Did you know that most Norwegians were against the war in Iraq, are critical to the United States, and are uncomfortable about our involvment in Iraq? Wow, me neither! George W. Bush has obviously based his foreign policy on an inaccurate perception of Norwegian opinion. Something must be done:

The Socialist Left Party intends to place an ad in the Washington Post to explain that Norwegians don't support the Norwegian military involvment in Iraq. .. Today the party starts accepting contributions to buy advertising space in the American newspaper Washington Post. .. - The intention is to send a strong message to the Bondevik administration. To make the outside world aware of how the majority of Norwegians feel about this would matter a lot to the debate back home, says a central party source.

Wtf? How do they imagine the chain of events here? Bush opens the WP, learns to his great amazement that there are people in Europe who don't like what he's doing in Iraq, and picks up the phone to the PM's office in Oslo: "Is this true, Kjell Magne?" "I'm afraid it is, Mr President." Once his terrible secret is out, Bondevik will have no other option but to pull our forces out of Iraq several days before the already scheduled evacuation later this month. Eh.

Vårt Land estimes that the ad will cost $175 000. Not that they'll get it - surely even Socialist Left voters won't fall for this, but imagine what that money could do as humanitarian aid to Iraq. Or anywhere.

Here's a PDF of the ad they want to place, from the campaign website. It's addressed to the "Honorable George W. Bush":

Relations between our two peoples have always been characterized by peace and mutual respect. As friends we have a duty to be honest and fortright with each other. We feel that we have an obligation to tell you what the Norwegian public thinks.

We firmly believe that the quest for peace in Iraq is best led by the United Nations and a democratically-elected Iraqi government.

We implore you to keep in mind the lives - American, Allied and Iraq - at stake in this conflict. We urge you to seek peaceful paths in your efforts to counter terrorism.

Fighting terrorism is too important to be done by waging war.

Impressed, my honorable American readers? Convinced of your evil ways? Maybe not, but show these socialists some sympathy. As far as they know, views like these are normally censored and unavailable to the American public. They're trying to help you. Perhaps you should return the favor, and tell them a few things about what the American people thinks of Norway and the war on terror. Politely, of course. Remember that pro-American views are generally unavailable to the Norwegian public. They're not evil, just ignorant.

Shame. That party needs to get back to reality.

Hmmm.
I am not sure you would have opposed this ad as ferociously as you do, if the message had been along the lines of:

"Dear Bush, Not all Europeans are brie-eating cissy-boys. We wish to apologize for our Government, who fail to contribute sufficiently in the monumental struggle between good and evil, known as the war on terrorism."

I agree with your skepticism regarding the effectiveness the socialists' message will have. The mere label "socialist" makes a few alarm bells go off in the land of the free. I must also say that I don't approve of the pacifist argument they introduce at the end.

But it's an interesting idea this ad. I thought you were all for information-sharing, and breaking out of the oft mentioned media-bubble and all that. But perhaps the direction of sharing should only be from the USA to Europe and not the other way around?

You most certainly didn't mind the ESAG's involvement on this side of the Atlantic. I can't recall that you on that issue put forward your good argument; whether this is money well spent. I think that argument applies to both cases.

Anders: This is silly for several reasons, non of which are general. It's _not_ dumb by itself to take out political ads in foreign newspapers. It _is_ dumb to do it on a false assumption about what your audience knows, ie. that Americans are unaware that Europeans are critical of their foreign policy and unfamiliar with basic anti-war slogans. It is dumb to do with the intent of influencing the Norwegian government to do what it plans to do anyway.

And it's dumb because the message is. That's my opinion of course, which is all I'm offering here. And that's also why it's a waste of money, unlike raising awareness of the evil of terrorism in Europe. There's no general argument that says it's always a good use of money to advertise any political message - it depends on what the message is.

I agree with Bjørn. The message of this ad was dumb. ESAG's ads just remind people that terrorism is something that can strike us, too. Sounds sensible, if you ask me.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/newspage.php3

http://www.secularislam.org/discussion34/Default.htm

"Bush opens the WP, "
Bush doesn't read newspapers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2004-05-13-hype_x.htm

"It _is_ dumb to do it on a false assumption about what your audience knows,"

This is interesting. The same logic may be applied to the ESAG ads, which you approve of. It is dumb to tell Europe that terrorism is evil when they have been exposed to it for decades already. (Compare the number of terrorist strikes and casualities on Euorpean and American soil in the 1970-80-and 90's). I think that it is an awkward claim when you imply that Europe does not know the evil of terrorism. But then again that's my opinion :-) Perhaps the content of the message decides the attitudes to the techniques applied?

--We firmly believe that the quest for peace in Iraq is best led by the United Nations and a democratically-elected Iraqi government.--

Yes, because the UN has done such a stellar job in Kosovo, we must expand their reach to a country the size of California. Oh, wait, they want control of our armed forces to do it and use our money.

As to the Iraqi gov't, well, step one has been accomplished.

You know, I really do wish I were as wealthy as Gates.

Can you imagine the uproar if I decided to place ads in your papers?

WHEEEE!

Anders: "It is dumb to tell Europe that terrorism is evil when they have been exposed to it for decades already."

There's a difference between merely believing that terrorism is evil, and believing that there's no excuse for it, that it is a real danger, and that we must deal with that danger. There's very little awareness of the scope of the problem, especially of Islamic terrorism, (which is protected partly by fears of Islamophobia), and many water out their condemnations of terrorism with moral relativism. "Yes, that's bad and tragic, _but_ you must consider what they're up against" etc.

Or do you believe that there are only two possibly views available on terrorism, that it's either evil or not?

"Perhaps the content of the message decides the attitudes to the techniques applied?"

But I told you - I have no views on the the method these people are using, only on the content. Political advertising is dumb or smart depending entirely on the message.

HA HA, what a funny ad! It reminds me of an old Bill Cosby routine from the '60s. In it Bill Cosby reflects on the custom of tossing a coin before each football game to decide which team gets to first put the ball in play. He imagines that the same custom occurred before every famous battle in history.

For example, Washington and Cornwallis have a coin toss to decide the playing rules of the American Revolutionary War. Washington wins the coin toss and tells Cornwallis: "We say that our team gets to wear buckskin jackets and coonskin caps, and shoot from behind the rocks and trees and fences. We say that your team must wear bright red, and march in a straight line."

For the Battle of the Little Bighorn (aka Custer's Last Stand), Sitting Bull wins the coin toss. He tells General Custer, "We say that your team must wait at the bottom of a hill while me and all the Indians in the world ride right down upon you."

Updated version, courtesy of the Norwegian Socialist Left party: Osama and GW have a coin toss, which Osama wins. Osama tells GW "We say that our team gets to crash planes into tall buildings, blow up trains, cut off peoples' heads on live camera and release cyanide gas into the ventilation systems of heavily populated buildings. Your team must fight us back using only 'peaceful' means."

Thanks for the morning laugh.

It always amazes me how seemingly Europeans really do not understand the character of most Americans. I've entertained a number of Europeans over the last year or so and they have the expected attitudes toward Bush. They just do not see how he can be re-elected. When I tell them this is likely to happen, they just cannot comprehend it. We have an immense economy and love to work and build. We are just not going to let fanatics destroy it. We are going to be fierce in defending our country, it just cannot be otherwise, we would not be Americans. Many, on the left, here and abroad just do not have that firery determination to accomplish this. It appears to me that the news that most Europeans receive is far and away the 60's liberal dreamy and,now, angry party line. Bjorn, you posts seem to verify this and your frequent alternative views are an exception. The major media here tends to be "European" in attitude but thank God for our talk radio,it is wonderfully intense and a way to hear alternative views. The same for the internet. I do not see attitudes changing here except for becomming more conservative. I suspect over the (very) long run this will also happen in Europe.

If you read the text you yourself quoted from Vårt Land, it says that "[t]he intention is to send a strong message to the Bondevik administration". If the message is addressed to Mr. Bush, it is primarily because the activists wish to make a point to Mr. Bondevik, who for the last 18 months has been trying his best to please both his chiefly anti-war voting public and the coalition countries at the same time. You base your argument on the assumption that a group of radical naïfs are trying to petition the US President, which isn't quite the case here. Still, if you believe this editorial from Dagsavisen, addressing mr. Bush might make some sense after all:

http://www.dagsavisen.no/utenriks/article1134858.ece

I'll leave you to translate as you see fit, the gist of it being that Mr. Bush is allegedly shielded from dissent and public criticism by his circle of advisers and cabinet members. Judge for yourself.

Gaute: Yeah I did notice that their intent was to reach Bondevik. But they're trying to do it through reaching the American public and/or government. I don't see the logical connection here. That's why I mocked both things independently.

The article you link to says that Bush doesn't speak much to people outside the White House. That's not the same as saying that he's unaware of the European criticism against his foreign policy. This isn't about awareness, but agreement. That's the one big mistake Europeans have made about the US. Bush may or may not be shielded from dissent, but this is probably only relevant only to more specific issues such as _how_ the occupation of Iraq and the war on terror is carried out. A more open administration still wouldn't listen to the Socialist Left in Norway - if you doubt me, just read any random pro-war blog fisking of neo-pacifist European nonsense. Trust me - lack of awareness of these views is not the issue.

jrdroll . . .

You said: " 'Bush opens the WP,'
Bush doesn't read newspapers."

You are implying that Bush is stupid and ignorant, right?

"We urge you to seek peaceful paths...."

In the spirit of fairness, I wonder if they're going to run the same ad in the Syrian Gazette, The Hezbollah News or the Iranian Times.....oh yeah, I forgot, they don't allow free speech in their papers.

Americans are of two minds about Iraq. Those who support Bush are going to read this add and think less, not better, about Norwegians. Those who oppose Bush on the war mostly already know how Norwegions feel. Even if they don't know for sure they probably assume that most Norwegians are against the Iraq war. It is not clear to me that this proposal is going to be money well spent. But of course it is their money to spend.

As an American citizen I have as much right to speak for the American public as the Socialist Left Party has to speak for the Norwegian public; so --

"We firmly believe that the quest for peace in Iraq is best led by the United Nations and a democratically-elected Iraqi government."

Apparently the news of Saddam Hussein's perversion of the UN's Oil-for-Food program, with help from its administrators, has not reached the Socialist Left Party. The American public is better informed on the subject, and does not believe that the United Nations has any intention of supporting a democratically elected Iraqi government. And the UN's past record, examined impartially, tends to confirm the Americans' view.

On the other hand, the US troops presently occupying Iraq are, in fact, doing everything they can think of to construct a democratically elected Iraqi government. This particular political feat cannot, however, be carried out merely by waving a magic wand. If the Socialist Left Party thinks it is a simple matter, I invite them to try it.

"Fighting terrorism is too important to be done by waging war."

President Clinton, Bush's predecessor, tried to fight terrorism through criminal prosecutions, and failed completely. Fighting terrorism by waging war has, at least, not failed. If the Socialist Left Party knows of a third method, they ought to publish it. If they simply prefer Clinton's method, the American public has heard all they have to say and rejected it.

--

Really, where have these people been for the past ten years? The arguments here wouldn't convince an anti-war American! If the Socialist Left Party wants their ad to be appreciated as it deserves, they'd do better to run it in the Onion, to avoid any suspicion that it's meant to be serious...

Hi all,

The "tellhim" add is based on one of the founding premises of the US constitution, the freedom of speach. I see nothing inherently wrong with that, after all - freedom of speach is one of the rights for which the US war on terrorism is fought in the first place.

I agree that the add has some pretty one-sided language, and some fairly strong claims, i.e. that the US is pursuing a "flawed and failed" foreign policy and that they must "appologize to the Iraqi people" and even to their own allies for "misleading them". On the other hand, the game of politics and particularly winning elections, is very much a balancing act - when Bush makes claims like "you are with us or against us", "we must wage war on the evil-doers", then he should expect some of his opponents to be equally extreme in countering him.

At this point in the election, all but a small fraction (5-8%) of the American people have decided who to vote for. Most are already in favor of Bush and would not be persuaded by this add, or they are already against him, and the content of the add unlikely presents them with any new information. However, it may be a fairly potent message in and of itself, that people living in a different country are outraged enough by US foreign policy to bother funding this sort of an add in an American newspaper.

I also note that some pro-bush supporters (even some on this weblog) presume that if you are not voting for Bush, you are voting in favor of the terrorists. To the extent that this is true, I find it very regrettable. Nobody in their right mind would feel that killing innocent people is ok and does not warrant action. The issue is not wether or not to fight terrorism, but HOW to fight it. That is were Busk and Kerry's views differ. Even now that the latest White House reports confirm the view and conclusion of US intelligence that Iraq not only did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion, but that there is no confirmed link between Iraq and al-qaida, Condoleza Rice and the rest of the Bush administration insists that the war was not a mistake - they would have gone ahead anyway. And the real kicker is: almost half the US population agrees with this.

Ok. We have to accept the realities as they stand. It's a democracy after all. Even though this is the very reason Plato hated it.

Bjorn: The "tellhim" add is based on one of the founding premises of the US constitution, the freedom of speach. I see nothing inherently wrong with that, after all.

Neither do I. I don't object to political advertising on principled grounds. I've spoken warmly of ESAG's ads in Norway, for instance.

I object to this partly because I disagree with the message, but mostly because it's a waste of money. I'm not sure what they're trying to achieve. If they're trying to reach Americans, the ad is counterproductive. If they're really trying to reach Norwegians, (as some claim they do), I just don't see the point, as these views are pretty common in the Norwegian media already.

It seems to me more like they're making a statement for its own sake, because it feels good, and not because of some actual strategy behind it.

However, it may be a fairly potent message in and of itself, that people living in a different country are outraged enough by US foreign policy to bother funding this sort of an add in an American newspaper.

But it's an old message, and one that, every time Americans are reminded of it, benefits Bush. Europe is not highly thought of in the US right now, not among those pro-war on terror centrists who might go either way. There's a feeling that Europe is hypocritical, cynical, shallow, and ever complaining without offering workable alternatives of their own. This ad does nothing to discourage that feeling.

The issue is not wether or not to fight terrorism, but HOW to fight it. That is were Busk and Kerry's views differ.

Absolutely. The real difference is over Iraq. And Kerry will not be Europe's man in the White House.

One correction: The ad is not placed in the Washington Post by the Socialist Left Party or any other party. The organization tellhim.no is bipartisan and not affiliated with any one organization or party.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/722

Bjørn Stærk blog: TellHim.no's anti-war ad, October 12, 2004 10:02 PM

Who would have thought: TellHim.no managed to buy an anti-war ad in the Washington Post after all. Signed "Concerned citizens...