK, every side of this story has been raked over. In the NYT you will may have read that champion of the Left, Tony Benn, express his cynical view of Blair preparing hislegacy. It now appears to have been dropped by them.
I have absolutely no pleasure in saying that this adroit statement has been played magnificently by Blair, disarming his opponents whilst in reality promising very little.
I hope you do not mind my saying again that I give this background in full because it is an object lesson in how even something like Iraq can be politically news managed into a different reality and, more importantly, we can all be forced into being unwilling partners in its promulgation.
The warning is clear: do not expect the Iraq war to be the same advantage in 2008 that it was to you in 2006. Reality can be changed by a single statement, even if that statement is unreal. At a time of his choosing, Bush can follow Blair's example and give the appearance of success in Iraq as effectively as he manipulated our countries into the war in the first place.
Permalink | 42 comments