Insurgent Video Targets Blackwater

[bluegreencody]

However everyone understands each others' precise points, the common theme I understand from these posts is that everyone is talking about the varying degrees of intersection between different communities and their interests. This is best seen in the discussion of the '04 and '06 political campaigns converging with A.Q's interests. More subtly, an example is mentioned of intra-Labor party conflict and anti-war efforts being compatible with A.Q's interests. Soon, depending what happens, we will be talking about how a Republican presidential victory works in A.Q's interests or how a Democratic presidential victory does. I betcha A.Q. will be, and then they will adjust and adapt to the changing situation, in both strategy and tactics.
It seems important right now to say that Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" is best understood after a thorough saturation with the work of Du Bois and MLK Jr, and with Waylon Jennings playing in the background. I have found that this combination of variables produces a strange sense of sympathy/empathy within myself. This uncomfortable feeling directly leads me to ask whether A.Q. is anti-Indian... if OBL hates America, how does he feel about Native Americans? Blacks? High school drop-outs in Idaho and lobstermen in Maine? How about Hamas? Hizbollah? But, we are not allowed to ask these questions because it is "us versus them".

With regards to the West, there is a meme complex that can best be described as self-righteous, self-(i.e. West)hating and, most importantly, self-blaming which offers "salvation" through (cultural)self-immolation. While this is often referred to as "left wing", that's actually incorrect; it actually comes out of a rather psychotic other-worldly orientation (the same one that gave us Savonarola, the Stylites and the fraticelli). All AQ has to do is aim at this particular meme complex and its messages will be picked up and transmuted by the current carriers of that complex.

While I am not a group psychologist, this particular meme complex seems to apply to an equal amount of groups on the "right wing" as on the "left wing", if not more. It also implies, as other previous postings have, that the "West" is something tangible, something an individual can disavow. OBL feels the same way. Personally, I don't buy it.

"Insurgents have put together hundreds of propaganda videos ranting about how oh-so-terrible the American troops in Iraq are. But this is the first flick I've seen that directly and exclusively targets the private military contractors like Blackwater that have become a hallmark of the Iraq occupation...."
Danger Room

Among other motives, I think this video is an attempt by A.Q. to co-opt/converge their interests to the interests of different communities. I don't think they care who picks it up, because what they need is action. This topic (violence perpetrated on Blackwater) allows for a larger potential receptive audience the world-over, including in the U.S. (watch out when the internet truly hits Africa, or will it be when Africa hits the internet?).
I would like to see a group continually dedicated to determining a retrospective U.S. policy of 2001. A perpetual hypothetical restart, with history as a key weapon. Sorta like playing chess backwards, or reverse-engineering. They would address the problem of stopping A.Q's co-option of the world and increasing U.S. co-operation. They would address the politically problematic questions of the intersectionality of interests between A.Q. and the U.S. Something has to be done about recruitment motivations to A.Q.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

Not quite as insane today as it was yesterday....

However everyone understands each others' precise points, the common theme I understand from these posts is that everyone is talking about the varying degrees of intersection between different communities and their interests.

In general, yes. I think that one of the key things we have to consider is how "communities" are being formed, what their boundaries are and how they are (or may be) both distributed and contingent. I've written some stuff on this in a different context (here's one example) and on some of the requirements and conditions relating to alliances between groups, again in a different context (here).

One of the crucial things, to my mind, is the role played by communities in establishing both contexts of meaning, i.e. how to interpret perceptions, and in establishing broad discursive practices between communities (meta-narratives if you will). Which, in a way, gets me to responding to a comment made by Steve:

And how are those attributable to AQ INFORMATION operations (unless you define IO so broadly as to include everything one says and does)?

I'm going to spell out the logic I'm using - feel free to trash it guys . I'm spelling it out, however, because I think it may be useful to start a debate on assumptions when we talk about IO.

So, to start (as I usually do) with definitions:

• Information - "a difference that makes a difference" from Gregory Bateson.
• Operation - a consciously planned series of actions designed to produce an intended effect which may also produce unintended effects.

Expanding on Bateson's definition of information as a difference that makes a difference, there are certain assumptions inherent in that formulation that he has drawn out elsewhere (cf Angels Fear). First off, the "a difference" at the start refers to perception - one must be able to perceive something in the environment as being different from the "background". But human perception is not a constant, it is a variable that can be trained and conditioned. In fact, the very differences in training of what is "background" and what is "foreground" is one of the basic differences between cultures and occupations.

But in order for a sensory input, "a difference", to be counted as "information", it must "make a difference". This speaks to the processes of categorization, symbolization and interpretation (aka "hermeneutics" and the establishment of symbol systems). The first process, "categorization", talks about how perceptions are ordered or put into silos; for example, think about the word "cup" and everything that can be covered by that word. "Symbolization" assigns "meaning" (actually, emotional connotations and linkages to other symbols) to a category "object", turning the perception of something from a "sign" (thing, pattern of action, etc.) into a "symbol" (i.e. contained within one or more networks of inter-subjective meaning). The final process, "interpretation", is the other pole of symbolization - together they form a subjective feedback loop that is partially open. The act of interpretation extrapolates from the perceived symbol to treat that symbol as a clue in a broader plan of "meaning".

Okay, let me drop he theory for a bit and give an example. You're walking down the street in Boston past Parker House and you see a rather large person walk out of the pub at the corner carrying an AK 47. Now, the "rather large person" won't necessarily make much of a difference, but the AK will. What is "happening" and what will you do? How you answer these questions depends on a whole slew of factors but, primarily on a) what an AK symbolizes to you and b) how your interpretive system has trained you to react.

Okay, back to the main point: I would define an information operation as a consciously planned series of actions designed to modify either or both the symbolization and interpretation of particular signs and/or the categorization of signs in an effort to change their place in a more general system of meaning. Thus, for example, when I was noting the effect on the 2006 election, I was pointing towards AQ (and others I freely admit ) attempts to firmly establish in the minds of Democratic politicians a) AQ's continued existence despite all activity to the contrary, and b) the inability of the US to sustain ongoing operations.

Why in the minds of Democrats? That's pretty simple: given the two-party system of the US AQ could pretty much count on whichever party was out of power attacking the party in power. This has nothing to do with what any Democrat may actually believe (or perceive), but it has everything to do with AQ knowing that the Democrats will attack the Republicans because that is the way the US political system works. As a result, all they have to do is continue to taunt the President and continue to deploy videos showing US troops getting hit, civilians getting killed, etc. They know that these videos will be picked up by the US media and by the Democratic party and used to attack the Republicans. I really don't know if they predicted a political message of "We support the troops but not the war", but that is immaterial - they could count on the Democrats to come up with a culturally appropriate message.

While I am not a group psychologist, this particular meme complex seems to apply to an equal amount of groups on the "right wing" as on the "left wing", if not more. It also implies, as other previous postings have, that the "West" is something tangible, something an individual can disavow. OBL feels the same way. Personally, I don't buy it.

A couple of comments. First, the meme complex I mentioned shows up in many cultures and in all brands of politics. Second, "the West" is a perception that, like other perceptions, may be reified (turned into a "thing"). As such, "it" may then be disavowed. If you want other examples of the reifictation of perceptions, look at all sorts of social organizations including corporations, political parties, governments, etc. None of them exist in and of themselves - they are shared "delusions"if you will that people accepts as if they were "real" and, as a result of that acceptance, they become a "social fact" (if not a physical one. BTW, on this, take a look at Durkheim's Rules of the Sociological Method and The Division of Labour in Society).

Now back to taxes ....