Obama recently announced that all the troops would be leaving Iraq by year end.
Now, technically he is telling the truth. Yet, as the New York Times reports - U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq - it's obvious that exiting Iraq does not necessarily mean lower military presence in the region. In fact, the article seems to suggest that the next 'phase' of all these wars is to create a Nato-like, Middle East security council in the region
Regardless of the Nato-plan, moving troops to the border of Iraq via Kuwait is as close as you can get to staying in Iraq without actually doing so. Let's call it what it is, the moment any type of fighting breaks out in Iraq, the USA will remobilize its troops back in to Iraq.
It's this kind of 'truth telling' that gives PR a bad name and for why public confidence / trust in government is so low.
Obama knows that the public will interpret his statements as meaning 'The Iraq war is over', when in reality, in terms of military presence in the region, it will still be going on.
I think Hilary Clinton does a better job on the PR front, at least making a statement that lets people know leaving doesn't mean leaving the region...
“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.
When you hear that it's pretty clear that the US is there to stay and is set on transforming the Middle East into a democracy.
So yes, the US will leave Iraq and yes, units will rotate (as some come 'home' and others get deployed), but it's not really the truth that the US will be 'out of Iraq'. They will simply set up camp on the borders of Iraq.
The traits of good communications - the four C's - are: clear, consistent, complete, and concise (and I believe compelling also).
Obama's statement appear to be those things, but ultimately when viewed against actual reality, is none of those things.
Bad communications lead to negative public opinion and I expect that will be the case here as well.
Now, technically he is telling the truth. Yet, as the New York Times reports - U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq - it's obvious that exiting Iraq does not necessarily mean lower military presence in the region. In fact, the article seems to suggest that the next 'phase' of all these wars is to create a Nato-like, Middle East security council in the region
Regardless of the Nato-plan, moving troops to the border of Iraq via Kuwait is as close as you can get to staying in Iraq without actually doing so. Let's call it what it is, the moment any type of fighting breaks out in Iraq, the USA will remobilize its troops back in to Iraq.
It's this kind of 'truth telling' that gives PR a bad name and for why public confidence / trust in government is so low.
Obama knows that the public will interpret his statements as meaning 'The Iraq war is over', when in reality, in terms of military presence in the region, it will still be going on.
I think Hilary Clinton does a better job on the PR front, at least making a statement that lets people know leaving doesn't mean leaving the region...
“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.
When you hear that it's pretty clear that the US is there to stay and is set on transforming the Middle East into a democracy.
So yes, the US will leave Iraq and yes, units will rotate (as some come 'home' and others get deployed), but it's not really the truth that the US will be 'out of Iraq'. They will simply set up camp on the borders of Iraq.
The traits of good communications - the four C's - are: clear, consistent, complete, and concise (and I believe compelling also).
Obama's statement appear to be those things, but ultimately when viewed against actual reality, is none of those things.
Bad communications lead to negative public opinion and I expect that will be the case here as well.
Comments
Post a Comment