Losing the PSYOP war

[marct]

Hi Bill,

I go on to discuss how, when we did finally figure out that PSYOP might be an important element in the Central American war, we did what we always do: we threw money and technology at the problem. Our enemies focused not on the media, but on the message, and were much more effective than we were. See http://www.contracross.com

I think that right now there is a double problem: one operational and one ideological. Operationally, most of the PSYOPs and IO seems to be focusing on obsolete, broadcast media rather than on the particular media used by a given audience (e.g. the newer interactive media or the older "oral culture" media). At the ideological level, there is very little sophistication or cultural appropriateness in the message.

If McLuhan was correct in his little aphorism of the "medium is the massage" (that's the original, not the later popularized version), then the campaign is failing on all fronts. Throwing money and technology at a problem may work in some settings, but this is too complex a problem for it to be appropriate. Without a solid, salable ideology it doesn't matter which media are used.

Marc

[J Wolfsberger]

Hi Marc,

I agree, but in that regard I think we have an inherent, severe disadvantage. The "cultural imperialism" the Islamists object to isn't typified by a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Mecca. It's abortion "rights," feminism, gay rights, the exclusion of God from civil life, etc. I think that once those are tied, by Islamist propaganda, to democracy, free markets, capitalism, etc., we face a tough uphill struggle to craft an effective message. Especially when it would have to be done under the intense scrutiny and outright opposition of the left. (I find it ironic that the people most opposed to the current war seem to be those most committed to the aspects of the West that seem a strong part of what motivates Islamists.)

[marct]

Hi JW,

I agree, but in that regard I think we have an inherent, severe disadvantage. The "cultural imperialism" the Islamists object to isn't typified by a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Mecca. It's abortion "rights," feminism, gay rights, the exclusion of God from civil life, etc. I think that once those are tied, by Islamist propaganda, to democracy, free markets, capitalism, etc., we face a tough uphill struggle to craft an effective message.

I agree. In many ways, the tying of TNC global "culture", i.e. McDonald's everywhere, into the basic political philosophy that is the basis of the modern, Western democratic state has been a major mistake. The ideological message that we should be selling is TNC neutral - individual rights and responsibilities, a "social contract" within a democratic framework, individual freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, and a , broadly construed, "capitalist" system (there hasn't been a real capitalist system, a la Adam Smith, since the 1850's or so).

Do we face a tough, uphill struggle? Sure, so what? First, if it was easy, then every culture would have done it. Second, and more immediate, maybe the people who are getting paid outrageous amounts of money to do it should think about actually dong their job.

Especially when it would have to be done under the intense scrutiny and outright opposition of the left. (I find it ironic that the people most opposed to the current war seem to be those most committed to the aspects of the West that seem a strong part of what motivates Islamists.)

Absolutely bang on! And please, don't get me started on your left wing ! Honestly, when I was much younger, I used to hang around up at Parliament Hill. I had the privilege of spending a number of lunches and afternoons talking with people like Stanley Knowles and other "old time" CCF members from the old Social Justice stream. Now there were Left Wingers who took their policies and beliefs seriously!

Most of today's left wing, especially the American crowd of neo-Marxists I've run into, are, to quote my grandmother, a bunch of "Parlour Pinks"! They have the guts to complain, while sipping their drinks in posh hotels, but they won't get their butts out on the streets to actually help people who need it, let alone put their lives on the line for those beliefs! (Sorry, major soapbox!)

Marc

[120mm]

Hi JW,



I agree. In many ways, the tying of TNC global "culture", i.e. McDonald's everywhere, into the basic political philosophy that is the basis of the modern, Western democratic state has been a major mistake. The ideological message that we should be selling is TNC neutral - individual rights and responsibilities, a "social contract" within a democratic framework, individual freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, and a , broadly construed, "capitalist" system (there hasn't been a real capitalist system, a la Adam Smith, since the 1850's or so).

Do we face a tough, uphill struggle? Sure, so what? First, if it was easy, then every culture would have done it. Second, and more immediate, maybe the people who are getting paid outrageous amounts of money to do it should think about actually dong their job.



Absolutely bang on! And please, don't get me started on your left wing ! Honestly, when I was much younger, I used to hang around up at Parliament Hill. I had the privilege of spending a number of lunches and afternoons talking with people like Stanley Knowles and other "old time" CCF members from the old Social Justice stream. Now there were Left Wingers who took their policies and beliefs seriously!

Most of today's left wing, especially the American crowd of neo-Marxists I've run into, are, to quote my grandmother, a bunch of "Parlour Pinks"! They have the guts to complain, while sipping their drinks in posh hotels, but they won't get their butts out on the streets to actually help people who need it, let alone put their lives on the line for those beliefs! (Sorry, major soapbox!)

Marc

I think it might be a healthy exercise to consider that we, the West, HAVE been attacking Islam for some time now. OUR Weapon of Mass Destruction is the internet and mass media, and Joe Jihad objects more to Britney Spears than US support of Israel. If you consider how this impacts their culture, their Point of View is very understandable.

And the stark, no #### necessity for us to be prepared to fight them to the death, because "sweet-talking" them into accepting porn, "alternative lifestyles" and abortion doesn't seem to be very realistic at this point in time.

As an aside, Marc, as I said earlier, my wife and I support several worthy causes and often run into "American Leftists" who try to convince us to stop directly supporting these causes and start lobbying for someone else to pay for them through the gov't dole.

[tequila]

I think it might be a healthy exercise to consider that we, the West, HAVE been attacking Islam for some time now. OUR Weapon of Mass Destruction is the internet and mass media, and Joe Jihad objects more to Britney Spears than US support of Israel. If you consider how this impacts their culture, their Point of View is very understandable.

I'm interested in what leads you to this belief. Most of what I have read from Sageman, OBL's manifesto, etc. leads me to believe that Islamists object mainly to what they perceive as military/political domination of the Muslim world by nefarious Jewish/Western interests, leading to atrocities against defenseless Muslims, i.e. Israeli occupation in Palestine, Russia invasion of Chechnya, Serb attacks on Bosnia and Kosovo, Western sanctions vs Iraq, now U.S. occupation of Iraq, etc.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

I think it might be a healthy exercise to consider that we, the West, HAVE been attacking Islam for some time now. OUR Weapon of Mass Destruction is the internet and mass media, and Joe Jihad objects more to Britney Spears than US support of Israel. If you consider how this impacts their culture, their Point of View is very understandable.

I'm interested in what leads you to this belief. Most of what I have read from Sageman, OBL's manifesto, etc. leads me to believe that Islamists object mainly to what they perceive as military/political domination of the Muslim world by nefarious Jewish/Western interests, leading to atrocities against defenseless Muslims, i.e. Israeli occupation in Palestine, Russia invasion of Chechnya, Serb attacks on Bosnia and Kosovo, Western sanctions vs Iraq, now U.S. occupation of Iraq, etc.

I think there area couple of points that may serve to clarify things. First, there's the concept of "historical time" or "historical depth" within a culture. The "Wests'" assault on Islam goes back to the Crusades. Of course, they never talk about Islam's assault on the West... (I always approved of Charles Martel). This concept refers, in part, back to how a culture deals with its collective memory - what it chooses to remember and what it chooses to forget. Islam remembers the Crusades and tends to forget its original assaults on "Western" nations (e.g. Byzantium, the Visigoth kingdom of Spain, France, etc.).

A second concept is the distinction between current rhetoric and mythic pattern rhetoric. The distinction becomes really clear when you analyze how a current event is being structured - the content is current, but the pattern comes out of their oral history.

120mm raises a really valid point re: Britney Spears. You're absolutely right that this is a "cultural attack" but that is at he core of it - it is a cultural not a religious attack. Furthermore, it also highlights particular cultural weaknesses (on both sides, BTW ). If you look at the popular history of Western nations, you will see exactly the same type of conflict. Think about Prohibition and the Temperance movement in the US, the Suffragette campaigns, and he fights over individual control of morality vs. collective control over morality. For slightly kinetic examples, think about the Union movements, the Luddite movement in the UK, the French Revolution and the Liberal Revolutions of 1848 in Europe.

The point I'm trying to make here is that cultures are constantly "negotiated"; they are not "pristine". What the Islamists are doing is drawing on a Golden Age model of a pristine culture of Islam hat never existed.

And the stark, no #### necessity for us to be prepared to fight them to the death, because "sweet-talking" them into accepting porn, "alternative lifestyles" and abortion doesn't seem to be very realistic at this point in time.

Yup.

As an aside, Marc, as I said earlier, my wife and I support several worthy causes and often run into "American Leftists" who try to convince us to stop directly supporting these causes and start lobbying for someone else to pay for them through the gov't dole.

Well, after all, it is important to keep the unemployment rate low, and the best way to do that is to employ bureaucrats who can't even dig ditches . Yeah, I refuse to support any collectivist "charities" unless I get a look at their books. If they have more than 12% overhead, I won't support them.

Marc

[Stan]

Evening Marc and others!

It's very apparent 3 years later (perhaps this implies a false impression), that pounding them to death and conventional warfare is not working out, they only seem to be multiplying (that in itself is strange, since sex doesn't become them ).

So, from your point of view (no, not a trick question, just a me wondering), if we just huddled in and never went out (make them come to us, so to speak) what would be the likely outcome ? Collateral damage would certainly be less (well for them, since it would be our base being attacked).

I'm a soldier (err was) and it's far easier to defend a correctly chosen position (assuming you have that) than per se, to attack a fortified position coupled with your lack of knowledge of your adversary's will to die.

Afterall, they have observed our tactics and now perhaps have a slightly upper hand until such time as we change our tactics, and then they merely start again. Why is it, we don't watch their CSS units and take them out. Not soldiers, rather loggies with fuel, et al. We already saw it in action....it works and rather easy. Truck drivers are not the Infantry

120 has a very good point.
Not selling porn (we know they are not permitted to watch porn and drink alcohol ), but I think where it most suits them, they indeed pay much attention to media and often use said medium for their own twisted reasons.

Time to turn the tables and "exit strategy".

Let me know if this got a tad ambiguous

Regards, Stan

[J Wolfsberger]

As in all things, motiviations come in layers, not always consistent. I'll submit some thoughts. If I screw it up, I trust someone will correct me.

First, 120mm hit the nail on the head. A large percentage of the information carried by mass media is corrosive, if not outright destructive, to the Middle East (ME) traditional way of life. Consider the effect in Saudi Arabia of the portrayal of female doctors treating male patients in a US or European drama. Or the sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality in most (all) television. Or the portrayal of abortion. All of this has a subtly (or not) corrosive effect on traditional values: "You might not engage in these behaviors, but you must feel shame if you don't approve of them."

Second, add in the British betrayal of Arab interest after WWI: the partitioning of the Middle East, the history of the Palastinian Mandate, the establishment of the state of Israel, and Western support for Isael through multiple wars. Regardless of what we in the West might think, say or do, that support is seen as choosing Jews at the expense of Arabs, not as "atonement" for and preventing another Holocaust. (I suspect that the Holocaust deniers in the ME are so vocal is equal parts "We don't want it to have happened because it justifies the creation of Israel" and "It didn't go far enough, so it wasn't the desired Holocaust.")

Third, throw in the military actions tequila brings up. We may understand them in terms of nation states acting to protect or advance their interest. To many Moslems, all that is seen is a historical enemy, Christian in culture, attacking a Moslem state.

I think that all three of these confirm a belief that the world of Islam is under attack by a Christian west. To the typical Moslem, whose education and socio-economic opportunities are severely limited, they provide THE explanation for his misery.

To paraphrase Tip O'Neal: "All politics is personal." Put yourself in the position of a father watching his children suffer from malnutrition or an easily treated disease, add in highly effective propoganda blaming the West, reinforced by WESTERN political leaders blaming the West. Would you pick up a gun?

The problem we face now is countering that propaganda.

[Stan]

Hi Marc,

broadcast media rather than on the particular media used by a given audience (e.g. the newer interactive media or the older "oral culture" media). At the ideological level, there is very little sophistication or cultural appropriateness in the message.

We encountered the same problems in then Zäire. 5th group had come in with its own CA and Psyops. Some, much like the agency's folks, could even listen to local broadcasting in Lingala (but they would never grasp the local meanings, nor could they communicate in Lingala when the situation dictated). When they decided on the target audience for this mission, they also overlooked those "oral culture" folks who from an ideological sense, would not be the least bit impressed or even pay attention.

To some extent, we experience this operational vs ideological scenario even here in Estonia. It's more divided by age rather than ideological or cultural aspects, but rings the same tone.

We would later collate the info and carefully compare it against our target audience, coming up with a broader approach to our end goal.

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi Stan,

We encountered the same problems in then Zäire. 5th group had come in with its own CA and Psyops. Some, much like the agency's folks, could even listen to local broadcasting in Lingala (but they would never grasp the local meanings, nor could they communicate in Lingala when the situation dictated). When they decided on the target audience for this mission, they also overlooked those "oral culture" folks who from an ideological sense, would not be the least bit impressed or even pay attention.

It is a classic problem . Even without the language barrier problem, there is still the problem of identifying the demographic slice with the best ROI and the appropriate way of targeting that group. On of the examples that comes to mind is "peer marketing". This is where a company will hire a bunch of teenagers to a) listen to what teens are saying and report back, and b) show off "their" (i.e. their companies / employers) products. It uses word of mouth, rumour and F2F media technologies.

To some extent, we experience this operational vs ideological scenario even here in Estonia. It's more divided by age rather than ideological or cultural aspects, but rings the same tone.

We would later collate the info and carefully compare it against our target audience, coming up with a broader approach to our end goal.

That's the more normal scenario, Stan. Age always makes a difference . The best way to handle it, is to work on the assumption that medium usage tends to be age segmented, and ideological/cultural stuff tends to be role segmented. Ideally, your ideological message is based in a solid philosophical exposition that can the be tailored for each target segment (yeah.... too much time doing market research ).

Marc