Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 119

Thread: How do you change the perception?

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Disagree and agree

    Marct, I understand your points and full heartedly agree that we have to address multiple audiences in the international community, but where I disagree to some extent is the priority of effort. The reason I think that the American audience is the most important at this point in time (and at this point in time only) is the strong opposition to the war in Iraq. If the American people tell us its over with, then it is over with, we pull out (it won't happen overnight, but quicker than what some might think). Furthermore the constant battling sends an important and dangerous message to the international audiences, and that is we're on our last legs in Iraq.

    I think we have to win the American people's support for this war foremost, so we can stay engaged to win the long term IO fight with the international audiences. If we pull out, I don't "think" anyone else will step up to the plate. Furthermore, we'll be politically paralyzed for years and we won't get involved in conflicts that we should, ones that are actually in our national interest. We made Iraq a part of our national interests, and the Administration needs to admit to the American people they made serious mistakes (stop the nonsense, no one is buying it), and then from a position of credability inform the American why we have to stay in the fight. I think with the right leadership the national mood can be changed. Perhaps it is fantasy at this point, I'm a realist and accept that, but we need a vocal majority support to carry on the fight.

    For those who think Al Qaeda wouldn't like us if we pulled 10 Muslim kids out of a burning school, you're right, but that isn't the point. The audience is not AQ and those who have a burning hate for us, the audience is the very large moderate Muslim base that isn't sure what is happening in Iraq, especially those who are sitting on the fence. Yes, they would like us more if we pulled their kids out of the fire.

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Winning american hearts and minds

    I am in pretty much agreement with Bill on the importance of getting support at home or we want get the chance to get it over there.

    In that regard the latest Gallop Poll is not encouraging. Only 29 percent think the surge has improved the situation in Iraq. This is with many media reports that say things have improved. It is like the rest of the country has shut down on the subject.

    There were a fare number who claimed that things were worse and they are definitely not persuadable. They are in the group who seriously want to lose so that we will be inhibited from using force in the future. There is a good size groups of "independents" who are still in the middle on the surge and that is were a good IO operation might do some good. The willfully ignorant on the left are probably not going to change their mind even with an enemy surrender agreement.

    The polls still do not ask the key question, "Do you want to lose?" The answer to that question would give a better idea of how persuadable people are.

  3. #23
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Folks,

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Marct, I understand your points and full heartedly agree that we have to address multiple audiences in the international community, but where I disagree to some extent is the priority of effort. The reason I think that the American audience is the most important at this point in time (and at this point in time only) is the strong opposition to the war in Iraq. If the American people tell us its over with, then it is over with, we pull out (it won't happen overnight, but quicker than what some might think). Furthermore the constant battling sends an important and dangerous message to the international audiences, and that is we're on our last legs in Iraq.
    Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson View Post
    I am in pretty much agreement with Bill on the importance of getting support at home or we want get the chance to get it over there.
    I certainly agree that it is crucial, and your points are well taken. What bothers me about the rhetoric currently being used is that it concentrates on "building support" for Iraq, without aiming at the ideology that dismisses any war venture (e.g. the radical left that is more at home blaming the West for all evil).

    Let's face it, the rhetorical dominance of the points that the war should never have taken place are winning out over the plain fact that the origins of the war are irrelevant in the current operational reality. I'm probably going to start getting hate mail now but I'm one of those people who say that the war in Iraq never should have happened. Still and all, as far as I'm concerned, it did happen - that's a fact and a reality we live in and with, even though Canada isn't in that particular war.

    Bill and Merv, I'm part of that crowd of ideological individualists that exists outside of the US, that generally supports the GWOT while, at the same time, not hesitating to question the validity (or motives) of any particular US Administration policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    I think we have to win the American people's support for this war foremost, so we can stay engaged to win the long term IO fight with the international audiences. If we pull out, I don't "think" anyone else will step up to the plate.
    Bill, I really hate to say this (it goes against all of my Canadian nationalist instincts ), but you are absolutely right. At the same time, I'd like to point out the role of "volunteers" in previous wars - the Spanish Civil War, the SS (okay, unpopular as all get out, but still a good example), and he mujahadeen. If we are in a truly international war, we need to take this seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    For those who think Al Qaeda wouldn't like us if we pulled 10 Muslim kids out of a burning school, you're right, but that isn't the point. The audience is not AQ and those who have a burning hate for us, the audience is the very large moderate Muslim base that isn't sure what is happening in Iraq, especially those who are sitting on the fence. Yes, they would like us more if we pulled their kids out of the fire.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson View Post
    In that regard the latest Gallop Poll is not encouraging. Only 29 percent think the surge has improved the situation in Iraq. This is with many media reports that say things have improved. It is like the rest of the country has shut down on the subject.
    Merv, it takes a while for opinions to shift. I'm certainly not optimistic about a major opinion shift as long as the IO campaign is still cast as in partisan political terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson View Post
    The polls still do not ask the key question, "Do you want to lose?" The answer to that question would give a better idea of how persuadable people are.
    Hmmmm. I would think that the key question is more, "What effects do you think a pullout would have?"

    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/

  4. #24
    Registered User Hawkwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2

    Default Fighting in support of policy objectives

    One of the real issues of the war in the post nuclear world (and one made again recently by Doug MacGregor) is that the idea of fighting until total victory is defunct. The lack of achievable or morally acceptable total victory and the dynamics of global media, econonmics and morality demand that fighting and negotiation occur simultaneously with the aim of achieving the preferred political outcome through increments.

    Now before everyone jumps all over me about 'you can't negotiate with AQ or terrorists because they are......' I agree - but remember it was us (Rummy esp) who declared all opponents of the occupation terrorists thus making it very hard to tell the difference between AQinI, the local Baath Officials, the local tribe or the local version of Don Corleone. It was us that forced them to the common tactical objective of killing our troops despite their divergent Strategic and operational objectives because we weren't capable of negotiation only intimidation and force. We weren't capable intially of knowing there was a difference. It was also us that told Iraq and Syria 'you bastards are next' making their only choice to be to bring us down by stealth -what choice did we leave them - if Iraq had been easy the neo-cons would be now neck deep in Iran.

    Thankfully Gen Petraeus and his blue eyed boys have finaly begun to fight and negotiate in an attempt to identify, split and isolate the groups so that the real problems can be destroyed and the real stakeholders can be bought into the fold. This is the only way to stregthen and grow your local support base while draining away the support for the real enemy it is also the only way to get accurate targeting information, and it looks like it may be working.

    Unfortunatley it is probably to late - our strategic base at home is collapsing and through the ham fisted approaches of 2003-2006 we have now made some irreconcilable enemies out of people intially predisposed to us. These guys will now simply wait us out until the politics caves us in. We are also now going to have to make much more significant concessions to some groups than we would have had to in 2004/5 because we are in a much weaker postion. Such is missed opportunity.

    While I hate sporting analogies the real problem has been the American style of operational theory - we run plays and when they fail expect it to be 2nd and 10 or 3rd and ten, when in this business failure always makes it 2nd and 20 or third and 40 and as everyone knows only fools don't punt on 4th and fifty - but we are going to run it out of the end zone with the 1st round draft pick as QB but with the same offensive line which is getting pretty tired.

    You fight and negotiate - negotiate and fight doing so with the outcome firmly in mind or you will end up taking what you can or end up with fields of salt.

  5. #25
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I think the best tool for counteracting the left-leaning biased individuals who "oppose all war" is to wage "war" without all the fanfare and trumpets blowing. Then, you take advantage of the incredibly huge American apathy toward anything outside of their house.

    Our latest actions in Somalia are a good example of how it "should be done".

    Who cares if the hippie freaks beat a drum outside the White House. Frankly, the American public despises them, and at best, doesn't care.

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Thumbs up 231 Years and Counting.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarajevo071 View Post
    Oh, my, what did I start now!? Am I supposed to say something on all this or it’s better to stay silent on my end!? I don’t want any hate mails…

    I would imagine when the Pilgrims landed word quickly spread that they were there to take slaves, burn crops and roast babies for lunch. I look at the plethora of responses, input, ideas, thoughts, strategies, hunches, professional and amateur assessment on this thread and all I really see is something that is somehow proactively unified, that did not disintegrate despite a strong continuum of dichotomous input - kind of like a rolling ball with alot of strings sort of sticking out that just keeps moving on despite the obstacles in its path.

  7. #27
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkwood View Post

    While I hate sporting analogies the real problem has been the American style of operational theory - we run plays and when they fail expect it to be 2nd and 10 or 3rd and ten, when in this business failure always makes it 2nd and 20 or third and 40 and as everyone knows only fools don't punt on 4th and fifty - but we are going to run it out of the end zone with the 1st round draft pick as QB but with the same offensive line which is getting pretty tired.
    That may be the longest football analogy on SWJ ever.

  8. #28
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Related Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Marct, I understand your points and full heartedly agree that we have to address multiple audiences in the international community, but where I disagree to some extent is the priority of effort. The reason I think that the American audience is the most important at this point in time (and at this point in time only) is the strong opposition to the war in Iraq. If the American people tell us its over with, then it is over with, we pull out (it won't happen overnight, but quicker than what some might think). Furthermore the constant battling sends an important and dangerous message to the international audiences, and that is we're on our last legs in Iraq.

    I just posted this On the How to Win in Iraq and How to Lose thread. It relates to what we are discussing here.
    What happened was this: while the French military had been concentrating on fighting the insurgency in the streets and mountains in Algeria, an intellectual and cultural insurgency at home, led by the French left and the media, had been scoring its own succession of victories.

    In its haste to defeat the FLN, the French army had left a crucial hostage to political fortune. Military commanders had authorized army interrogators to use certain forms of torture to extract information from suspected terrorist detainees. This is not the place to debate the merits or demerits of torture in counterinsurgency operations--for the record, Galula himself considered it counterproductive. Nor was French opinion particularly sensitive to brutality per se; the FLN's own use of torture and outright butchery--Arab loyalists routinely had their tongues and testicles cut off and their eyes gouged out--had aroused little or no outrage. But, as with the incidents at Abu Ghraib 50 years later, news of the army practice gave domestic opponents of the war a weapon with which to discredit the entire enterprise.

    Led by Jean-Paul Sartre, a campaign of denunciation got under way in which French forces were accused of being the equivalent of Nazis--an especially freighted charge coming only a decade and a half after World War II and the German occupation of France. Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's companion, went so far as to say that the sight of a French army uniform had "the same effect on me that swastikas once did." Although many of the antiwar agitators were communists or leftist fellow travelers, their petitions and demonstrations included enough authentic heroes of the Resistance and eminent liberals like Francois Mauriac to bestow upon the movement a credible public image. The constant message it conveyed was that the true authors of violence in Algeria were not the FLN at all but the French, and that only when the latter departed would Algerians be able to sort out their destiny for themselves.

    The French military and political leadership was completely blindsided by the attack. No amount of justification of the selective use of torture, not even the cancellation of the original authorization, could halt the criticism or stem the loss of public support for the war. Even as the FLN took to setting off bombs in France itself, leftist Catholic priests continued to raise funds for it, while those like Albert Camus who harbored doubts about the wisdom of handing victory to the terrorists were derided and silenced. The consensus that had informed French politics as late as 1956--namely, that abandoning Algeria was "unthinkable and unmentionable"--fell apart.

    Divisions over Algeria doomed France's Fourth Republic. For its successor, the price of political survival was handing over Algeria to a totalitarian band that had lost the war on the battlefield but managed to win a stunning victory in France itself. The result was the massive flight of Algerian whites and, at home, a bloodbath as FLN terrorists put to death tens of thousands of Muslim Algerians who had been loyal to the French regime. Soldiers who had fought alongside the French were forced to swallow their medals before they were shot.

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Consequences of defeat

    Marc said:

    Hmmmm. I would think that the key question is more, "What effects do you think a pullout would have?"
    The problem with this is that those who wish our defeat believe that they can benefit politically and prevent the use of force in the future, so the more horrible the consequences, the more it plays into their political agenda. They are never going to take responsibility for the consequences, but will instead blame it on those who wanted to defeat the enemy to begin with.

    Then you have the delusional who believe that forcing a retreat will end the war. The reality is that it will only give the enemy a better base of operation for prosecuting the war as well as more resources, not the mention the boost to his IO campaign.

    I think that leaves you with about 30 percent who want win and think we are making progress and another 20 percent who are undecided about the war or the consequences of losing. You can still get to 51 percent who do not want to lose, but I am not sure how many of them can articulate the consequences of failure.

  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    74

    Default Leaders need to make this video the norm...

    Great discussion. Not sure having a General in charge of IO would be the ultimate difference maker. Osama and/or Zawahiri aren't in charge of Al Qaeda's IO campaign. They certainly provide guidance every now and then and add to it, but ultimately it's a bottom-up process. We can learn a lot from the way our enemies approach IO. Just think about what the Iranians have done with the British sailors. Release the female sailor, show them all eating, clean, happy. While most in the U.K. and U.S. are pissed about this incident, the Iranians hit a jackpot with the Muslim world (and probably many other audiences as well) by how they've handled the British sailors.

    Have posted comments below elsewhere and would appreciate any feedback. Here goes...



    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e6b_1175160756

    Please view link above (not a fan of the title, but the video itself is great).

    It's all too common for us in uniform, myself included, to get frustrated with the mass media for rarely showing anything but the negative and/or kinetic side of the Iraq war (i.e., firefights, IED attacks, burning cars, etc.). Unfortunately, we normally don't help ourselves in this regard. If you click on the Iraq icon at liveleak.com, 99% of the videos are either ones posted by someone that wears a US military uniform showing a fight of some kind or by the insurgents and/or terrorists doing the same.

    The link above shows the exact opposite: pictures of Marines, Sailors and Soldiers doing their best to bring hope for a better life to the Iraqi people. If the media's not going to tell our side--or the positive side--of the war then we had better do so if we don't want the will of the American people to collapse on us, especially now that we're seeing many positive developments throughout the country (for example, see "Good News in Al Anbar?" in the April Marine Corps Gazette).

    During my time in Iraq, I would have never thought of videotaping events such as: my Marines helping to re-build a school, medical clinic, vet clinic; playing soccer with kids and adults; riding around on donkeys and bicycles; being invited to eat with tribal leaders as well as many average families; MEDCAPs; DENTCAPs; etc. Yet, this is exactly what I should have done (it would have been great if I had the ability to hide Iraqis' faces on request though). I remember writing home about all the good in Iraq and my family having a hard time believing me because of what they read and saw on the "news". Even during the high-intensity fighting in Najaf, my platoon still had friendly interactions with thousands of Iraqis. Knowing that most of us are visual learners, I should have known better. At the very least I should have thought to videotape these interactions and send them home. I failed to understand my role then as a "strategic" lieutenant.

    All this said, in former CIA Director, William Colby's book Lost Victory, he frequently mentions his frustration with the media for not writing about the success of the pacification efforts in Vietnam. In one part he talks about how pleasantly surprised he was when a reporter, after touring the Delta region with him in 1969, wrote a story titled "They Just Might Make It" about how the South Vietnamese had taken significant strides since Tet in eliminating the Communist insurgency. In the next paragraph, Colby expresses his frustration with another reporter, who instead of writing a similar story after a tour with Colby, said there wasn't anything dramatic (i.e., rocket or mortar attacks) to write about. Colby responded to this by asking why not write a story about all the families in the village that a year earlier had no home, were separated from loved ones, starving, unemployed, and under constant insurgent threat. The reporter acknowledged the point but still didn't write a "positive" story about it because of lack of “dramatics.”

    Here's what I don't understand though: in the 21st Century IO War, the media and the insurgents and the terrorists have a critical vulnerability that we can easily exploit. This vulnerability is that, unlike in Vietnam in 1969, almost every platoon in Iraq has access to the internet, a digital camera and a video camera. Imagine what would happen if instead of or in addition to Marines/Soldiers posting stories about IED attacks and firefights, liveleak.com, youtube.com and similar websites were flooded with postings of the hundreds of "positive" interactions that American squads/platoons have with the Iraqi people on a daily basis.

    It's time for us to embrace the Information Age and to get into the fight for the will of the American people and that of the rest of the world.

    Leaders need to make this happen.

  11. #31
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Here's what I don't understand though: in the 21st Century IO War, the media and the insurgents and the terrorists have a critical vulnerability that we can easily exploit. This vulnerability is that, unlike in Vietnam in 1969, almost every platoon in Iraq has access to the internet, a digital camera and a video camera. Imagine what would happen if instead of or in addition to Marines/Soldiers posting stories about IED attacks and firefights, liveleak.com, youtube.com and similar websites were flooded with postings of the hundreds of "positive" interactions that American squads/platoons have with the Iraqi people on a daily basis.
    There is a networking thread which discusses this subject to some degree. It may be RTK's or 120mm's, but my brain is fried right now.

  12. #32
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Hearts and minds at home

    The latest Fox News poll does have some reason for encouragement.

    The Fox News poll found that 69 percent say that the decision on when to leave should be made by the commanders. Only 18 percent said Congress should decide when troops should leave. This suggest that the Democrats are really out of touch with their recent vote.

    On the specific question of the house vote 44 percent said it was correct and good, while 45 percent said it was dangerous and bad. These results seem inconsistent with above finding, but they also suggest that the President may be able to persuade more that the Democrat;s decision is wrong.
    Here is the full poll.

  13. #33
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    This thread took me about a week to digest, and yesterday, while assembling a "do it yourself" cabinet from the local IKEA store, I had (maybe) an epiphany. Perhaps (probably) we are doing this Small Wars thing the wrong way. Perhaps we need to approach it like the political parties approach a political campaign. Do we need a "McCarville-esque" "general" running the operation?

    It's just a stray thought, but I'm wondering what the council members think about it.

  14. #34
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default Time to climb out on a limb...

    Hi 120mm,

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    Perhaps (probably) we are doing this Small Wars thing the wrong way. Perhaps we need to approach it like the political parties approach a political campaign. Do we need a "McCarville-esque" "general" running the operation?
    One of the biggest problems that Western Civilization has is that we have lost what Mao called the idea of "the People's War". To be more accurate, it has become "secularized" in he sense that we "fight" our "People's Wars" in the political arena and eschew them when it comes close to non-internal, non-"political" violence. Basically, in the modern West, and especially in Canada and the US, our "People's Wars" are what the Sociologists call "Social Movements".

    This really shouldn't surprise anyone who looks at their historical development since the 1960's. Most of the New Left movement that dominated the social movements scene from the mid-'60's on was organized along Maoist principles, as were many of the groups in the Women's movement (e.g. the Consciousness Raising groups of the late 1960's were based on the Maoist idea of "Speaking Anger"). Radical organizers such as Saul Alinski frequently drew their tactics from Mao as well as other left wing organizers (e.g. Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.).

    In general, the only other group that has adopted a "People's War" strategy at the political level has been the neo-con movement. Fortunately, at least from my point of view, the neo-cons didn't bother to read any of the theoretical work on the subject, so they were really creating their tactics on an ad hoc basis. And, this time speaking from personal experience in the Canadian political scene, some of the early the neo-cons here were so ill-read that they thought that quotes from Mao were actually made by Hitler! (okay, that was a sidebar rant.....)

    Back to your question, 120mm - and my answer is "yes and no". In both Canada and the US, I think that we need to redeploy the concept of a People's War as Social Movement but, this time, in support of our basic core values including informed discussion. Trying to organize along the lines of political parties is probably a bad idea, both here and in the US. In Canada, we have enough parties already, although I really wish the Rhinoceros Party would start again. In the US, it is too expensive to try to go up against the two entrenched parties - better to play SF with a social movement strategy and let a new party develop on its own (probably a centrist coalition party).

    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/

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    44

    Default Enemy IO

    I don't think there's enough discussion here of the fact that any IO campaign has to be understood in large part as a response to an ongoing enemy campaign. Part of that campaign is based on an amazingly savvy use of all the latest communications and information technologies -- the Internet may be first among equals, but it takes a package of technologies to produce, for ex, a YouTube clip, and the production values on those things are getting higher and higher.

    But I'd make the argument that much of what's done is in part based on their evaluation of its likely impact in the media/information realm. The violence in Iraq is heavily centered in areas the press has access to OR they go ahead and film it themselves, making those clips available to anyone with an Internet connection. Those clips therefore serve a dual function for them, working one way for audiences who seek them out directly on the Internet and another way for American audiences who view them when they're integrated into mainstream media news stories.

    So any IO campaign can't be conducted in a vacumn -- it has to be constructed as a response to an ongoing enemy campaign. And as has been noted here, part of the difficulty in responding is that that campaign is being conducted at an extremely decentralized leveled. All it takes is for every small cell conducting any individual act of violence to take along a videographer, and for that guy with a camera to cooperate with a guy with a laptop to get those images edited and uploaded. Done. No need to have themes, messages, or final product sent anywhere else for approval.

  16. #36
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Cori,

    Welcome! Good points, to ... We've actually been discussing similar points in this thread. It's probably worthwhile for you to pop over and make a contribution to that one as well.

    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/

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    44

    Default Thanks

    I hope you'll bear w/me -- I've never done this before, so I'm going to have to learn as I go along . . .

  18. #38
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cori View Post
    I hope you'll bear w/me -- I've never done this before, so I'm going to have to learn as I go along . . .
    No worries, mate . Many of the threads cross-link and it can be a real problem finding your way around them until you get used to it. That said, there are some realy good ideas and top notch people posting here.

    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/

  19. #39
    Council Member Ender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jones_RE View Post
    The other side views us the same way. The US military is not going to win a lot of converts in the muslim world or in western Europe. It does not matter how much garbage gets picked up, how many schools and hospitals are built or how many babies are delivered. We are their enemies. That is an emotional decision as much (or more) as a rational one. Only by addressing people's feelings can we change that status. Right now we are using logic against emotion - think about which one usually wins out.
    There is no "other side." "They" are more fractured than we are and we will gain converts in Iraq and Europe and we are gaining them every day. The problem isn't that we aren't converting them, my beef is that we are not doing so in droves like we should be. I say this because we are RIGHT on this one, they are murderers Sarajevo, we are not. (I stress "they" because it is their policy to murder innocents and I stress "we" because while you may choose to focus on the exceptions or anomalies of "us," our policy does not condone such behavior- mildly self righteous tone intended) We honestly want them to have the best for them and theirs so we can come back and fight for the best for us and ours. Iraq is a brutal place, make no mistake, but the brutality is equally spread (by this I mean, there are no true "innocents" here, not Sunni, Shia or Kurd) and the massive measure of iron present in the average Iraqi's spine does mitigate their capacity for compassion. It is dangerous to start categorizing or lumping a multi-faceted threat (a gross numerical minority who are largely imports into or deviants of the system they "fight" for) with all of the other "bystanders" (a statistical majortiy who are just as curious to see how this is going to play out as we are) and see them all as "our enemy." In my opinion it is exactly that type of comment and generalistic logic that perpetuates this mess. There is no THEM any more than there is an US. They are as unified, or even less so, than we are in the States. If we argue in these loosely inaccurate terms we will act on their inaccurate meanings and frankly Inaccuracy's effects at this stage of the game are too lethal to be taken lightly.

    Something that is not stressed enough is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical. We are not are war with the entire Muslim world and neither is the entire Muslim world at war with us. We are at war with a splinter of that faith, specifically a radical, fundamentalist, militant and Islamist fraction of the Muslim (culturally, not morally or religiously) faith and the less over generalization we employ here in picking sides for who are friends and who are "enemies," the easier it will be to educate others outside of SWC.

    P.S. There is a great deal of logic "here" but make no mistake, there is plenty of emotion as well. We are all cracking this nut and no one adapts faster than we do. Combine the power of calculation with precisely controlled emotions and it won't matter how much heart "they" have.
    Last edited by Ender; 04-07-2007 at 01:32 AM.

  20. #40
    Council Member Ender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default We could learn a great deal from this Dr..

    I offer my finest example of the logic currently being employed against Uncle "Sam."

    http://boe.berk.k12.wv.us/217/dr.htm

    What exactly is there not to like with us? We want something we already know is good for someone who does not.

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
  •