How do you change the perception?

[Bill Moore]

First, I don't think any NCO or officer below 3 stars has a full understanding of why we're in Iraq, we just have our opinions. We went there allegedly to find WMD, and it wasn't there. Strike one in the IO battle. We went there to sever the non-existent link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda, strike two. Then we had the normal, none the less serious, crimes and mistakes that were the result of imperfect men (all of us) in combat. Several of them were in the headlines for months (several strikes, but the game goes on).

It is hard for leaders to speak with a credible voice after they sacrificed their integrity in front of the world. Furthermore, our national leaders used securing our oil interests in speeches previously, though never stated it as the primary reason, yet the association of our VP with Halliburton and the President with the oil industry isn't helpful. It doesn't have to be true, just believable. Anyway whether our people like it or not, oil security is important to the world's economy, not just ours. However, we can't say that publicly to an audience that taught to think within a politically correct box.

Revisit your points, and then put them in perspective. First they are your opinion, not fact. Second, your opinion is competing against a number of other opinions. Unfortunately if you refer back to the first paragraph your (our) opinion isn't looking good in the best commercial contest. The others have supporting arguments that are in the headlines daily. It sort of puts us in a position where people wonder what the heck we're talking about.

How to over come it? To be frank I have by doubts that we can under the current administration, and unfortunately with the unreasonable pressure from Congress to pull out soon, our only option may be to get our credibility back under this administration.

One option we have, and to date have done a terrible job with, is making the bugger stick somewhere else. Our soldiers are not intentionally killing civilians; as a matter of FACT they are risking their lives to save Iraqi civilians. People get this, but they need to hear it more.

They also need to hear (much more often) that the a--holes we're fighting do not have a plan for Iraq, they are only seeking self power, and they are resorting to terribly vicious means to achieve it. We need to show front and center on the headlines (for weeks at a time) when a suicide bomber intentionally puts children in his car so he can by pass check points to get to a position where he can kill more children. We need the names of the children, conduct interviews with the family members, for change put the enemy on the defensive. And perhaps (just an idea) interview the suicide bomber's family (concurrently with family members of those killed) to gradually kill the social acceptance of this tactic.

The biggest challenge in the IO war though is convincing the home audience that the sacrifice is worth it. With relatively very little effort we can put the bad guys on the defensive on the moral front (will we do it? I don't know), but equally important is showing we have a "viable" plan and we're making progress. If we can't show that, then it is unrealistic to expect support for continued operations, because you're then asking the American people to invest their blood and dollars into hope, not a plan.

[kaur]

Economist wrote in last edition story "How it all went wrong in Iraq." Blair has said sorry. Can US say "I'm sorry" and repair mistakes that have been done? It's terrible effort I suppose.

http://www.economist.com/world/displ...ory_id=8881663

[slapout9]

One option we have, and to date have done a terrible job with, is making the bugger stick somewhere else. Our soldiers are not intentionally killing civilians; as a matter of FACT they are risking their lives to save Iraqi civilians. People get this, but they need to hear it more.

They also need to hear (much more often) that the a--holes we're fighting do not have a plan for Iraq, they are only seeking self power, and they are resorting to terribly vicious means to achieve it. We need to show front and center on the headlines (for weeks at a time) when a suicide bomber intentionally puts children in his car so he can by pass check points to get to a position where he can kill more children. We need the names of the children, conduct interviews with the family members, for change put the enemy on the defensive. And perhaps (just an idea) interview the suicide bomber's family (concurrently with family members of those killed) to gradually kill the social acceptance of this tactic.

This is critical, during the Malayan Campaign the Brits never called it a war they called it an emergency! Every chance we get we should reduce these acts to that of common MURDERS not inflate them to TERRORIST, which to them may be freedom fighters or protecting their religion. They should never be viewed as soldiers in any way just criminals and they should be wanted and hunted for killing people in the manner that Bill suggest!

[marct]

Hi Bill,

The biggest challenge in the IO war though is convincing the home audience that the sacrifice is worth it. With relatively very little effort we can put the bad guys on the defensive on the moral front (will we do it? I don't know), but equally important is showing we have a "viable" plan and we're making progress. If we can't show that, then it is unrealistic to expect support for continued operations, because you're then asking the American people to invest their blood and dollars into hope, not a plan.

Honestly, I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, the "home audience" is a critical target for the reason you state, but it isn't the biggest IO challenge.

First off, this is a multi-party IO war (I prefer the term "symbolic war" - more on that in a couple of months when I get the time to write it up). And, as with the fight in Iraq, the "sides" are amorphous:

1. A broadly centrist / left of centre political ideology that operates strongly in Europe and, to a lessor degree, in North America.
2. A broadly individualist political ideology that operates moderately strongly in North America, Britain, Oz, India, etc.
3. A highly reactionary revitalization movement within Islam, broadly descended from the Muslim Brotherhood.
4. A moderate (for Islam) secularizing / reformation movement within Islam.
5. A sometime capricious, highly self-centered and self-referential, loosely "political" but, actually economic, ideology that infuses many corporate organizations.

Second, the IO war is not taking place in a geographically limited space but, thanks to inexpensive global communications technologies, is taking place world wide in "information space". It is a perfect example of what Barry Wellman calls "glocalization" - "Think Globally, Act Locally" and its corollary, "The Local is the Global".

Third, the US can not win the GWOT without large amounts of support from other nations, especially in the form of economic "support" (loosely construed). Without that support, the US could find itself stuck in a situation of an economic warm war with both China and the EU that would, basically, cause a massive recession in the US economy (look at the trade and production figures for China, the US and the EU as well as foreign cash reserve figures).

What all of this admittedly somewhat round about argument means is that the actual IO war that counts is one that attempts to construct an alliance between actors 1, 2 and 4 that moderates the glocal perceptions of actor 5 against actor 3. The area of operations must be glocal (global and local), not geographically based.

Marc