Iraqi Insurgent Media: War of Images and Ideas

[SteveMetz]

Let me toss out an idea here. I think that in Islamic cultures in general and Iraq in particular, we are NEVER going to be effective at information operations. My reason for this is sort of conceptual, psychological, and philosophical, but I'll take a stab at it.

Coming from a Western, rationalist tradition, we assume that there is some factual "truth" disconnected from personal perception and belief. It has an independent existence. No one individual may have a perfect and complete understanding of it, but there are methods which individuals and groups can use to come close to the truth--open debate and discussion, elections and polls, etc.

In other cultures, though, reality and the truth have no independent existence. They cannot be separated from the individuals who perceive them. Hence when there are alterantive stories or explanations for something, the decision on which to accept is not based on which account is the "ground truth," but which of the two individuals giving different accounts one feels the most affiliation with. Phrased differently, there is no "objective" reality, only human-linked, subjective realities.

I know that in Iraq, this greatly frustrates Americans, particularly those in the military. They are perplexed, even angered when accounts of events which they are certain are factually wrong are accepted as truth by the population. To give an example (which is made up in this case, but which, I think, replicates a common occurrence), when some civilians are killed and the American military said that insurgents did it but other Iraqis say that the American military did it, the Iraqi public does not decide which story to believe based on which one is the closest to the "objective" truth, but whether they feel the deepest affiliation with the Americans telling the story or the other Iraqis telling the story.

This all leads me to believe that we will never "win" a cross cultural "war of ideas."

[MountainRunner]

This all leads me to believe that we will never "win" a cross cultural "war of ideas."

But we don't need to. This isn't about "democracy", whatever flavor it might be (US, UK, German, or, gulp, French, etc if western liberal at all) it's about peace and stability, ultimately.

The "truth" doesn't have to be a higher metaphysical ground, but the simple issue of who's doing what, where, and why. Exposing the lies and falsehoods is key.

It seems one of the big hangs ups is the reality that who we are is defined by what we do and not what we say. This goes to the "affilation" point you raise, Steve (Metz). An essential problem we seem to be finally overcoming as the primacy of information becomes internalized is what we do has defined who we are. We have inadvertently supported and feed the enemy IOs by our actions, while doing nothing to dispell the myths that get built up except by saying "that's not who we really are." That isn't cultural, that's just human nature.

We do need to insert ourselves more into other cultures to understand the listening we're creating. Giving away soccer balls directly to children, for example, didn't help improve our image as it imasculated the fathers. Giving the soccer balls to IP to give to the fathers to give to their children, that indebted the fathers to the IP.

This example highlights the need to understand local IO requirements. The first scenario, balls to kids, was Machiavellian: heap "honors on [his advisor], enriching him, placing him in his debt...so that he sees that he cannot do better without him." Attempting to buy off somebody.

The Arab Machiavelli, Ibn Zafar, in contrast, understood the different kind of indebtedness in Islamic culture: Amongst faithful and far-sighted counselors, he is most deserving of attention whose prosperity depends on your own, and whose safety is tied to yours. He who stands in such a position, exerting himself for your interests, will likewise serve and defend himself while fighting for you.

I don't see understanding and employing those differences in our IO isn't a culture clash. It should be easy to create these links, if we simply tried.

Steve (Blair), from where I sit in the cheap seats, it seems it's a combination of a lack of appreciation of the value of information (assumption being: "they should know we're good, we're from the USG, we're here to help"), in addition to fortitude.

[phil b]

The number one obstacle that we have in the media war is that we only think in terms of how government can wage an IO campaign. And that is a completely outdated way of thinking.

The insurgent propaganda network does not have a headquarters, bureaucracy, or brick-and-mortar infrastructure. It is decentralized, fast-moving, and technologically adaptive.

The solution to our problem will not come from government. As we all know, modern communications technology has lowered the barriers to entry enabling ordinary citizens to produce a huge variety of media products. The insurgents get this and are using this new technology to wage a very sophisticated media campaign. We don't get this and so we are not waging a sophisticated media campaign. All of us here on this thread could create a non-profit organization tomorrow and start pumping out "daily press releases, weekly and monthly magazines, books, video clips, full-length films," etc. No doubt there will be someone who says "It'll never work." But the insurgents are proving every day that it can work.

It's been nearly 6 years since 9/11 and the State Department has just now released its new PD plan. There is a lesson in this. Government certainly doesn't have "the fortitude on an institutional level to get it done the way it should be done." The only way it is going to get done the way it should be done is to do it ourselves, outside of government.

[120mm]

On the subject of IO, I've received about 15 of these e-mails in a viral IO campaign that seems to be making the rounds, right now. My "gut" tells me that this is good IO, but I am not expert on what it looks like to the Iraqis.



Original message—The kid took shelter behind the best thing he could find. The boy knows who will not kill him but will save him. An amazing and touching set of photos! Look at the soldier standing upright and alert while everyone else runs! Some news photos are so rich in symbolism they're almost like Renaissance paintings in how much they communicate. Such a photo appeared on the front page of the New York Times'snational edition, a picture of the scene after a bombing in Baghdad yesterday.Adding to the chaos of the bombing which killed at least 21 people and injured at least 66 was a shooter, maybe targeting people in the crowd.Amid all the Iraqis who are running from the gunfire was a U.S. soldier, standing tall, perhaps looking in the direction of the gunshots, not apparently lookingfor cover. An Iraqi boy seeks shelter behind the soldier, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division.The first picture shows it all. The kid's face shows he is scared to death, and is running to the safest spot he can find: this soldier who stands between him and danger.