And that is how the Arab media portrayed the war.

The outcome of the war is viewed here as:

Jefferson Morley: Thanks Amman. I think you have accurately summarized the perspective of many news sites in the Middle East, and particularly of the independent and valuable Jordan Times in your city.

Old Lyme, Ct.: It is said some in the Arab world view us as conquoring heros who have elmininated an evil ruler and are bringing hope to an oppressed people. It is said others see us as invaders of a land seeking to improve our economic lot through installing a government favorable to the United States. Won't the real test be in how we handle future events, how we establish a true democracy that respects human rights and leaves control within the Iraqi people? Or, maybe I am wrong. What are the expectations that most in the Arab world wish to see from the United States?

Jefferson Morley: The notion that the proof of U.S. intentions will emerge in its handling of the occupation/administration of Iraq is quite common in the international online press. There are differing arguments in the Arab world. Many want the U.S. to leave quickly, although many doubt this will happen. In the Persian Gulf oil emirates there is more support for a continuing U.S. role, probably due to fears of a Shiite state emerging in Iraq. You can read this perspective in news sites like the Khaleej Times and the Gulf News.

Cumberland, Md.: France has not been very supportive of the US for a number of years --- Chirac is a throw-back to DeGaulle and his policies. With the new states in the EU France's opinions carry less and less weight -- why should we care what France thinks?

Jefferson Morley: We should care because France has influence, credibility and, despite recent differences, many of the same goals as the United States. France, for example, just came out for ending the U.N. sanctions on Iraq, a position that will make it much easier for the Bush administration achieve that goal.

Cumberland, Md.: I have watched both Al Jazeera and Abu-Dhabi TV and I somehow find it hard to think of them as credible journalists -- I tend to put them in the same category with the National Enquirer. Would you care to comment on their journalistic integrity and judgment vs. their desire to be propagandists?

Jefferson Morley: I haven't watched Abu-Dhabi TV but I think al Jazeera is credible. They are certainly not in the National Enquirer category. Al Jazeera is run by former members of the BBC in the Arab world and in its coverage of the war showed more balance than Fox News, for example.

Brookeville, Md.: Mr Morley,

It seems the Arab Middle East is not as happy that Saddam is gone as they are angry that it was the US that ousted him. As prisons, mass graves and stories come to light, freedom of the Iraqis is put behind mistrust of the US. Do people in these Arab countries just find it easier to hate and mistrust than to be happy for a fellow Arab?

Jefferson Morley: I don't think people are angry that the U.S. ousted him. I think they are angry at the prospect of the United States staying in Iraq, exploiting its natural resources and projecting its power into the region. The argument that you hear most often in the Arab press is that they hate and mistrust the United States because of its past support for dictatorships and its support for the Israeli occuapation of the Palestinians. The happiness for Iraqis is balanced by these feelings.

Wheaton, Md.: It is clear that international opinion will never support the U.S. Currently, the Shiite population is criticizing the U.S. for staying but this same group, 12 years ago, was critcizing the U.S. for leaving. I'm glad our president knows to ignore world opinion and do whats right.

Jefferson Morley: I have to disagree with your premise. International opinion was overwhelmingly supportive of the United States after Sept. 11 and quite supportive on the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Shiites of Iraq (and Iran) wanted U.S. support against Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. They didn't get it because the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration didn't want to contribute to a Shiite ascendancy in the region. Now the second administration finds itself with a trickier situation: a committment to self-determination for the Iraqi people and the fear that living up to that committment might mean supporting the very Shiites whom the U.S. has been loathe to support for the past 20 years. International support, ie world opinion, could be very helpful in finessing a complex political situation.

Springfield, Va.: A recent French best-seller theorized that the Pentagon was not struck by a jet on 9/11/01, and that it was all some sort of fabrication or hoax by the CIA. There's a list of similar falsehoods floating around in connection with 9/11, from various locales the world over. When I hear things like this, I begin to care much less what French opinion is -- I start to glaze over. This has become, for me, a sort of metaphor for the notion that, no matter how many fancy words are used to paper it over, there are times when the U.S. is right, and the "world" (or sizeable chunks of world opinion, anyway) is wrong -- indeed, not merely wrong, but verging on delusional. Comments?

Jefferson Morley: You are correct about the French best-seller and it need not be taken seriously, except perhaps as a sign of inate hostility to the United States. But I think it would be a mistake to confuse one best-selling book with "what the French think" just as it would be a mistake (often made in France) to confuse some right-wing best-seller for "what America thinks." There are delusions in the world that are disturbingly common. There are also delusions in America ie, that a majority of people think Iraq participated in the Sept. 11 attacks. These illusions aren't identical or even morally comparable. They reflect prejudice and propaganda. It is important to take into account a variety of points of view in the international media for the same reason it is important for journalists to quote both sides in a newspaper article: because the competition for truth enables democratic self-government.

New York, NY: I'm struck by the disconnect between US news coverage and by news from practically anywhere else, including same-language + similar-culture countries such as the UK and Canada. How can it be that we see ourselves so differently from the way the rest of the world sees us?

The only conclusion I can draw is that at least some of us have to be delusional. Your thoughts?

Jefferson Morley: Its a good question. I write the "World Opinion Roundup" so that people are aware of this disconnect, understand it, and draw their own conclusions about it. The sources, I think, are America's traditional insulation from the conflicts of the rest of the world, a lack of knowledge about the impact of U.S. foreign policy decisions, especially outside of Europe, and the trauma of Sept. 11, the first time that Americans really felt the impact of terrorism. That said, the difference in perspectives even within the English-speaking world (UK, Canada and Australia) is remarkable. I don't fully understand it myself.

Bergen, Norway.: I think that the majority of the media in this country are unhappy with the US treatment of the UN, and that there is no question that the US are violating international law. One of the more interresting discussions here is if you can justify a war on moral grounds to remove a dictator like Hussein, and if the US (with it's past of changeing even democratic governments) has the moral authority to make such judgements.
Is a breach of international law and the possible consequences being discussed in the US media?

Jefferson Morley: I think the question of international law and its importance HAS received serious attention in this country, especially in the print media. I would recommend the writings of Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post on this point especially. It has received less attention on TV which is where most people get their news. The polls before the war showed that many people wanted a U.N. approval of any U.S. action. This number faded as the Bush administration pushed for war. I suspect it might rise again, if the situation of governing postwar Iraq grows more costly and complicated.

State College, Pa.: Mr. Morley.

I can't believe you used the words "balance" and "Fox News" in the same sentence! I didn't think it was possible!

Seriously, after having read your columns today, I was wondering what your opinion on the Chinese press is. Are they actually reporting or are they merely the propaganda machine (as in the past) to counter the on-line reporting that the citizens now can access?

Jefferson Morley: The Chinese media is state-controlled but that does not mean that it is impervious to reality. The Chinese coverage of SARS shows that the media, like the government there, understands, that totalitarian control and denial are quite dangerous in the face of an epidemic.

Mt. Rainier Md.: Could they find someone less prepared to represent us in Iraq than ex-General Garner? Take note of the picture on the front of today's WP - the general has his hand on the shoulder of a scarved Muslim woman, apparently totally unaware that an unrelated man DOES NOT touch a respectable woman in that society. It is an offense. Is he that oblivious or is his staffing that bad?

Jefferson Morley: I think Gen. Garner's learning curve is just beginning. The Arab media will assist him in this process.

Arlington, Va.: Are people in other countries surprised by the fact that the consequences of our unqualified support for Israel, and almost-flagrant disregard for the Palenstians, is very rarely discussed in the mainstream media? What does this say to the international communicy about the level of debate here in the U.S.?

Jefferson Morley: This is a very common question about the U.S. media and the answer to your question is Yes, people in other countries are surprised by the lack of representation of the Palestinian perspective in the news. I think that this lack of perspective is due to the much greater cultural affinities and common history between Americans and Israelis than between Americans and Arabs.

Somewhere, USA: UN opinion? Here in the U.S., it almost an article of faith to ultraconservatives that the United Nations is an evil organization bent on imposing a New World Order. My question: In other countries, what do "conservatives" (if there even such a thing as a foreign counterpart to our homegrown zealots) in other countries think of the UN?

(FYI, I am well aware that one of the reasons the U.S. is suspicious of the UN is we feel indignant that the wishes of the world's most powerful nation can be thwarted by a country like, say, Cameroon.)

Jefferson Morley: The United Nations retains widespread credibility across the political spectrum in the rest of the world. Overt hostility, I think, is largely a U.S. phenonenom. Jacques Chirac is on the right of the French political spectrum. His defense of the U.N. played quite well among his conservative supporters. In the Middle East, the biggest supporters of the U.N. are also those most inclined to be sympathetic and supportive of the United States, or at least of U.S. ideals of constitutional government, free press and rule of law. In other words, U.S. hostility to the United Nations inspires opposition from the most pro-American elements of those societies.

Burke, Va.: What is the reaction to the lack of finding chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq in the world news.

Jefferson Morley: There is a lot of crowing about this. There was also a lot of crowing, in these same news outlets, about Iraqi resistance to the U.S. invasion. This crowing proved premature, at best. I would say it is too early to draw any conclusions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Boston, Mass.: In your opinion, has international and US press adequately covered the Bush Admin / Big Oil connection? For instance, most American's don't know that Condi Rice was a board member of Chevron and even had and oil tanker named for her. The ship was renamed after her taking her current role at the White House. Various conspiracy theories abound, but have we the people really been given the facts by the press?

Jefferson Morley: This subject has attracted plenty of commentary both in the international and U.S. press. The biggest story that has gone uncovered is a report in the British press that the Bush administration is looking for an oil company executive who is also Muslim to take over running the Iraqi oil industry. This will be a key test of the administration's intentions toward Iraq's oil.

Pennsylvania: Hasn't the war in Iraq proven that we should not listen to Europe and the Arab World?

Jefferson Morley: No, I don't think so. For example, the widespread demands from Arabs inside Iraq that the United States leave the country as soon as possible have to be listened to. Ignoring them is not an option. Not for the Bush administration and not for anyone else serious about establishing representative government in Iraq.

Amman/Jordan: As the author of the "Amman/Jordan" view that was screen earlier I should have added that that was the way the UNOFFICIAL media reported and viewed the war on IRAQ.
The OFFICIAL media (goverment run TV and Radio stations)while trying to sound in harmony with overwhelming anti American and anti war popular mood made great effort not to displease the invaders in a bogus show of objectivity.

Jefferson Morley: Point well taken. I think people throughout the Arab world have learned that a state-controlled press, by its very nature, does a disservice to its audience.

Columbia, Md.: Is measuring "opinions" a good way to understand issues and have a better future? I think it is better to focus on facts. I feel we are so interested in the variety of opinons that we do not analyze issues critically to reach common goals. What are your thoughts on this?

Jefferson Morley: Good question. It goes to the heart of what I do. I would say that understanding opinion is the only way to understand facts. I agree that analyzing critically is essential to reaching common goals but the only way to analyze critically it to take into account other opinions, if only to reject them.

Jefferson Morley: That will have to be the last question for today. Thanks for contributing.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Future of the Oil Industry, 2 p.m. ET

Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the Live Online e-mail newsletter.

   |      |