Odd Bit of Propaganda from al-Jazeera

[Schmedlap]

I just watched a recent episode of Fault Lines - a program hosted by Josh Rushing on al-Jazeera English. This struck me as some of the most blatantly misleading and outrageous propaganda that I have seen on that station in a long time. It was particularly disturbing that Rushing, who served 15 years in the Marines, would participate in this charade.

The subject matter was the evangelical movement and the U.S. Military. The episode spliced together highly selective and highly unrepresentative pieces of video, capturing some of the most awkward and goofiest moments that I have ever seen, and portrayed them as the norm in our military, attempting to make it look as though there are a significant number of Soldiers who joined the military in response to 9/11 because they viewed it as a holy war in which they could use military service as a conduit for proselytizing. The program scoured the news and managed to piece together a handful of extreme examples and portray them as part of some deliberate, concentrated effort at spreading the gospel in Iraq and Afghanistan. The abberations were presented as the norm.

This episode struck me as simply bizarre. The subject matter was pure dreck. It was disingenuous and clearly intended to provoke fear and concern among non-Christians, particularly those in the Arab world, if it is also aired in Arabic. I don't know how anyone who has been in the military could view this and think that there is a shred of honesty or any absence of ulterior motive. On the other hand, it looks like it would be pretty convincing to others. The facts that were dug up - and the glaring absence of facts that are more readily obtainable - seem like they could easily sway someone who knows little or nothing about our military, which would include most Americans and certainly most of the Arab world.

I don't know how large of an audience has seen this or what that audience composition is, so I don't know how big of a problem this is. Does this strike anyone as a significant problem? If so, how do we defend against broadsides like this - outrageous claims out of left field? It seems that whomever strikes first with these claims has the advantage and you can't really anticipate every ridiculous accusation and pre-empt it. Or do I overestimate how convincing this stuff is and overestimate its potential impact?

The one saving grace was that Rushing interviewed Brent Scowcroft on this episode, tried to play a game of "gotcha" on this topic, and Scowcroft eventually got the better of him. At least that part wasn't edited out.

[marct]

Hi Schmedlap,

This episode struck me as simply bizarre. The subject matter was pure dreck. It was disingenuous and clearly intended to provoke fear and concern among non-Christians, particularly those in the Arab world, if it is also aired in Arabic.

Really? It is certainly a fairly common perception, at least amongst a lot of the people who have followed the rise of the religious right in the US.

I don't know how anyone who has been in the military could view this and think that there is a shred of honesty or any absence of ulterior motive. On the other hand, it looks like it would be pretty convincing to others. The facts that were dug up - and the glaring absence of facts that are more readily obtainable - seem like they could easily sway someone who knows little or nothing about our military, which would include most Americans and certainly most of the Arab world.

Hmm, my nephew (actually, my wife's, niece's husband) was US SF and was given a "downcheck" for trying to proselytize. On the good side, he is out of the forces; on the bad side, he was doing it while in uniform in Iraq. In a similar vein, my sister-in-law (USAF E6, ret'd) has commented on similar prosletizing having gone on in the 1980's and 90's.

I don't know how large of an audience has seen this or what that audience composition is, so I don't know how big of a problem this is.

No idea on the broadcast audience size, but on YouTube, it is 10,158 for pt 1 and 4,447 for pt 2 (as of 10:47am EST on June 30th, 2009). As a note, 60 Minutes has been doing stories on the US Air Academy and its infiltration by cults such as the Campus Crusade for Christ for years now, so it is certainly not limited to Al-Jezeera .

Does this strike anyone as a significant problem? If so, how do we defend against broadsides like this - outrageous claims out of left field?

I've thought it was a significant problem for years . How to defend against it? Well, the best way is to publicize the #### caning of people who step over the line. To my mind, there is absolutely no problem with people holding whatever beliefs they want to. The problem is when an individual holding office in a government institution uses that position as a vehicle for spreading those beliefs (separation of Church and State).

It seems that whomever strikes first with these claims has the advantage and you can't really anticipate every ridiculous accusation and pre-empt it. Or do I overestimate how convincing this stuff is and overestimate its potential impact?

Nope, you aren't overestimating the potential impact at all. In the political backrooms, the tactic is called "The Big Lie". If you want an analogous situation, go back to Abu Ghraib and the question of torture. Does / has it happen9ed)? Yes. Is it officially countenanced? No. Is the person who was responsible for the people in question held responsible in a public fashion? Maybe. At any rate, that's the best tactic to take - at least that is in keeping with our conceptualizations of individual responsibility.

The one saving grace was that Rushing interviewed Brent Scowcroft on this episode, tried to play a game of "gotcha" on this topic, and Scowcroft eventually got the better of him. At least that part wasn't edited out.

Honestly, I imagine that people who are already inclined to view the US military as a "Crusader Army" will view the Scowcroft interview as confirmation that a) it is, and b) that it has support at the highest political levels in the US.

[jkm_101_fso]

During a couple of Bill Maher episodes on HBO this season, he has had the "US Military is Proselytizing/Crusading" conversations with his guests.

I just have not seen it during my decade in the Army. Not even from Chaplains. Maybe the only thing the military is guilty of is saying a prayer at a memorial service; if that is even considered wrong. I don't think so.

My experience is that the military is mostly secular and those who try and Proselytize are few and far between. I know that OCF and groups like that exist, but I haven't seen them actively recruiting. Let alone trying to convert Muslims or anything silly like that.

[Steve Blair]

It's out there. I've seen some of it, although mostly in the Air Force, but I suspect that everyone's experience will vary based on a number of factors. Unit and branch certainly play a role, as does personal inclination and experience. A person who grew up in a more religious household or area might not notice some things that would stand out to someone who wasn't raised in that environment. The personality of the commander is also important. Like any group of people, there are a huge number of factors that come into play.

The issue is, I think, that it really only takes one to ruin the rest in terms of public perception. And that's where Marc's comment about ####canning those who cross the line really comes into play.

[marct]

The issue is, I think, that it really only takes one to ruin the rest in terms of public perception. And that's where Marc's comment about ####canning those who cross the line really comes into play.

Yup. Really, what is at stake here is a basic philosophical (and ideological and theological) difference. In a democracy, there should be a form of transparency where failures are supposed to act as a reminder that we are all human. In a theocracy, failures cannot be allowed to see the light of day since that would imply that the theocrats do not understand "God's Will".

[Schmedlap]

In a democracy, there should be a form of transparency where failures are supposed to act as a reminder that we are all human.

Amen.
Just when I thought political discourse could not sink any lower, that is one area in which it did, in 2005. Bureaucratic ineptitude, in regard to Katrina, was portrayed as deliberate, malicious disregard of New Orleans residents. Thereafter, the President made sure to travel to any large natural disaster and the government overreacted to each. This has even reared its ugly head in the current administration. Not wanting to be skewered by the right, as Bush was by the left, the current administration responded to the recent influenza outbreak as if it were the Andromeda Strain. I expect similar reactions when Hurricane season is in full force and for any midwest floods, noteworthy CA forest fires, and the like. The zero-defect mentality has encroached upon FEMA's turf because failures have successfully been portrayed as malice, rather than human error, misjudgment, or incompetence.

[Schmedlap]

Really? It is certainly a fairly common perception, at least amongst a lot of the people who have followed the rise of the religious right in the US.

Two completely different sets of people, imo. Religious right are political activists who appeal to religious authority to bolster their views. Evangelicals are Christians who feel an obligation to spread the gospel - those among this group concerned with politics are more the exception than the rule.

I find it hard to believe that any large number of Evangelicals joined to proselytize since 9/11, but I would be shocked if even a dozen members of the religious right joined for that reason. The religious right are more likely to be the folks who target practice on the Koran, rather than handing out Bibles. Understand your experience differs - not sure what to make of that. I've deployed with four different battalions - 2 infantry, 1 armor, 1 SF - and never witnessed anything even approaching this. I have known a handful of Evangelical Christians. They all adhered to the view that they were to spread the gospel, but also understood that they had an obligation to obey those appointed over them, recognizing that proselytizing had nothing to do with their duties and also understanding that proselytizing was strictly forbidden.

I've thought it was a significant problem for years . How to defend against it? Well, the best way is to publicize the #### caning of people who step over the line.

I agree, though I also wonder if that plays right into the hands of our adversaries. Publicizing it keeps it on peoples' minds. On the other hand, not publicizing said ####-canning can help to reinforce the perception that nothing is being done. Seems like a lose-lose in either case. Too bad that a handful of small unit leaders fail to prevent this from happening in the first place and put us in this awkward situation.

[George L. Singleton]

You guys have gotten me on my anti-al Jazeera and Pro-Voice of American soap box again.

It really matters equally with hot fighting to fight 24/7 the propaganda war.

I have said repeatedly al Jazeera is owned and funded by a shiek out of the UAE...who in my opinion formerly and still helps fund al Qaida and the Taliban.

Facts as just written here prove my point.