I hear that they MIGHT have had they not run out of jars.Originally Posted by tequila
I hear that they MIGHT have had they not run out of jars.
I guess I don't have to worry quite as much about globalizing myself any more.
I think we're ignoring a key point; althought this is a problem for the U.S., one of the big sources is Arab nations using anti-U.S. sentiments to distract attention away from their own corruption. It gives frustrated young men an outlet that is not perceived as a threat to the internal status quo, and helps the governments avoid detaining/killing/torturing these young men en masse (as they scream for the death of Zionism, crusaders etc, rather than for the death of their own prime minister, president, etc), which would only make internal tensions worse.
The countermove is fairly obvious, but wouldn't fly well in the media; diplomatic sanctions and loss of economic support to nations that spout anti-U.S./West venom from state-run media, and distribute free radios pretuned to the regional VOA and BBC freqs. And the carrot; diplomatic and economic considerations for nations that have free media or even-handed state run media. The real key to the carrot and the stick is making them rapidly adaptable, so changes in a nations actions (good or bad) don't go unrecognized.
Of course, the mainstream media would scream that this is interfering in freedom of press, a propaganda program, yada yada.
I think you're falling into a number of traps here that fail to address some of the genuine differences that need to be addressed honestly.
1) I think you are overestimating the impact of state-run media on Arab perceptions of both Arab regimes and the West, especially given the rise of semi-independent and privately run media in the past 15 years, al-Jazeera leading the way.
2) You are seriously overestimating the potential positive impact of saturating the Arab world with Western media outlets. Again, the "if we could only get our strategic communications right, everything would be okay!" trap. You assume that our message is selling something that the Arabs want to buy.
The United States has spent billions in the past six years spreading its Arabic-language message through outlets like al-Hurra and Radio Sawa. Yet negative perceptions of the United States have skyrocketed in the past six years. Has it occurred to you that no matter how well packaged, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is just not going to be popular with Arabs, and thus negatively affect how they perceive the United States?
Promoting a free media in the Arab world is a worthy U.S. goal. However, a truly "free" media will also be one that is "free" of U.S. messaging control. The best example of this is, of course, al-Jazeera, which is accused by most Western governments and militaries as being militantly anti-Western, despite the fact that it is the only Arab sat channel which routinely covers American and Israeli politics and which grants airtime to Israeli government spokesmen.
Agree completely. I think we Americans have this deeply naively belief that the only reason people would fear and dislike us is because they misunderstand us. We have this belief in the benevolence of the free press and democracy, then are aghast when al Jazeera criticizes us or Hamas wins and election.
I believe we have two and only options in the Islamic world: 1) get used to being hated (and hence invent a different counterterrorism strategy that is NOT based on winning hearts and minds); or 2) abandon Israel and support to dictators like Mubarak, the Sauds, and Musharraf.
option 2 is out - the ME would light up fast and like never before and since large swatches of our population are mostly interested in upgrading their cell phones to include 40 different ring tones and sales at Wal-Mart, we will have to just live with the hatred. Civil liberties and the wide breadth and latitude of Constitutional interpretation might convulse over inventing a new approach to counterterrorism. In short, we have probably reached our apex as a civilization.
Re: the anti west state media in the middle east-
The one that loomed largest in my mind is Saudi. Recently returning folks from the contractor community there go on at length about the difference between what is said in english and what is said in arabic...
Re; Strategic Comm- Yes, it won't fix everything, but yes, we absolutely must improve it now. It does not garantee success, but it is neccessary for success. Getting our voice, or at least something resembling a free media is a step in the right direction, and there is no reason not to use economic and diplomatic tools in support of information operations.
SteveMetz said:Get used to being hated? The media would love it, and sell many papers and much air time; this would be good for our economyI believe we have two and only options in the Islamic world: 1) get used to being hated (and hence invent a different counterterrorism strategy that is NOT based on winning hearts and minds); or 2) abandon Israel and support to dictators like Mubarak, the Sauds, and Musharraf.
Abandon Israel; now there's a strategy that can't be sold in the U.S. I won't even start on the similarities between Israeli policies and Stalinist Russia, but it is disturbing that pointing out that Israeli interests are not automatically U.S. interests ensures that one will be labelled an anti-semetic.
Look at the distribution of wealth and the distribution of religous fundamentalists. Throughout Judeo-Christian-Islamic history poverty is often equated to piety. Kind of makes sense, poor folks can't store up material wealth, so invest themselves into their faith. This suggests that we need a Marshall plan for the Middle East in order to reduce poverty, and reduce the conditions that create the desparation that inspires terrorist leaders, and etch away at the religious fundamentalism that is the common thread of much of our challenges there. The choke point for increasing the wealth of the common people in the Arab world is the dictators and their governments. Corruption is so endemic that private economic development is almost impossible. Allowing a significant middle class to emerge is not on their agenda as this would be a threat to political power. At best, supporting dictators is only a stop gap measure for a strategic solution, the better answer is applying influence to allow a middle class to emerge. But that is a very long term solution.
And if you had told me in 1990 that I would be pitching equitable distribution of wealth as a means to strategic success, I would have laughed in your face...
The best strategic solution is to arrange for the Arab and Persian world to be irrelevant, placing it firmly in the same category as Tibet, an issue, but not one worth significant expenditure of resources. The path there: break our dependence one foreign oil. The ideal endstate is one where we can afford to not care if they love us or hate us.
Regarding Steve's option, I think its potentially a little misleading to cast the alternatives as starkly as "abandon Israel."
To my mind, promoting a stable two-state solution the Palestinian-Israeli conflict along the lines suggested by the Clinton Parameters (2000), Beirut Arab League summit resolution (2002), and Geneva Accord (2003) is hardly "abandoning Israel." Rather, it is rejecting the extremism of both the Israeli settler lobby and Palestinian hardliners to emphasize the center ground in the conflict. Indeed, I believe it to be in the interest of a great majority of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the international community.
On supporting Arab dictators, I think there's a trade-off here between short and long terms. In the short term, authoritarian Arab regimes are useful CT allies. In the long term, the West's support for them is a major source of local grievances, and strengthens the appeal of radical and anti-Western groups, thereby aggravating the CT challenge.
In the medium term, its just plain messy. I'm inclined to believe--hopeless romantic that I am--that, when in doubt, its not a bad idea to do the (morally) right thing, which probably doesn't involve supporting repressive regimes.
I'm not sure which Arab countries you're thinking of. In most of them, there is almost no officially-promoted anti-Americanism... indeed, regimes tend to play down strong, open, official criticism of Washington (even when they differ sharply on policy issues) because they are well aware of the difficulties of being allied to the US at a time when their populations are overwhelmingly critical of US policies. There are exceptions--Syria, for example--but these are regimes that are at loggerheads with the US, and over which Washington has little leverage.
There is strong criticism of the US from the opposition press--both Islamist (of all varieties) and liberal-democratic. There is also considerable criticism in the free (satellite) TV channels, notably al-Jazeera--generally reflecting, rather than leading, popular attitudes.
Some of this hostility is rooted in misperception, sterotypes, etc. US public diplomacy has often been very weak.
However, a great deal is rooted in US policies too--and there's only so much you can do to sell an unpopular toothpaste by just changing the packaging...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks