Understanding the problem is half the fight

In a recent address in Kansas, Secretary Gates stated “It is just plain embarrassing that Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”

How true .... but his statement unfortunately illustrates a fundamental flaw of logic as well as one of the classic problems that nation-states (specifically those that allow free and open communications among citizens, media, and industry) face when pitted against groups like AQ. Secretary Gates' statement presupposes that it is possible for America to transmit a coherent message. While our government officials may believe that they represent America to the world, there is no single voice of America, and our adversaries capitalize on our lack of coherence to their advantage.

What we tend to forget is that all media sources originating in the US or published by Americans abroad represent the "American message" to foreign audiences. Statements from public officials have to compete with the commercial news media, Hollywood movie productions, TV reality shows, MTV/VH1, and televangelists .... the vast majority of which have no concern how their "message" will impact our foreign policy efforts. To sow further confusion and discord, the overseas activities of "American" multinational corporations are largely de-synchronized from our military / diplomatic actions and our foreign policy statements. Given the mixed messages that America transmits, it's no surprise that our opponents are more effective than we are

Rockbridge

that a healthy part of the dislike or distaste for the US in much of the world is due to the fact that our very incompetent media -- and particularly Television -- tend to make the entire nation come across as a bunch of tasteless, not too bright and celebrity obsessed beer swillers. IOW, they make us look even dumber than we are. :wry:

I have one story that sticks in my head, which a professor of mine once told me. He was speaking to a prominent Gulf cleric and the guy turns to him and says, in a hushed and serious tone:

“Husain, you are over in America now. Tell me, are all the women in America like the ones on Sex and the City?”

I retain this story as reminder that sometimes things are not on the “Clash of Civilizations” level. Rather, sometimes it comes down fearing that your Sisters, wife and daughters may become whores like on Sex and the City, a concern I think most men can understand.


Rockbridge, I agree, it is like comparing apples to oranges. The saturation of media from the myriad of sources that represents America, cannot properly be compared to AQ's ability to send out it's message. From my very novice look, I see AQ's media campaign growing increasingly sophisticated. There is better analysis around, but I get the inclination that they are drawing some outside help. One thought that I have kicked around playing “What would I do if I were AQ?”, is utilizing public-opinion/polling firms, behavioral and market research firms to aide in tailoring messages and attacks. Buying limited distribution research products off the shelf, are commissioning actual studies. I imagine through various cutouts, shell companies, lawyers and fiduciary agents, that customer identity can be cloaked.

Quote:

---

Good points. It should also be no surprise that a healthy part of the dislike or distaste for the US in much of the world is due to the fact that our very incompetent media -- and particularly Television -- tend to make the entire nation come across as a bunch of tasteless, not too bright and celebrity obsessed beer swillers. IOW, they make us look even dumber than we are.

---

Mr. White, I think you would enjoy the film Idiocracy. The best film of last year that nobody saw. One reviewer called it "the most stirring defense of traditional values since Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France." I don't disagree.

Quote:

---

Mr. White, I think you would enjoy the film Idiocracy. The best film of last year that nobody saw. One reviewer called it "the most stirring defense of traditional values since Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France." I don't disagree.

---

It has electrolytes...

I like money...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bourbon

Rockbridge, I agree, it is like comparing apples to oranges. The saturation of media from the myriad of sources that represents America, cannot properly be compared to AQ's ability to send out it's message. From my very novice look, I see AQ's media campaign growing increasingly sophisticated. There is better analysis around, but I get the inclination that they are drawing some outside help. One thought that I have kicked around playing “What would I do if I were AQ?”, is utilizing public-opinion/polling firms, behavioral and market research firms to aide in tailoring messages and attacks. Buying limited distribution research products off the shelf, are commissioning actual studies. I imagine through various cutouts, shell companies, lawyers and fiduciary agents, that customer identity can be cloaked.

---

Who's to say you would need to cloak who you are? Since I work for a market research firm, I can say with confidence: That'd be unnecessary. It's a regular and normal part of the business, and completely ethical, to not say who we're working for if it would bias the study - and for government foreign policy stuff, you bet it would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockbridge

In a recent address in Kansas, Secretary Gates stated “It is just plain embarrassing that Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”

How true .... but his statement unfortunately illustrates a fundamental flaw of logic as well as one of the classic problems that nation-states (specifically those that allow free and open communications among citizens, media, and industry) face when pitted against groups like AQ. Secretary Gates' statement presupposes that it is possible for America to transmit a coherent message. While our government officials may believe that they represent America to the world, there is no single voice of America, and our adversaries capitalize on our lack of coherence to their advantage.

What we tend to forget is that all media sources originating in the US or published by Americans abroad represent the "American message" to foreign audiences. Statements from public officials have to compete with the commercial news media, Hollywood movie productions, TV reality shows, MTV/VH1, and televangelists .... the vast majority of which have no concern how their "message" will impact our foreign policy efforts. To sow further confusion and discord, the overseas activities of "American" multinational corporations are largely de-synchronized from our military / diplomatic actions and our foreign policy statements. Given the mixed messages that America transmits, it's no surprise that our opponents are more effective than we are

Rockbridge

---

I agree, the most frustrating part of the whole deal is that so often it seems like those who should know and work from this understanding don't seem to.

Is common sense that uncommon?

:eek:

Firstly, I think you guys are being too hard on your own media.

I live in Australia. I know Hollywood isn't America. My image of America is formed by working and playing with Americans both in America, here and in other countries.TV and the Internet provide part, but not all, of my information. My perception of the current "message" is informed by my experience of America.

I would also say that the elites who run third world countries would have exactly the same attitude.

Which of course begs the question - which "audience" was Secretary Gates talking about??? Obviously it wasn't me.

And of course "Whats the message"?

So who is the audience?

I believe there are two audiences - the average American, who knows almost nothing about the Middle East except that it contains the Holy Land, terrorists and sand, and the average muslim, who only knows that America has cowboys, Hollywood and a lot of money.

Both of these audiences are highly vulnerable to disinformation and relatively easily manipulated in my opinion, but some of you folks would know much more about this subject than I do.

Now Bin Laden has consistently stayed "On Message" - which is simply

1. "Get out of the Middle East"

2. "I want a Califate and Wahabism"

3. "Arab rulers who don't believe in #1 and #2 Are traitors."

I may be wrong, but thats what he seems to be repeating endlessly.

Our message in response is screwed up because our entire strategy in response is screwed up, simple as that. We have no intellectual base on which our strategy is founded, witness the incredible number of re-statings of our reasons to be in Iraq.

Unfortunately it falls to a lot of you guys to have to make sense of the nonsensical - like the recently released NIE on Irans nuclear programs.

So that, in my opinion, is why we aren't getting "The message" out. Our message is as contradictory, feeble and dishonest as Bin Ladens is unbending.

So never mind the Internet, the Mainstream Media, Bloggers for our predicament because when it all comes down to it, it doesn't matter which channel is used, our "message" is dishonest and shallow.

But wait, there's more, and it's not good...

There is a concept in neurolinguistics called the "meta - message" - which is "The message you are sending when you don't think you are sending a message.", and I have to say that America has sent some pretty powerful meta - messages to muslims and they are not good, to wit.

Guantanamo.

Al Ghraib.

Rendition.

Waterboarding.

What do you think these meta messages tell muslims about America?

We have a dishonest strategy, hence a dishonest message, backed up by so much stupidity it's almost as if someone was deliberately trying to make every muslim in the world hate us.

Walrus I take issue with your post. You said you're from Australia and know that Hollywood isn't America. Therefore you've already proven that you are smarter than 99.9999 percent of America.

You brought up the concept of meta-message (messages within messages), and it is an interesting point. When you are fighting a war of ideology what is your main threat? Well I would suggest ideology and our message via actions and deeds suggests we accept dehumanization of the other side. This isn't to surprising since we do it in anything from primary school to big ten football. I mean you really don't think Illiniois has humans for football players?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockbridge

In a recent address in Kansas, Secretary Gates stated “It is just plain embarrassing that Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”

How true .... but his statement unfortunately illustrates a fundamental flaw of logic as well as one of the classic problems that nation-states (specifically those that allow free and open communications among citizens, media, and industry) face when pitted against groups like AQ. Secretary Gates' statement presupposes that it is possible for America to transmit a coherent message. While our government officials may believe that they represent America to the world, there is no single voice of America, and our adversaries capitalize on our lack of coherence to their advantage.

What we tend to forget is that all media sources originating in the US or published by Americans abroad represent the "American message" to foreign audiences. Statements from public officials have to compete with the commercial news media, Hollywood movie productions, TV reality shows, MTV/VH1, and televangelists .... the vast majority of which have no concern how their "message" will impact our foreign policy efforts. To sow further confusion and discord, the overseas activities of "American" multinational corporations are largely de-synchronized from our military / diplomatic actions and our foreign policy statements. Given the mixed messages that America transmits, it's no surprise that our opponents are more effective than we are

Rockbridge

---

I've always taken issue with the assumption is that the reason we face hostility and dislike in some parts of the world is because of flawed strategic communications. I think most of the world understands us perfectly well. A lot of people just disagree with us and don't like us.

We're kind of like Jerry Seinfeld in that we simply can't believe that someone could both understand us and dislike us, so we have assume that the people who don't like us don't understand us.

As our Canadian friends will, I'm sure, tell us--we're an acquired taste.

I think that as a great power, we need to get over this somewhat pathetic need for affirmation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

I've always taken issue with the assumption is that the reason we face hostility and dislike in some parts of the world is because of flawed strategic communications. I think most of the world understands us perfectly well. A lot of people just disagree with us and don't like us.

We're kind of like Jerry Seinfeld in that we simply can't believe that someone could both understand us and dislike us, so we have assume that the people who don't like us don't understand us.

As our Canadian friends will, I'm sure, tell us--we're an acquired taste.

I think that as a great power, we need to get over this somewhat pathetic need for affirmation.

---

Completely correct. There is no shortage of people outside (and inside) the US who understand it quite well, and dislike it just as intensely and for more or less the same reasons as those who may not know very much about the US. "Effective" SC is not going to make a dramatic difference there. As is, so much of why those who dislike the US is rooted in envy or ideology (or both), non-rational factors that are pretty hard to deal with anyway. To the extent that there are things that the US has done that were not good and have caused legitimate beefs, that's in the realm of policy. For the rest, it's for the most part of out US hands, and even good SC will only go so far in that regard.

As to the American need to be "liked" around the world, to a certain degree I agree with Steve, get over it. On the other hand, that same need to be liked reflects a certain basic decency in many Americans compared to many other countries; many people in other countries take it as naivety, but the day Americans become as hard and cynical an imperial power as most of the rest of their predecessors in history is the day that most America-haters really do have something substantial to hate them for, not just an excuse. Americans, by and large, are all right compared to most other countries (even those that are Yankees).:)

told that Malcolm Muggeridge, then editor of Punch, appeared on the Johnny Carson Show one night in 1967 and addressed the topic, saying "You are a big powerful nation and you will be hated for that. Why do you care what the rest of the world thinks? Just be reasonably decent and do what you wish" (or words to that effect).

That made sense to me and I've looked at it that way ever since.

Er, ever since I was told that occurred so long ago, of course... :wry:

While of course its valid to suggest that what non Americans think is irrelevent, so who cares? I would point out that America had a huge store of foreign goodwill, built up from 1945 onwards and peaking in the days immediately after 911, that has now been squandered for no particularly good reason.

One can question the value of that goodwill, but I happen to believe it was valuable because I also believe that the concept of a unipolar world advanced in the "Project For a New American Century" is flawed.

To put it another way, alliances matter, and you never know when you are going to need friends.

Selil, a word of correction, the meta message is not "the message within the message" its the message you send by your actions when you don't think you are sending any message at all.

The classic "meta message" sent in the early days of the Iraq war was (reportedly) the billeting of American troops in Sadaam Hussiens palaces, in effect sending the "meta message" that the Iraqis have swapped one ruler for another. While the comfort was no doubt earned, it sent the wrong message, but perhaps I'm just being fussy and picky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

While of course its valid to suggest that what non Americans think is irrelevent, so who cares? I would point out that America had a huge store of foreign goodwill, built up from 1945 onwards and peaking in the days immediately after 911, that has now been squandered for no particularly good reason.

One can question the value of that goodwill, but I happen to believe it was valuable because I also believe that the concept of a unipolar world advanced in the "Project For a New American Century" is flawed.

To put it another way, alliances matter, and you never know when you are going to need friends.

Selil, a word of correction, the meta message is not "the message within the message" its the message you send by your actions when you don't think you are sending any message at all.

The classic "meta message" sent in the early days of the Iraq war was (reportedly) the billeting of American troops in Sadaam Hussiens palaces, in effect sending the "meta message" that the Iraqis have swapped one ruler for another. While the comfort was no doubt earned, it sent the wrong message, but perhaps I'm just being fussy and picky.

---

But are allies and friends the same thing? Must allies be friends?

Personally I think the only "friends" the United States has are the English speaking nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

To put it another way, alliances matter, and you never know when you are going to need friends.

---

There is a price to be paid for doing things that upset others. The point, however, is that we can't minimize the price by spin. If we don't want the Palestinians to have a country, we can't make them happy about it by "getting our message out."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

There is a price to be paid for doing things that upset others. The point, however, is that we can't minimize the price by spin. If we don't want the Palestinians to have a country, we can't make them happy about it by "getting our message out."

---

When and where has the Palestinians not having a country been a goal of ours so much as ensuring that Israel gets to remain a country and not be the excuse for every other country in the region not wanting to share any of their land with the Palestinians.

I think it really takes looking at the situation from a much larger scale and not purposefully leaving out details which one might not like to consider.

By the way I seem to have the unique capability of doing things which upset others while at the same time doing things which must be done.
Does that count too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

When and where has the Palestinians not having a country been a goal of ours so much as ensuring that Israel gets to remain a country and not be the excuse for every other country in the region not wanting to share any of their land with the Palestinians.

---

Like Steve said. People know what that means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

By the way I seem to have the unique capability of doing things which upset others while at the same time doing things which must be done. Does that count too?

---

Do you feel like you pay a price for doing them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

Do you feel like you pay a price for doing them?

---

Every time :(

Call me a hopeless optimist but sometimes the right thing to do

is right, even if you have to suffer for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

...Call me a hopeless optimist...

---

You're a hopeless optimist.

Admitting the problem is the first step to solving it. I'll be your sponsor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

Every time :(

Call me a hopeless optimist but sometimes the right thing to do

is right, even if you have to suffer for it.

---

iIm not disagreeing. I'm just saying you can't lower the price through spin. Now, if you want to sell more Viagra, spin can make you millions.