Iraqi Insurgent Media: War of Images and Ideas

[goesh]

If our political propoganda was 1/10th as slick as our commercial propoganda is, the IO war would be over already. That's something to ponder.... we sell the hell out of sodas and shoes and pills and you name it, but can't seem to do much to counter the anti-American/Western Democracy propoganda, or for that matter, promote the Western, Democratic image. Foist a wholesome image of American/Western freedom on a Muslim target audience and it will be countered with images of gay rights parades, dogs being pampered and fed better than many humans, topless beaches and drunken revelry, the message being: that is what they call freedom. Yup, them folks don't highly regard many of our freedoms. I was reading about honor killings in Jordan and how progressive elements there want stiff penalties enacted for these crimes but the elected Reps decline to do so, saying it would promote immodesty and lude behavior amongst the people. I read too where the UN is reporting that in the very near future, half of the human population will be living in cities: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19458575/ High density, high IO value, a fact of nature. We got our work cut out for us, no doubt about it.

[SteveMetz]

If our political propoganda was 1/10th as slick as our commercial propoganda is, the IO war would be over already. That's something to ponder.... we sell the hell out of sodas and shoes and pills and you name it, but can't seem to do much to counter the anti-American/Western Democracy propoganda, or for that matter, promote the Western, Democratic image. Foist a wholesome image of American/Western freedom on a Muslim target audience and it will be countered with images of gay rights parades, dogs being pampered and fed better than many humans, topless beaches and drunken revelry, the message being: that is what they call freedom. Yup, them folks don't highly regard many of our freedoms. I was reading about honor killings in Jordan and how progressive elements there want stiff penalties enacted for these crimes but the elected Reps decline to do so, saying it would promote immodesty and lude behavior amongst the people. I read too where the UN is reporting that in the very near future, half of the human population will be living in cities: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19458575/ High density, high IO value, a fact of nature. We got our work cut out for us, no doubt about it.

I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the idea--which is heard a lot--that we are less successful than we might be in the "war of ideas" either because we are just doing a bad job of selling our message, or because we are not optimally organized for "strategic communications."

I think a bigger part of the explanation is that much of the world just isn't buying what we're selling. We assume that everyone wants to be like us, and I don't think that's true. When I give talks, I often explain in this way. In the 1970s when American auto manufacturers were getting the snot knocked out of them by Japan, rather than admit that the reason was the poor quality of their cars, they just assumed that they needed better ad campaigns.

I don't mean to imply that the car we're selling is of low quality, but it's just not for everyone. We like our F150 4X4 Quad Cab, but figure the only reason every one doesn't buy one is because we haven't advertised it enough. In reality, people who live in urban areas with tiny streets and pay $6 a gallon for gas may not want one.

There are some pretty serious implications of this line of thinking. We say that the "war of ideas" is central to the conflict we're engaged in. OK. But we also seem to assume that once we get our ducks in a row, we'll "win" the "war of ideas" (whatever the heck that means). But what if we can't? That undercuts our whole strategy. What, then, should replace it?

[Steve Blair]

I would tend to agree with this, Steve. Most folks I've come into contact with overseas might want parts of the "American Experience," but that doesn't mean they want the whole thing. Our political system is pretty much unique to us, and many of its concepts do not translate well to other locations. The same thing goes for our social systems and networks. People ARE different, no matter how much we may wish it were otherwise, and not everyone aspires to "Be Like Mike" or whatever slogan you choose. The demise of history education in our schools may have something to do with this, combined of course with the cultural jingoism that has haunted America almost since its beginnings. There's also, I think, a distinct feeling of inferiority (not spoken of but certainly there) when dealing with other powers and countries, especially those in Europe.

The "War of Ideas" as it exists now is, to me, very Ameri-centric and deals with flawed assumptions. It's also incomplete. By way of a muddled example, when I was in Germany in the early 1980s "Dynasty" and "Dallas" were both immensely popular on German TV. Many of the people I met there were convinced that all Americans were rich, slept with each others' wives or close relations, and were always scheming about something. These days they get their "informed views" about America from MTV, Jerry Springer, and Desperate Housewives, not to mention our movies (there's an old Tank McNamara cartoon that ties to this...he reassures Japanese visitors to the LA Olympics by telling them that Harry Calahan is in charge of security). Most of our IO stuff doesn't even seem to acknowledge this, let alone understand it.

[SteveMetz]

I would tend to agree with this, Steve. Most folks I've come into contact with overseas might want parts of the "American Experience," but that doesn't mean they want the whole thing. Our political system is pretty much unique to us, and many of its concepts do not translate well to other locations. The same thing goes for our social systems and networks. People ARE different, no matter how much we may wish it were otherwise, and not everyone aspires to "Be Like Mike" or whatever slogan you choose. The demise of history education in our schools may have something to do with this, combined of course with the cultural jingoism that has haunted America almost since its beginnings. There's also, I think, a distinct feeling of inferiority (not spoken of but certainly there) when dealing with other powers and countries, especially those in Europe.

The "War of Ideas" as it exists now is, to me, very Ameri-centric and deals with flawed assumptions. It's also incomplete. By way of a muddled example, when I was in Germany in the early 1980s "Dynasty" and "Dallas" were both immensely popular on German TV. Many of the people I met there were convinced that all Americans were rich, slept with each others' wives or close relations, and were always scheming about something. These days they get their "informed views" about America from MTV, Jerry Springer, and Desperate Housewives, not to mention our movies (there's an old Tank McNamara cartoon that ties to this...he reassures Japanese visitors to the LA Olympics by telling them that Harry Calahan is in charge of security). Most of our IO stuff doesn't even seem to acknowledge this, let alone understand it.

Well, *my* life is pretty much like Dynasty and Dallas--you mean yours isn't?

What we should have done is forced any foreign television network that wanted to broadcast Dynasty and Dallas to also broadcast Roseanne.

In some ways, the dissonance is even deeper. At the most basic level, we value personal freedom among almost everything else. In Arab cultures one could make an argument that justice, honor, and dignity are far more important. Then we couldn't understand why the political system we designed for them, which optimized personal freedom rather than justice, honor, and dignity, didn't take root the way we expected.

[Steve Blair]

Agree completely about the basic differences, Steve. But we (and I mean the collective policy-maker 'we') can't even seem to grasp the more obvious differences I mentioned, let alone the deeper stuff.

[MountainRunner]

What I see is a confusion of what IO, and public diplomacy, are supposed to be out. Public diplomacy took a left turn years ago, a turn made sharper by Joe Nye's book promulgating a passive approach that reinforced the "if we sell the US, they'll buy" approach.

The method and madness of the insurgent media is based on a "struggle for the hearts and minds of men"* and isn't always based on soft, feel good stories. In fact, the war-time propaganda emphasizes the power of the insurgent, the weakness of the enemy (the US, Shi'i, and the Iraqi gov't in this case, and the problems you'll face if you don't side with them. The last point is, according to the report, is generally restricted to domestic propaganda aimed at Iraqis themselves, while the other points are aimed globally.

I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I find it amusing, sad, and ultimately expected that a discussion about American IO goes back to telling the world about us and our commercial products every must want. This is, afterall, the "public diplomacy" America has come to "trust" over the last couple of decades, completely forgetting the roots of the term and the concepts it was based on. The concepts of which, the insurgent media understand.

Shouldn't we refocus our global IO as really psychological warfare that aims to influence people not passively, but showing the failures, inconsistencies, and atrocities of the enemy while laying blame for incidents, failures, etc where it is due: on the enemy. We must appeal directly to "the people of the media, speakers and writers. [We] must tell the truth and cast [our] arrows at falsehood, for media is half of the battle."**

It seems we're doing better at local, tactical IO, in Iraq, but still failing to see the larger picture is not about buying soap.

* Presidential candidate Eisenhower in a 1952 campaign speech on foreign policy.
** May 2, 2007, proclamation signed by the Iraqi Army of Iraq (IAI), Mujahidin Army, and Ansar al-Sunnah

[Steve Blair]

I would agree to a point, MR, but I'd also point out that in this age of "sensitivity," many government outlets will shy away from more aggressive techniques for fear of being accused of being racist or anti-Islam. That's a level of spin that puts many on the automatic defensive these days, with the responsibility for proof being put on those who are accused instead of the accuser.

We do need an aggressive IO campaign that points out every atrocity, flaw, and failure of our opponents, but I fear that we don't have the fortitude on an institutional level to get it done the way it should be done.