This paper scrutinizes the use of propaganda and the consequential effects during the Iraq War. It

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

The United States government has historically used propaganda to entice, encourage, and even shame a person into enlisting in to the uniformed services and/or supporting the war effort. The effective use of propaganda does not only affect the American public’s opinion of a war and its leaders, but also affects their commitment to the war effort. Ineffective use (or lack of) of propaganda can lead to resentment and undermine public trust in its leaders and their ability to lead the nation. This essay will show how the use of media has either supported or hindered the effective use of governmental propaganda in influencing the American public during times of war and why is it sometimes not important to know what is the “whole truth.” The areas that will be covered will be the propaganda used during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I-II, the Cold War/Vietnam, and also it’s affect on public opinion.

Whilst, towards the beginning of the war, the media being released was largely in support of the war efforts, later years of the conflict exhibited a more negative press, where more negative portrayals of troops were being sent home and featured on the news. Bias of the media played a large part in moulding public opinion of the conflict going on in Vietnam, exemplified in media reports of the Tet Offensive which, “was actually a U.S victory because the North suffered enormous casualties. Television, however, portrayed the attack as a brutal defeat for the U.S” (McLaughlin 2015, The Turning Point, para. 2). As hypothesised by David Halberstam, Vietnam was, “the first time in American history a war had been declared over by an anchor man,” (Hallin n.d., para. 9) when Walter Cronkite, “[expressed] his view that the war was unwinnable, and that the United States would have to find a way out.” (Hallin n.d., para. 9) Many speculations about the media defining public opinion about the war are made largely due to the fact that civilian opinion changed as media reports began to become more negative, which then lead to many anti-war protests and the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Due to the negative effects the lack of censorship had on the public during Vietnam, the government recognised the power of the media and changed censorship practices for following

It was just the beginning, in the years that followed the media’s coverage continued to shift the American publics view against the Vietnam War.

Following the United States’ entry into World War II and with national governments battling for the hearts and minds of the people, propaganda became an industry of war just as “important as producing bullets and planes.” In the words of Archibald MacLeish, assistant director of the Office of War Information and librarian of Congress, “The principal battleground of the war is not the South Pacific. It is not the Middle East. It is not England, or Norway, or the Russian Steppes. It is American opinion.” Thus, propaganda was the most effective resource in securing the American victory in World War II, as it caused an increase in

World War II is one of many, most horrific and crucial events in world history and one of the most important events in the 20th century. Leonard and John (2007) define propaganda as “notions, facts, or accusations that are spread purposely with the objective of furthering one’s cause or damaging an opponent’s cause”. (7) They used media and propaganda in order to increase support for their side of the war. An immense feeling of patriotism was building up, and the nations used all the resources at their disposal to get their nations ahead of the race regardless of how humiliating and misleading the allegations were. Throughout World War II, propaganda was used to maintain the heat in fights and create unity among the citizens of a nation to achieve a single cause. People receive information on a daily basis since the beginning of the war and the parties of the confrontation. United States of America used propaganda for the creation of massive advertisements in the course of the war that could be interpreted as degrading to rival forces (Cogan, Brian & Tony, 53). Propaganda and information were distributed through numerous sources—radio, films, books and newspapers. The major aim was to impose on people the way of thinking and acting, both consciously and subconsciously (Rhodes 5). Though news sources attempted to be objective, there has always been ways to influence the way in which people interpret information.

The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. It has battled confrontation 222 out of 239 years or, 93% of its existence. Notably, one of the most crucial wars is the War on Terror. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country's leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein has the questionable refinement of being the best known Middle Eastern ruler. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003. President Bush presumed he was harboring many chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified this war the real war between Iraq and the U.S. began long before what recognized.

resident Bush announced in 2003 the intentions to invade Iraq, and dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." and from a state department's reason to go to war against Iraq “Defeated a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.” These reasons led to thousands of dead on both sides, 612 Billion dollars, and another terror organization taken root. Originally in the 1980s, the U.S supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran and aided them with weapons, and money. During this period was when Saddam’s major human

The start of the 2003 Iraq War has been debated by many historians. The arguments made by Krebs and Lobasz in their article “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 - Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq” are very persuasive, as are the arguments made by David Lake in “What Caused the Iraq War?”. These arguments center around the mindset of the Bush Administration, which was fearful of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and eager to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as rationale for war regardless of clear evidence. Other historians have presented considerable arguments as well, such as Debs and Monteiro, who argue that Iraq’s possibility of having nuclear weapons posed concern to the Bush administration. However, the best rationale for the start of the 2003 Iraq War combines the coercion model put forth by Krebs and Lobasz with the Lake assertion that the post-war rebuilding was not adequately considered. Krebs and Lobasz have the most salient arguments on manipulations of information, with insightful points regarding the motives of the Bush administration. Their points, however, aren’t complete as David Lake contains stronger information in certain parts of the debate. Lake adds important observations about Saddam’s inability to admit to not having nuclear weapons and the U.S.’s failure to estimate the costs of the post-war were key causes for the start of the war.

What motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the international community? On one side, the administration maintains that the invasion was necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In his memoir “Decision Points”, Bush argued that Saddam posed too much of a threat–he brutalized his own people, violated international demands, and sponsored terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. On the opposing side, critics of the war argue that the Bush administration used the 9/11 terrorist attack and the threat of WMDs to justify waging an illegal war against Iraq in order to extract Iraqi oil to fund the military-industrial complex, to secure Israel, and to “finish the job” of deposing Saddam. While these explanations for the invasion have some merit, they are problematic because they fail to capture the extent of the administration’s actual ambitions. An analysis of how individuals on Bush’s administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, viewed the world reveals that the invasion of Iraq was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of and necessity for preemptive action, overthrow Saddam, and transform the Middle East. However, what was perceived to be a quick and easy operation to stabilize the Middle East and secure America’s interest backfired and turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.

The reason for the invasion of Iraq was that they were suspected of harboring weapons of mass destruction and they were a potential threat to world peace. However no evidence has ever been found of the existence of such weapons in Iraq and this brought a lot of criticism on the US. This was however not the first altercation the US has been involved in in the Gulf war they fought with Iraq in order to protect their oil interests in the gulf region. The united states in the past has been known for going to war to protect is economic interests from the second world war, to the Vietnam War to the Korean War. All was aimed to protect the economic superiority of the United States. The resolution that brought the gulf war to an end put Sadam Hussein in power and thereafter he failed to follow some compliances the United Nations had imposed and in 2003 the Us led a coalition of forces aimed to remove Sadam Hussein from power and it was successful as he was executed 3 years later. This however started war in the country with the people bring opposed to the occupying forces and the new government that was in place. They also had additional reasons for

In 2003, the United States launched an aggressive full scale war against the Iraqi government in an attempt to overthrow the existing government. The United States justified the invasion by alluding to the fact that Iraq had continuously denied United Nation inspectors to investigate potential human right violations and the possible production of Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD’s. The United States invaded Iraq due to the lack of information regarding the possibility of nuclear weapons in Iraq, and the promise the United States made to the global community to combat terrorism.

The war against Iraq began on March 20, 2002, when the U.S lunched “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. This was after President Bush called Iraq part of an “axis of evil”, also calling the country dangerous which is threatening U.S with the world’s most destructive weapons. The major phase of the war began when U.S troops marched within 50 miles of Baghdad with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. After the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon which was believed to be the work of Al Qaeda, U.S was concerned about the security of the Untied States which lead to the war in Iraq. Even though U.S officials felt the war in Iraq is the main priority, but many people in U.S opposes the war which brings up a lot of controversial issues.

In times of War, the media plays a crucial role both in reporting, monitoring and giving updates. During the Vietnam War of 1955-1975, the American press played crucial roles of reporting until it ended up shifting its tone under the influence of occurrence of some events like the Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, the bombing of Cambodia and leaking of Pentagon papers resulting into lack of trust in the press (Knightly 1975). From the beginning of the war up to present times there have been undying debates over the role of media in the war. The have been various criticisms over the American News Media’s actions and influences on the outcome of the war. The debate is embedded on the particular political assumptions perceived across the