Our “Liberation” Message
Many have been arguing (and I agree) that since the Iraq invasion--or “liberation” depending on who you agree with--took place, the Administration and its political supporters have completely misunderstood the context and details of the middle-east-hates-America problem, the effects of the war on our credibility and the War on Terror.
Finally, a government committee convened by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz seems to agree. In a report by the Defense Science Board (DSB)—that was released the day before Thanksgiving on PDF! Coincidence?—conclusions and recommendations are made that are not optimistic considering we have another four years of “they hate freedom” claims and the like. It turns out that the DSB agrees that we’ve made a mistake. I can’t wait to watch the Sunday shows this week to see how many hosts call out administration officials on this.
The report points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem and an inappropriate choice for a solution: our credibility as “liberators” is questioned abroad because we historically have supported tyrannical regimes in that area (e.g. Saddam Hussein) and because they think we have blindly supported Israel. (Before anyone gets angry with me, I’m not saying I agree with those views, although they’re more accurate than the views of our administration; I’m agreeing that we frame the problem incorrectly and ineffectively, often ignoring facts and the views of the “enemy” in a way that serves us badly-- Well…in a way that serves us and the thousands of people who have died as a result of our “liberation” efforts badly.)
This report is realistic and thorough, commenting on policy and communication methods and taking a well-rounded approach to the problem beyond military activity. Please read it. There’s an excellent column written by James Norton on the subject that is also worth a quick look.
posted by The Decider @ 3:43 PM
1 Comments:
That really is interesting -- wow! Thanks for helping air this a little.
I especially like the simple (and misleading) view of the breakdown of the Muslim world-as-audience versus the more complex (and accurate) analysis on and around pp. 41-42.
I also admire the document's readability and keen observations about messages in the information age, like the following excerpt from page 20:
Fifty years ago political struggles were about the ability to control and transmit scarce information. Today, political struggles are about the creation and destruction of credibility.Unfortunately, as the footnote for the above excerpt explains, people have limited attention spans (case in point: I should admit here that I didn't -- and probably won't -- read this report nearly cover-to-cover), which means that simpler analyses, documents, and catch-phrases, however misleading, play directly into the strength of the Bush administration and others who choose oversimplified (and hence quicker) modes of analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home