Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
No one has yet proved a waste just outrage without evidence of waste.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
U.S. law prohibits the White House from using any propaganda on its own population, hence the use of a foreign firm to create the material.This secret operation lasted about four years, from 2007 to 2011, with the Pentagon paying $540 million to the company. However, the investigation also found out that at least 40 other media companies were paid for services in Iraq from 2006 to 2008.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
The scheme revealed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in a Oct. 2 report, consisted of producing fake videos that appeared to be the work of al-Qaeda terrorists, the extremist group formerly headed by Osama bin Laden. These videos were used to track possible al-Qaeda sympathizers and anyone watching them via spy software. U.S. Marines would scatter these videos burned on CD's in locations such as houses they were raiding, the report says.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bell Pottinger, the hired London-based PR firm, also created news stories that looked as though they were produced by Arab media outlets and sent these to TV stations across the Middle East. TV crews would film at night to film bombings for low quality videos, and the firm's editors would make them appear as if they were real.

So clearly propaganda. And videos produced to "track ISIS sympathizers". Really? This is what we do nowdays? For the record, I don't really care if somebody supports ISIS or not. As long as you are not breaking the law in this country, go ahead. People are into weirder nowdays. So yes, to me its a waste of 500 million. PR to dress up the war, which we all know was started for reasons, and most likely ongoing contracted work with similar firms.

"However, the investigation also found out that at least 40 other media companies were paid for services in Iraq from 2006 to 2008."

God bless America and the war and the media we hired to make it look cool.

Again you conflating what seems to have been multiple programs/efforts etc into one and disparagingly so - just propaganda.
Here's the original article done by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://labs.thebureauinvestigates.com/fake-news-and-false-flags/


So what am I conflating here? Clearly, a media company hired to fight a propoganda war in Iraq against Al Qaeda and other extremist elements. The whole ordeal in itself is puzzling. You don't need propaganda to encourage democratic elections and tell people how bad Al Qaeda is. They kind of do a good job of doing it themselves.

You object to the part that would appear to been aimed at voter education? More generally you can't win an occupation with just bullets - unless the end game is elimination and or expulsion of most or all current residents, annexation and a mass resettlement effort... First let's be clear as I noted above with the cost of a Canadian election or say add the marketing campaigns of Big Pharma or Apple etc. These suggest there is a wide consensuses that Propaganda or Marketing (whatever you want to call it) campaigns can work and achieve objectives. No other agency of the US government was receiving the kind of emergency funding the Pentagon was nor given overall control on the ground. The reporting I can find in addition to the link doesn't seem to resemble the sorta looks very much like corruption no bid contracts handed out to companies like Halliburton (with its long and close connection to Cheney). Nor does it have abject failure apparent in either well comment failure or per-implementation a very strong negative opinion registered anywhere. The largest complain I can see is from American PR firms that seem to have been pissed off about the open bid process.
That assumes a whole lot of things. There's a difference between good marketing and propaganda. I don't mind the Pentagon outsourcing efforts, or the government hiring media firms to do a good PR job for government programs. What I'm not sold on is hiring media firms to sell the war, or to engage in media information war in other countries. That's the same thing we blast Russian media in this Forum for.

And I'm also not supporting efforts we've put in Iraq. Most people here would say that the grand total cost of the war was a colossal waste of money and I am one of them. Finding out that the money was used on things like propaganda puts an even worse taste in my mouth.

Given the fact of the Invasion and the necessity of an occupation - something that was largely ignored and unplanned for (but those are both rather different questions and issues), I just don't see much waste of fraud or failure obviously evident. To go back to Big Pharma for just last July, for just the US market and for just TV (not the web, not radio or print and not direct to doctor stuff), just the top 10 spenders spent ~140 million in ads (targeted or just nebulous "condition/disease awareness" stuff).
Obviously they didn't steal the money from us and give it to government employees. That's not the point of why everyone is upset. We don't like seeing taxpayer money being spent on things we do not approve of, and even worse, things that are not necessary. I for one don't see the need for an extensive occupation like in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't buy the whole "responsibility" argument and I'd be perfectly okay with leaving the country in ruins. They hate us anyway so we're damned if we and damned if we don't. Most people here are against war spending, and even more so if we spend it on marketing instead of actual fighting.

http://www.fiercepharma.com/marketin...spending-soars

Back in 2012 Apple was spending around a billion dollars on ads, and note the related link Microsoft was dropping a billion on just Windows 8.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple...a-year-2012-11

All in all the Pentagon's spending seems reasonable in the context of what large marketing efforts cost (or elections see Canada noted above).

Its one thing to be critical of the Invasion, and or the abject failure to rationally plan for what happened after the expected and easy military victory. But again given the fact of the Invasion, the fact of poor to nil a priori planning for the aftermath, I just cannot muster out rage without evidence like say a bloated contract, a better bid ignore or rank incompetence of execution.
I doubt most people here care about what the private sector does with their money. They're not using our money after all. Moreover, it's as if you are denying that there is massive waste in government spending especially when it's war spending where money goes where-ever. Not that I object to a lot of it, spending extra on ammunition, supplies, etc can be explained, but a lot of government contracts do seem rather dubious and bloated. Critique of government spending doesn't come out of nowhere and yes, sometimes its overzealous, but a lot of the time its perfectly justified. Especially when its spent on making propaganda for foreign shores for a War that everybody hates already.