The Strategic Corporal vs. The Strategic Cameraman

[jcustis]

Goesh's post captures some of what I was trying to articulate earlier.

[marct]

Goesh's post captures some of what I was trying to articulate earlier.

True but, I would suggest, irrelevant. We really shouldn't be thinking of this type of IO as a "conventional" operation but, rather, more in COIN terms. Can we win, whatever that means, an IO "war"? Probably not - a draw is most likely, but we most certainly can not win it we don't fight one.

What is to stop us from taking some of the irhabi video and ding exactly the same thing? Or Marine video of the aftermath of a suicide bombing attack - change the voice over and post it, spam it actually, on the irhabi sites or the moderate sites?

Cori raised an excellent point about the presentation of death in Western media and, yes, Canada probably does show dead bodies a little more directly than the US. Regardless... I'll toss out an hypothesis that the desensitization of death in North America can be made to work to our advantage. As a symbol, "dead bodies", as Cori notes, are reserved for highly newsworthy stories. Umm, isn't Iraq important enough? Let's stop the sugar coating and show the home populace exactly what the irhabi are doing.

Now, about the IO Czar job...

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Agreed, Marc. I would also hazard a guess that one reason our programs don't work is that we don't have the patience to stick with them for more than a month or two.

This whole thing strikes me as a good opportunity for positive IO (like jcustis spoke of) as well as a "gray" operation targeting the networks you mentioned with footage of the aftermaths of suicide bombings and so on. Goesh makes a good point about where the main effort of the strategic corporals should be (with the people they're doing COIN with), but there needs to be a parallel operation (gray or black, take your pick) aimed at the irhabi video stuff. SOG did some of this sort of stuff in Vietnam, but was reined back each time they started making serious progress. We have done it in the past, but there seems to be a deep reluctance to try it again. I really don't know why.

[Tom Odom]

Cori raised an excellent point about the presentation of death in Western media and, yes, Canada probably does show dead bodies a little more directly than the US. Regardless... I'll toss out an hypothesis that the desensitization of death in North America can be made to work to our advantage. As a symbol, "dead bodies", as Cori notes, are reserved for highly newsworthy stories. Umm, isn't Iraq important enough? Let's stop the sugar coating and show the home populace exactly what the irhabi are doing.

I agree that we should have done this from the very beginning. FDR and senior leaders in Washington made a crucial decision after Tarawa to do just that when some said such pictures would hurt morale at home. But given the decisions made on this issue earlier and the context of the current debate and political buzzard fight going on, I think such a step would pretty much guarantee a greater clamor for withdrawal.

Best

Tom

[marct]

Hi Tom,

But given the decisions made on this issue earlier and the context of the current debate and political buzzard fight going on, I think such a step would pretty much guarantee a greater clamor for withdrawal.

I suspect you are right - at least as far as Iraq is concerned. Then again, the clamor for withdrawal is pretty load right now anyway. Hmm, maybe I'm just in a vicious mood, but how does the following strike you

[camera pan to bodies and destroyed property littering a local marketplace]Today, the irhabi fighters of Al Quaida sent a message to Iraq. We want the Iraqi people to have another message from the Coalition
[camera pan to school shots, reconstruction work, etc.]
[split camera with destruction on one side and school children on the other]
Iraqs future is up to you
We can stay [screen fade to school children shot]
Or go
[screen fade to image of body lying on ground]
The choice is yours

Marc

[jcustis]

IO czar it is marct...I was saying something along those lines in a PM to Cori

If I had my way, as well as the $$$ to do it, it would come down to a simple matter of airtime. By the spots during primetime, and keep buying them until there is a perceptible change. I'd steer clear of any references to the administration, the Pentagon, or Dept of State.

It would be simple and to the point, much like a campaign ad. the images of civic and humanitarian action are played...the really good stuff of the barefoot children getting shoes, food, and clean water. A school being built and backpacks, pens, and paper distributed. Cut away at the end and have a volunteer servicemember (or maybe even shift through all races and services in the process) make a very clear statement: "The people of Iraq are indeed the future of Iraq. My struggle isn't about bringing victory to the American people, but victory for every citizen of Iraq and freedom from the tyranny that continues. Please help me continue my mission."

It's subtle and implicit, and could avoid the PR landmines that are out there if we just don't try to think too much about it. Call it appealing to the apple pie base if you will, because it is that base that continues to erode every day. Few folks who are on the fence have the time to immerse themselves in the imagery, so we would need to take it to them, then push it to liveleak and youtube, NPR and PBS. Make it something household that people chatter about. That's what I believe happens when a new Marine Corps recruiting commercial comes out. People buzz when the images, background music, and message are important and right.

Has the clamoring for withdrawal reached a crescendo? Perhaps, but I agree with you now that it shouldn't mean we don't try.

[marct]

Has the clamoring for withdrawal reached a crescendo? Perhaps, but I agree with you now that it shouldn't mean we don't try.

I like that phrase - the "apple pie base". That really is who needs to be influenced on the home front. I think the tactic of steering away from anything overtly political is also appropriate, and an appeal to people's inherent desire to help others (usually as long as we don't get killed doing so) is a good way to go - certainly better than the more guilt ridden rhetoric that shows up in a lot of disaster relief advertisements!

Marc

[Combat.medic06]

There is alot of good that can come out of a soldier posting videos of missions/ training of indiginous forces. Most americans feel that they are being sheltered by the Government (therefore trust issues with elected officials) if say a certain military website were to willingly post all types of videos to better assist personnel on tactics and training, but also allow the average joe access to it I think Americans would feel more secure. I believe they would feel more like they were recieving the full picture. I don't know about you but, I know numerous people who find themselves up late night surfing U Tube looking for new military videos mostly because they are curious and have a feeling that our White House is hiding the facts from them (they are right). I know when journalist's were folowing our MiTT That we were not allowed to say much or show them anything..... As far as driving back and forth taking hits in Iraq. I also volunteered to medically cover Fuel and supply convoys before and after being on my MiTT, and Medevaced quite a few soldiers due to explosions and accidents. The average joe needs to see that and also needs to see how that fuel and those supplies help not only soldiers but the surrounding villages and comunities. America needs the full story, if Washington ever hopes to get the support they need from the American people to make it another seven years for stabilization.

[tequila]

I suspect you are right - at least as far as Iraq is concerned. Then again, the clamor for withdrawal is pretty load right now anyway. Hmm, maybe I'm just in a vicious mood, but how does the following strike you
[camera pan to bodies and destroyed property littering a local marketplace]Today, the irhabi fighters of Al Quaida sent a message to Iraq. We want the Iraqi people to have another message from the Coalition
[camera pan to school shots, reconstruction work, etc.]
[split camera with destruction on one side and school children on the other]
Iraqs future is up to you
We can stay [screen fade to school children shot]
Or go
[screen fade to image of body lying on ground]
The choice is yours

Is this IO aimed at the United States population or the population of Iraq?

If aimed at the U.S. population, I think it founders on two main points. (1) Generally speaking, Americans do not care about the death of foreigners. If given the choice between having American soldiers blown up and Iraqi civilians blown up, Americans will pick the second every time. (2) The message acknowledges the success of irhabi terrorism in striking repeatedly despite the presence of American troops. It feeds the narrative that Americans are dying without being able to prevent terrorism.

If aimed at the population of Iraq, it will have difficulties because it does not take into account the fracturing of the Iraqi population into very disparate media audiences, who will likely interpret such a message in very different ways.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

Is this IO aimed at the United States population or the population of Iraq?

I was thinking of it more for the North American audience. Then again, it was only a very rough cut .

If aimed at the U.S. population, I think it founders on two main points. (1) Generally speaking, Americans do not care about the death of foreigners. If given the choice between having American soldiers blown up and Iraqi civilians blown up, Americans will pick the second every time.

Hmmm, I would, tentatively, agree with your second point, but I would disagree with your first one. I think that there is a large segment of the American population that does care about foreign deaths. As evidence of that belief, I'll point to the massive amounts of money that have been raised over the years for disaster relief.

Having said that, I think you are right about the relative weighting of American vs. "foreign" lives. Put the way you did, I would agree. At the same time, there are certainly sufficient historical precedents for Americans supporting operations that may cost American lives but will, at the same time, reduce "foreign" suffering. I honestly don't know if that motivation would work after 4 years of war in Iraq.

(2) The message acknowledges the success of irhabi terrorism in striking repeatedly despite the presence of American troops. It feeds the narrative that Americans are dying without being able to prevent terrorism.

Yes, it does. At the same time, it contests the narrative of despair that is currently being pushed by not abandoning the IO field to the irhabi and their opportunistic allies. Look, part of my thinking in all of this is pretty long term and contingency based. Let's suppose that we don't contest the IO field; what then? Basically, the Coalition will probably be forced to pull out of Iraq within 12-18 months and of Afghanistan within 24 - basically loosing both wars. If we do contest it, then we might stay longer, which increases the likelihood of winning (obviously no guarantees).

If we win, great, but what if, even with contesting the IO field, we loose? Think back to the aftermath of Vietnam and its effects on the US military. Giveb a "loss" scenario, what is better for the military: a scenario where the IO war was fought, or one where it wasn't?

I'm certainly not saying that the script I tossed up is a magic bullet or that a properly conducted IO campaign is one either. What I am saying is that if such a campaign isn't even attempted, then the potential repercussions are rather grim.

Marc