Iraqi Insurgent Media: War of Images and Ideas

[SteveMetz]

I understand your point Mr. Metz. We have some difficulty to adapt our communication to non-occidental cultures, and I acknowledge that I tend to focus my attention on those who live outside the Arabic area.

My concern is that Americans, because of our history as a cultural "melting pot" and because we do not have an imperial history, are particularly bad at understanding and operating within other cultures, yet we have been cast into an imperial role. I think we can see this in American grand strategy which is based on the assumption that the terrorism threat will end when other cultures become more like us. I also believe that we do not realize the extent to which our counterinsurgency doctrine and the Foreign Internal Defense approach are culture specific. They may work in Western cultures (El Salvador) but are unlikely to in others.

In my 20 years with the U.S. military, I have come to recognize that there are people who, for psychological reasons, are able to quickly understand, adjust to, and operate within other cultures, but they are rare. The military does not select for people with this talent, instead working on the belief that with training and education, it can make anyone able to understand, adjust to, and operate within other cultures.

To tell you the truth, I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to Andy Bacevich's argument that Americans are never going to be successful imperialists, so the best strategy is stop trying to play the role.

[Steve Blair]

Another reason that we may have trouble playing an imperial role is that, at the end of the day and for various reasons, Americans seem to WANT to be liked. There appears to be some sort of basic need for external validation and approval. This is, of course, a sweeping cultural generalization, but I've come to believe that there is some truth in it as well. One could argue that the British at the height of their Imperial power (or the French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and others) really didn't care if anyone liked them or not. There was a basic sense of cultural superiority at work that allowed them to take actions routinely that we would shy away from.

The older imperial powers didn't blend in with local cultures: they modified them to suit their needs. The Raj bore little relation to traditional Indian society at the end of the day. We're torn between wanting to preserve and be liked and wanting to remake things in our own image.

Sweeping generalizations to be sure, but as I said before I think there's enough truth in them to validate them on a loose conceptual level. The US really became imperial by default, not necessarily by design. And it shows.

[SteveMetz]

Another reason that we may have trouble playing an imperial role is that, at the end of the day and for various reasons, Americans seem to WANT to be liked. There appears to be some sort of basic need for external validation and approval. This is, of course, a sweeping cultural generalization, but I've come to believe that there is some truth in it as well. One could argue that the British at the height of their Imperial power (or the French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and others) really didn't care if anyone liked them or not. There was a basic sense of cultural superiority at work that allowed them to take actions routinely that we would shy away from.

The older imperial powers didn't blend in with local cultures: they modified them to suit their needs. The Raj bore little relation to traditional Indian society at the end of the day. We're torn between wanting to preserve and be liked and wanting to remake things in our own image.

Sweeping generalizations to be sure, but as I said before I think there's enough truth in them to validate them on a loose conceptual level. The US really became imperial by default, not necessarily by design. And it shows.

We're thinking alike. Here's the introductory section of a paper I wrote for the Stanley Foundation a few months ago:

Because so few Americans alive today remember a time when their nation was not a great power, it is easy to forget just how limited our experience is. And how peculiar. During most of the time that the United States exercised global leadership, we and our partners faced an evil and aggressive opponent. Even when America was clumsy and heavy-handed, the alternative was worse. Our partners—who depended on us for their security--tolerated much. This, we Americans came to believe, was the natural state of affairs.

Throughout history most great powers cared little what others thought of them. Like Machiavelli's prince, they concluded that "one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be in wanting." Americans, though, clung to the notion that we can be both feared and loved. What our partners think of us matters greatly. This insecurity—the need for open affirmation of the rightness of our policies—grows from our tradition of open governance. We simply do not breed (or, at least, empower) leaders so convinced of the validity of their own positions that they are willing to ignore deep opposition. A policy or position which provokes widespread disapproval, we believe, is probably misguided. Domestically, this is a worthy trait, helping sustain democracy. Internationally, though, the need for affirmation renders us dependent on the approval of others and susceptible to angst-ridden hesitation. We lack the egotistic self-confidence that characterizes the great imperial powers of the past. This does not automatically exclude us from global leadership. But it means that we must exercise a specific type of leadership based on cooperation with partners. As with any collaborative endeavor, this can be difficult, requiring regular compromise and a sustained effort to coordinate priorities and objectives.

Somehow, though, we forgot this, believing that the deference which characterized the Cold War and even the years after the demise of the Soviet Union reflected a permanent change in the world. We could be both feared and loved. The U.S. military embraced this notion. Allowing the armed forces to atrophy when a major threat was defeated was an American tradition, continued even after World War II. American military power was like the mythical phoenix bird, repeatedly dying in flames then being reborn from the ashes. But our defense leaders were determined to break this pattern after the Cold War. They quickly found a concept to serve as the locomotive for sustaining American military strength: the "revolution in military affairs." This idea had two components. One was the belief that absence of a major global threat following the demise of the Soviet Union was not a rationale for demobilization, but was a result of American military strength. Second was the conclusion that the nature of armed conflict was undergoing an historic and revolutionary change. By capitalizing on this, the United States could sustain its military dominance which it would, in turn, use to promote "world order."

Events certainly validated the operational beliefs of the revolutionary theorists (even if they were not so kind to the underlying strategic assumptions). The 1991 Gulf War showed that an array of military reforms and acquisitions undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s, which included the extensive integration of new technology, had paid immense benefits. The U.S. military seemed capable of lightening victories over tough opponents with a minimal blood cost, minimizing the chances that the public would turn against a military engagement before it was successful—a vitally important factor for sustaining support for a strong military in the absence of a peer enemy. By the late 1990s, the Department of Defense was committed to a full scale "transformation" in order to capitalize on the revolution in military affairs and sustain American military preponderance. But strangely, there was almost no consideration from either the uniformed military or civilian policymakers that this might be intimidating to other states. Americans took it as an article of faith that they only used force to counter aggression, hence only aggressors had cause to fear their military power.

The election of George W. Bush in 2000 signaled a change in American strategic culture. Influenced by a group of thinkers often labeled "neoconservatives," President Bush had little need (or want) for approval from other states. A nation as powerful as the United States, he and the neoconservatives who helped shape his ideas believed, should be unconcerned with the perceptions and wishes of lesser powers as it pursues its national interests. The need for affirmation was a quaint peccadillo of an inexperienced power, something which could be transcended through strong, confident political leadership. And they concluded, the deference to American power which characterized the Cold War was normal and sustainable, not a product of a specific set of conditions.

During the initial months of the Bush administration, it appeared that China might justify a more aggressive statecraft and an increase in military spending. Then al Qaeda, a terrorist movement little known outside the circles of national security specialists up to that point, volunteered for the role of bete noir. While the American public initially accepted the idea that the United States was at war—increasingly with Islamic extremism writ large rather than simply al Qaeda--and that the war on terrorism was the functional equivalent of the Cold War, there was more skepticism of this construct among America's partners, particularly after the Taliban government was replaced in Afghanistan and al Qaeda's infrastructure there broken up. Deference to the United States was more fragile than it had ever been. Then the 2003 intervention in Iraq shattered it. To the publics and leadership of many other nations, Iraq demonstrated that the United States was willing to use the war on terrorism to justify policies which, in their eyes, had little to do with defeating al Qaeda. At the extreme, they came to believe that President Bush's expansive notion of the war on terrorism was simply a trojan horse for American aggression and imperialism. While Americans clung to the idea that their power was benign, fewer and fewer non-Americans saw it that way.

Most policymakers, military leaders, and opinion shapers concluded that this was simply a problem of "strategic communications." If we can better explain ourselves, the idea goes, other nations will recognize that our power is no threat and that we act in the collective interests of all peace-loving nations. Thus these nations should again accede to our leadership, adopt our notion of the war on terrorism, and do their part to prosecute it. This is an appealing idea, but it is fantasy. Our challenge is not miscommunication but the obsolescence of the mode of leadership we have grown accustomed to.

We now have two options. One is simply to continue along the current path, accepting a long term decline in our influence and global role, sustaining partnerships only with other states who see the world as we do. The other might be called "cooperative leadership." In this, the United States would use its power, both hard and soft, to bolster regional security arrangements and solutions largely defined by the states in a region. We would exercise peer rather than hierarchical leadership in most regions of the world. We would reach agreement with partners on the extent and nature of the threat and the appropriate response rather than simply dictating to them. This would be more than just a change of style. A grand strategy of collective leadership would also require adjustments to American military strategy and posture. This essay will suggest what these might entail.

[Dominique R. Poirier]

To tell you the truth, I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to Andy Bacevich's argument that Americans are never going to be successful imperialists, so the best strategy is stop trying to play the role.

Mr. Metz,
I believe that we could talk at length on the meaning of the world “imperialism.” I don’t like this word anyway because I find it has a strongly pejorative meaning that expresses arrogance and authoritarianism. It doesn’t fit at all my own perception of the United States by all means; as I wouldn't believe one minute, with all due respect for your knowledge and intelligence, that the average American—and any member of American ruling elite as well—feels himself as an imperialist or see his country or its policy as imperialist.
Doubtless many idling pinky Americans who never did the effort to go to live elsewhere--just to see how different it is--see their country as an imperialist power.

Ironically, I accept a French definition of the American power which initially intended indeed to be pejorative: “le gendarme du monde” (the World’s constabulary).
I never considered this other definition as pejorative because it reflects quite closely the role of the United States throughout the world and in international politics. The Chinese see the United States that way, and Japan, and several countries of the greater Middle-East, and several European countries as many others. So, things didn’t turn as intended for those who invented this expression, in my own opinion. Rather, they accidentally found the right one.

In a more personal manner, I perceive the United States as a dam which contains savage and anarchic and uncontrollable forces capable to submerge everything on its crazy course, once sets free if ever.

There is, in revenge, another vast country which is traditionally imperialist, according to my perception of our world: Russia. Russia is not imperialist by taste or by ambition. It is a drive. It cannot help itself.

I quote from recollection Catherine the Great who said once something as: “To control my borders I cannot but extend them.”

[SteveMetz]

Mr. Metz,
I believe that we could talk at length on the meaning of the world “imperialism.” I don’t like this word anyway because I find it has strong pejorative meaning that expresses arrogance and authoritarianism. It doesn’t fit at all my own perception of the United States by all means; as I wouldn't believe one minute, with all due respect for your knowledge and intelligence, that the average American—and any member of American ruling elite as well—feel himself as an imperialist or see his country or its policy as imperialist.
Doubtless many idling pinky Americans who never did the effort to go to live elsewhere--just to see how different it is--see their country as an imperialist power.

Ironically, I accept a French definition of the American power which initially intended to be pejorative, indeed: “le gendarme du monde” (the World’s constabulary).
I never considered this other definition as pejorative because it reflects quite closely the role of the United States throughout the world and in international politics. The Chinese see the United States that way, and Japan, and several countries of the greater Middle-East, and several European countries, and many others. So, things didn’t turn as intended for those who invented this expression, in my own opinion. Rather, they accidentally found the right one.

In a more personal manner, I perceive the United States as a dam which contains savage and anarchic and uncontrollable forces capable to submerge everything on its crazy course, once sets free.

There is, in revenge, another vast country which is traditionally imperialist, according to my perception of our world: Russia. Russia is not imperialist by taste or by ambition. It is a drive. It cannot help itself.

I quote from recollection Catherine the Great who said once something as: “To control my borders I cannot but extend them.”

There is an ongoing debate among American academics, policymakers, and pundits about the use of the word "imperial." I'm of the school that believe we are an imperial power whether we wanted to be or not. I think we can learn much from the security management practices of past empires.

On the idea of the United States as the world's constable, Colin Gray developed a similar idea in his book The Sheriff: America's Defense of the New World Order

[Nat Wilcox]

Interesting story about translation of Islamist websites by a private foundation to aid ISPs in identifying and shutting down stuff. All privately contrived.

Unwelcome Internet Guests
The problem of jihadist websites hosted in America.
by Jonathan V. Last
08/06/2007, Volume 012, Issue 44

An ambitious private initiative to help American Internet service providers (ISPs) identify jihadist websites they are unwittingly hosting was unveiled the other day in Washington. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) will lend its translation capabilities and the expertise of its Islamist Website Monitor Project to any ISP that wants to investigate the content of a suspicious foreign-language site. MEMRI president Yigal Carmon expects that ISPs will voluntarily shut down extremist sites once the providers realize what inflammatory material the sites contain.

More here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/924bstsn.asp

[Armchairguy]

In the war of ideas the USA needs to gain back some credibility. The ordinary Joe or Ahmed in Islamic countries doesn't believe America. Some large number actually believe 9/11 was done by the American government (Actually a not inconsiderable number of Americans do too). They think America photoshops and doctors images to make them look good. America talks the talk about freedom and democracy, but it has to walk the walk unfalteringly with no hint of corruption. For example, even if Cheney isn't getting a kick back from Halliburton, can you think of a more stupid move than to hire them for Iraq? Anyone with the least paranoia is saying that it is at least walking like a duck. America needs to put on the white hat and be the good guy in all things. The more it can, the more goodwill it will bring and the Jihadists and Insurgents won't have a leg to stand on. In lines with the Iraqi kid hiding behind the soldier, I remember a television image from the first gulf war where an american was assuring an Iraqi that it was alright while the Iraqi was trying to surrender. Those are the images that move people. Or how about specials in arabic on the medics who fix up everyone on the battlefield?

On a slightly different tack, why aren't the wizards of computer warfare inside the military actively attacking jihadist web sites and media outlets? If an ISP gets in the way..tough luck. They should turf the Jihadists on their own or they have shown themselves to be part of the problem.

[Ken White]

with Halliburtons total capability in force support?

You want to shut down sites that can be monitored and force a more discrete communications mode that could be far harder to identify, much less monitor? O-kayyyy.

[marct]

Hi Armchairguy,

In the war of ideas the USA needs to gain back some credibility.

Totally agree. The problem, however, is that this relies on American politicians and, ultimately, on the American public standing up to those politicians and saying "a pox on both your parties". It also relies on promulgating a set of philosophical principles and then applying hem in action. You've got the first (the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence come to mind), but the second is sorely lacking in the political and bureaucratic spheres.

On a slightly different tack, why aren't the wizards of computer warfare inside the military actively attacking jihadist web sites and media outlets? If an ISP gets in the way..tough luck. They should turf the Jihadists on their own or they have shown themselves to be part of the problem.

Two reasons. First, they are very useful for monitoring IO trends and tracking interest levels. Second, not all of he ISPs are in the US and an attack on an ISP could be considered an act of war.

As for showing themselves to be part of the problem, this isn't quite true. The offer by MEMRI is an attempt to help the ISPs identify sites that are problematic, something that many ISPs have a great deal of difficulty with.

Marc

[Armchairguy]

Hi MarcT and Ken White.

I see your points. I guess we would be ruining one of our own intelligence assets. Another idea might be to make our own pseudo jihadist sites filling the areas seen by potential recruits with divisive information that makes the jihadists look stupid and fractured?

Another idea slightly off topic. Given the digital technology of Hollywood I wonder if we have enough video from AQ spokesmen to make phony AQ videos. It might be nice to see the faithful confused with the messages being sent out by their leadership. Might even be able to cause some friction in the ranks.