Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Bush & Co. Must Learn to Fight on the Information Battlefield

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Bush & Co. Must Learn to Fight on the Information Battlefield

    Bush & Co. Must Learn to Fight on the Information Battlefield to be Effective in the War on Terror - Rod Dreher, Dallas Morning News.

    ... Cultures shaped by the printed word prized logic, reason and dispassion. But a global culture conditioned by television - which is to say, by the power of sound and image - to process information a certain way, McLuhan taught, will revert to pre-modern modes of thought...

    It will be more emotional, more tribal, less trusting of traditional authority and more inclined to privilege individual judgment. And it will have more political and religious extremism. Under the right circumstances, mass opinion can be mobilized quickly against traditional authority figures, who must have the means to adapt with haste to the new information environment if they wish to hold on to their power to influence events and thus to conserve their own power...

    The U.S. government is like the queen, cluelessly clinging to a media and public relations strategy best suited for the day before yesterday. The president put in charge of public diplomacy an old friend, Karen Hughes, whose best-known sortie in this job was a "listening tour" of the Mideast that more or less flopped...
    More for discussion at the link...

  2. #2
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    A good article on the whole. I do have a disagreement about writing cultures prizing "logic and rationality" while other don't, but that's because McLuhan made the assumption that logic was an absolute.

    The shift that is going on,and has been going on for quite a while, is a shift to an analog of oral cultures. In that light, it may be useful to take a look at Walter Ong's book, Orality and Literacy which does a really good job of comparing the general patters of cultural perception. Another good one is Harold Innis' Bias of Communication which, to my mind, is probably more useful than McLuhan.

    Maybe I should put a reading list together .

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #3
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Walter J. Ong Collection at Saint Louis University

    http://libraries.slu.edu/sc/ong/

    Yes, Marc, I had to read some of this in Psych classes

    It was indeed interesting though.

  4. #4
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Reber View Post
    http://libraries.slu.edu/sc/ong/

    Yes, Marc, I had to read some of this in Psych classes

    It was indeed interesting though.
    Thanks for the link, Stan!

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Good find.

    I have been consistently frustrated by this administration's failure to effectively communicate with the american people its foreign policy goals and the reasons behind the decisions made by the administration (good, bad or indifferent).

    I think that not enough credit was given to the people in terms of their ability to understand some of the strategic goals behind Iraq.

    The administration focused on the issues separately and one at a time instead of producing a cohesive argument by saying that Iraq presented a confluence of events or reasons to go there i.e. humanitarian, terrorist ties, WMD, strategic goals in the region (iran w/ a democracy on either side), and oil (not a bad word IMO)

    I think that the argument could have been made much more effectively to our citizens and to our allies as well (although it may not have made much difference, but a difference nonetheless)

    Although in retrospect I have stronger reservations about the decision to go to Iraq, at the time I thought it was a good idea. As a friend of mine says "MTV exports itself"

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default Message discipline and Certitude

    I think that part of the problem in conveying foreign policy goals (and risks) has been an insistence on speaking with one voice and taking a confident, certain stance - especially when it isn't warranted.

    In the run up to Iraq, we were given stillborn debate and a constant, unilateral message: Saddam Hussein is a threat and we can defeat that threat quickly at an acceptable cost. Even after the occupation started to go south, confidence and message discipline continued. There is no widespread insurgency. Troops will come home soon. As they stand up, we'll stand down. It's not a civil war.

    This kind of thing hurts credibility, even when you're right. Few people who think about it are going to believe that everyone in the defense department and intelligence community has the exact same assessment of the threat, or how the war will likely proceed. Instead of acknowledging debate and uncertainty, they anger critics by labelling them as treasonous or political opportunists. Angry critics talk louder instead of shutting up - even when those angry critics are wrong.

    Now that they've been proven wrong, credibility is destroyed. Admissions of errors go some distance toward restoring lost credibility, however they continue the same credibility destroying practices. After the litany of wrong moves in Iraq, even people with absolutely no military background oppose the surge just because this administration proposed it. Serious threats, like North Korea and Iran, and serious problems, like the Congo and Darfur, go unresolved.

    Credibility comes from having people believe what you say. This is hard enough when you're talking about present reality (the US Government does not engage in torture). It's harder when you're talking about the future. To have good credibility as a predicter of future event, you must be believable in how you say it, and you must be right at least some of the time.

    Imagine if the run up to the Iraq war had gone more like this: "the intelligence services do not have a clear picture of Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. The hard evidence is uncertain - it's even possible that he's disarmed his programs as he claimed. However, everyone knows that Saddam Hussein has lied many times before, and may be lying now. There is great debate about how we should respond. I believe, in the wake up the September 11 attacks, that we cannot tolerate even the possibility that this regime will equip terrorists with weapons that will inflict another devastating attack on our soil. Moreover, there is a moral case to be made that Saddam has caused terrible suffering among his own people - and is a great threat to his neighbors. He is also a great threat to the world economy. Because of this, I favor the use of military force to effect regime change in Iraq.

    Regime change offers up other hopeful possibilities - a free Iraq may become a valued, democratic ally in the middle east.

    However, there are grave dangers to an invasion. Many soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will lose their lives. Many more will be terribly injured or crippled. Iraq is a country rife with many competing ethnic and religious groups, and it's possible these groups would turn on each other. It's certain that some of them would violently oppose our forces long after the main fighting is over. No one can tell for certain what will happen - but there is the possibility that we will be best on all sides by terrorists, gangs, and militias in a protracted guerrilla struggle. Moreover, Syria and Iran could be drawn into this conflict in a way that only hurts us. Iraq may not have a stable, friendly government and may instead have an unstable and hostile government. We may lose tremendous credibility among the nations of the world and we may even be defeated in the long run. However, I believe it is worth the risk and uncertainty to proceed. Making these judgments is what I was elected to do - and armed with the full facts I hope you will support me."

    It's unlikely that in August or September of 2002 most Americans would have taken this worst case scenario to heart. It's more likely that, given the mood of the country, folks would have told the President to stop worrying and attack already. But if he'd prominently (and consistently) pointed out everything that could go wrong, he'd have tremendously more credibility now. For one thing, pointing this stuff out up front makes it look like a natural outgrowth of the invasion - "Side effects of Operation Iraqi Freedom may include terrorism, riots, looting, assassinations, decreased capacity for friendly international relations and sectarian violence." Those things would seem like they could have happened whatever we did, not that any of them were an outgrowth of our total incompetence at this kind of warfare.

    If people have at least been told about the worst case scenario, then they are emotionally prepared for it. People went into this expecting something a lot like Desert Storm, instead they got something more like Vietnam - or a really violent Bosnia. But because the administration sold this as a painless no brainer, which it clearly wasn't, people feel betrayed and misled - even if they weren't. People you've betrayed and misled, and critics you've belittled and angered, aren't disposed to keep cutting you a lot of slack. Continue this process long enough and even your supporters won't help you because you don't have any left.

  7. #7
    Registered User Maphu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    9

    Default

    ... because the administration sold this as a painless no brainer, which it clearly wasn't, people feel betrayed and misled - even if they weren't. People you've betrayed and misled, and critics you've belittled and angered, aren't disposed to keep cutting you a lot of slack. Continue this process long enough and even your supporters won't help you because you don't have any left.
    Excellent points RE Jones. On the other hand I believe that if the true reasons for invading Iraq were known that there is no way congress would have allowed this illegal pre-emptive war to proceed. Clearly Saddam had nothing what-so-ever to do with 911. ... Well, Saddam might be a threat someday, just doesn't cut the mustard.

    The real reasons are those advocated clearly by PNAC, to create a New American Century, a Pax Americana. The Bush Administration is doing all it can to stay with the PNAC playbook. Unfortunately, all of those rosy PNAC and pundit predicted scenarios have not been so easy to achieve and the costs in time, lives and money is far beyond what we were led to believe.

    If the public knew the real reasons for the war in Iraq, Bush's approval ratings would fall to even lower levels. The pretexts for the war keep changing and the public is, at long last, beginning to see the war for what it really is.

    This is most unfortunate for our military but for them there is no choice and they have to bear the brunt of such arrogant and ignorant foreign policy decisions.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maphu View Post
    Excellent points RE Jones. On the other hand I believe that if the true reasons for invading Iraq were known that there is no way congress would have allowed this illegal pre-emptive war to proceed. Clearly Saddam had nothing what-so-ever to do with 911. ... Well, Saddam might be a threat someday, just doesn't cut the mustard.

    The real reasons are those advocated clearly by PNAC, to create a New American Century, a Pax Americana. The Bush Administration is doing all it can to stay with the PNAC playbook. Unfortunately, all of those rosy PNAC and pundit predicted scenarios have not been so easy to achieve and the costs in time, lives and money is far beyond what we were led to believe.

    If the public knew the real reasons for the war in Iraq, Bush's approval ratings would fall to even lower levels. The pretexts for the war keep changing and the public is, at long last, beginning to see the war for what it really is.

    This is most unfortunate for our military but for them there is no choice and they have to bear the brunt of such arrogant and ignorant foreign policy decisions.

    seriously, how much is moveon.org paying you?

  9. #9
    Registered User Maphu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowulf View Post
    seriously, how much is moveon.org paying you?
    Seriously - nothing.

    I write to express only my own views based on my own experiences, including those in counter-insurgency warfare, and on what I have read and discovered on the ground in the aftermath of our wars in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia.
    Last edited by Maphu; 02-09-2007 at 07:02 AM.

  10. #10
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowulf View Post
    seriously, how much is moveon.org paying you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Maphu View Post
    Seriously - nothing.

    I write to express only my own views based on my own experiences, including those in counter-insurgency warfare, and on what I have read and discovered on the ground in the aftermath of our wars in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia.
    Seriously, guys, this is a good example of political polarization (see this thread). I think that it is certainly possible to have divergent interpretations of what has happened without having to buy into one "side" or the other.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •