Yes Mike it really is that simple.
And better use of Voice of America, radio and TV, could help turn this whole war around.
We are talking psyops and better propaganda, which we have thus far done a punk job on.
Yes Mike it really is that simple.
And better use of Voice of America, radio and TV, could help turn this whole war around.
We are talking psyops and better propaganda, which we have thus far done a punk job on.
this in terms the family can understand. I get them to think, what if a foreign nation was here in the States? How would you react? If one thinks in terms of the number of people who would have the conviction to do whatever necessary to win vs. those who would take no stance, is it really any different? How would our media operate differently? Think of the psyops you would develop, the propaganda opportunities.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
Starting with the enemy, Zawahiri's "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents", found in the Al Qaeda Reader (with other important statements), is required reading.
There are theological holes (from the Islamic perspective) in his arguments; but they have to addressed by Muslims - not Christians, such as George, JMM and MikeF.
For a different kind of martyr, study the pre-Constantinian Christian martyrs, who as pacifists were willing to die for their faith; but not to kill for it. Then fast forward to the Jesuit Order (not pacific) and its martyrs - as to which, the Jesuit Relations (Thwaites English translation) are a ready source.[*]
While I agree with the content of the message which the authors in Mike's link want to convey,
I believe that message will be effective only if it is delivered and controlled by Muslims.The story of al Qaeda's victims must be told compellingly and exhaustively -- from the World Trade Center to the weddings, funerals, schools, mosques, and hotels where suicide bombers have brought untold grief to thousands of families, tribes, and communities throughout the Muslim world. That narrative could tap online social networks, creating a Facebook of the bereaved that crosses borders and cultures. A series of public service announcements, timed after attacks, could detail the innocent lives snuffed out by al Qaeda.
A recent symposium hosted by the secretary-general of the United Nations points the way forward: an international, multilingual effort to sponsor networks of Web sites, publications, and television programming. The United Nations can and should play a significant convening role, bringing together victims to help meet their material needs and raising awareness by providing platforms through which to share their stories.
The U.S. government also has a critical role to play in creating a framework for victims' stories. No single agency will lead; the days of centralized, top-down communications campaigns are over. Nongovernmental organizations and millions of private citizens will make this work by adding their own experiences to the tales. Adopting this kind of decentralization, the Obama administration can make a clean break with its predecessor's strategy.
--------------------------
[*] One could also contrast the Canadian Jesuits' cult of martyrdom with the culture of the CFM-Canada, which was often at odds.
Last edited by jmm99; 04-15-2009 at 04:22 AM.
Never heard of him, and exactly how many people think he's a hero. What is more, how many of those people can actually exert operational and strategic influence.You've probably never heard of Badr Mish'al al-Harbi, but to many, he's a hero. The star of a June 2008 Internet video called "The State of Islam [Shall] Endure," Harbi appeared under the nom de guerre Abu Omar al-Kuwaiti to sing the praises of martyrdom.
Sorry, I can't take this stuff seriously. It's an argument without evidence, and like a lot of stuff that sounds good, leads you no where, unless you enjoy rubbing your chin, about all "wicked problems" and "complexity" some cling to in order to promote agendas.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I'm sorry you feel that way Wilf. I don't have any answers that is why I ask the questions. The only agenda is that maybe people will talk about it. That's it. Personally, I think you and others here come the closest in defining anything towards pragmatic, realistic answers.
My counter-argument would be that if we don't talk about it, it will lead us to nowhere. Furthermore, no "solution" currently being implement is supported by evidence.
v/r
Mike
Last edited by MikeF; 04-15-2009 at 01:43 PM.
I read a lot in certain areas that are of special interest to me. Move a bit outside of those areas and I'm a total dummy - which means I listen up a lot to what others say.
...and I am sorry not to be more constructive. It was not your agenda I was referring to. Your question is one worth asking, but I strongly caution against assuming all the questions and observations posed by such articles are worthwhile.
If there is merit in understanding an enemy, it is in how to break his will and subvert his arguments, not understanding him, so as you can empathise with the SOB, and live happily ever after.
Until the enemy gives up the policies you find unacceptable, his physical defeat has got to be the primary purpose.
That is as close to being pragmatic and realistic as I might ever get.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
the appropriate tactic was physically to defeat Gandhi ?from Wilf
Until the enemy gives up the policies you find unacceptable, his physical defeat has got to be the primary purpose.
Not a very strenuous task, based on his photographs.
Good one...but that was Politics, that never became war. Gandhi was a lawyer. The British had already crushed the violent means, and what many don't know is Gandhi implicitly threatened violence. He always told the British they did not have enough troops to suppress an Indian wide violent rebellion.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
jmm99 How do you know all this stuff? I am amazed.
I don't think so, and don't agree that better propaganda (via VoA) is the answer. Sometimes, folks see through that for the sham work that it is. Often, the simple fact remains that our ideas and constructs just don't translate over. Add to that the fact that within societies such as the tribal, Arab, and Islamic one we worked so hard to shape and control in Iraq, any message coming from us is going to be ignored and downplayed, and information operations can be a tall order.
Providing accurate facts that get ahead of jihadist information, is sometimes the best that we can do, methinks.
How we think we can:
a. Figure out another culture
b. Figure out why they do what they do
c. Figure out how to change them
When we can't even do it in our own country.
That just might be the problem, stop putting so much thought into, crush their "nuts" and eventually they'll get tired of it or run out of people......
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
the answers to those questions, but I don't.
However, my concern is if they are not asked, then we will continually do the same thing over and over again.
Very good points, JC.
Pulling off of JC's comments, and getting back to the original post, have you noticed that few in the US (or outside it) buy into the narrative offered? Most "answers", if they aren't of an "X=Y" form, tend to be implicit stories, i.e. they have a meaning, moral and story line attached to them. The story about bringing democracy to _____ (fill in the blank) isn't selling well, mainly because there is a lot of comptetition.
Will we do the same thing over and over? Probably... most cultures do.
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/
Concur with all. Exactly right in my experience. No evidence you ever produce will convince most (not all) anti-western Arabs that the Israeli's didn't commit 911, and that the British SIS didn't murder Princess Diana.
Try and tell folks who believe in UFOs that they don't exist.
...and I don't think it is the job of any Army to alter beliefs. It's to make the cost of acting on those beliefs too high, for most people to risk.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The current narrative is best defined by Abu Bakr Naji's The Management of Savagery: The Most Critical Stage through which the Umma will Pass.
It is the evolution of radical Islamic thought deriving from Sayyid Qutb's work long ago in an Egyptian cell. For some fringe movements, it lays out a methodical, rational explanation of the corruption and disenfranchisement and grievances provoked of western democracy and capitalism.
For Americans, this text is difficult to comprehend. Marc- please let me know if I'm off base with this. I believe it is simply how we think and actually process our thoughts.
For example, Americans think and read in terms of left to right, and our thought centers around I. I walked to school today. I visited small wars journal.
For Germans, thought and words are the direct opposite. It is how the world affects them not vice versa.
For Chinese, one-hundred and eleven is translated one, one, one.
I'm not sure how the Arab mind works besides understanding they read right to left, and they tend to think more romantically in verse rather than prose.
I think this insight is the distinction in our lack of communication. I'd enjoy y'alls feedback particularly if I'm off base.
v/r
Mike
Bookmarks