Rumsfeld: "Can we talk?"
[Phillip Carter,
Saturday January 26, 2008 at 9:17am ]
(Via DANGER ROOM) A few days ago, former SecDef Don Rumsfeld made a public plea for better U.S. "strategic communications" in the global war on terrorism. He called on the Pentagon and other government agencies to jumpstart their anemic public diplomacy campaigns, both to get the good news out about America, and to counter the messages put forward by terrorist groups and other nations. This is something Rummy has been saying for a while. According to reports, here's what Rumsfeld had to say:. . . Private media does not get up in the morning and say what can we do to promote the values and ideas that the free Western nations believe in? It gets up in the morning and says they're going to try to make money by selling whatever they sell... The way they decided to do that is to be dramatic and if it bleeds it leads is the common statement in the media today. They've got their job, and they have to do that, and that's what they do.Jimminy Christmas! Heavens to Betsy! Goodness gracious!
We need someone in the United States government, some entity, not like the old USIA . . . I think this agency, a new agency has to be something that would take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that exist today. There are multiple channels for information . . . The Internet is there, blogs are there, talk radio is there, e-mails are there. There are all kinds of opportunities. We do not with any systematic organized way attempt to engage the battle of ideas and talk about the idea of beheading, and what it's about and what it means. And talk about the fact that people are killing more Muslims than they are non-Muslims, these extremists. They're doing it with suicide bombs and the like. We need to engage and not simply be passive and allow that battle of competition of ideas.
Rumsfeld's latest proposal suffers from a fundamental flaw (as did the IO campaign he waged while SecDef) — he's trying to put lipstick on a pig and convince everyone that it's not a pig.
Global opinion surveys aren't tilting against America because they dislike our message or aren't getting the good news. They're getting the message alright. And they're seeing exactly what we're doing, often times through our own media. The people responding to the surveys done by Pew, OSI, CIA, and others, are reporting their opinions based on incontroverted facts about U.S. actions. Simply, they are responding to our deeds, not our words, and nothing we do in the realms of "strategic communications" or "information operations" is going to change that. Nor will any amount of "public diplomacy."
The United States of America must do a great deal more to win the "hearts of minds" of moderates around the world than simply re-brand itself and develop a slick messaging campaign. We must earn their support through what we do — not what we say. Deeds like the U.S. efforts to deliver aid to Banda Aceh after the tsunami, or to Pakistan after its earthquake, go a long way towards doing this. The continuing, festering occupation of Iraq does little to help this, regardless of how much good our troops and diplomats do on the street. The eyesore of Guantanamo does a great deal to undermine whatever good we do. Ultimately, I believe we must pay a great deal more attention to our deeds — not our message — in order to earn the support of the world. Otherwise, our policies are just a pig. And no matter how much lipstick we might apply, it'll still just be a pig.
0 Trackbacks /
BTW, PC, have you seen this?
But until ol' Rummie has something more honest and substantive to say, what benefit is it to listen to him?
..
For god's sake, put it back in and shut that bag of incompetent bones up for good.
It s a not a pig. It s Jabba the Hat. Apart from that you re spot on.
Mr. Rumsfeld must have alienated just about every ally or sympathizer you ever had in the world by now. People may not always have been happy with his predecessors (Cap Weinberger comes to mind, though I personally rather approved of him) but Rumsfeld is in a different category entirely. He s got the reverse Midas touch: he can turn gold into dirt.
Do you mean like SGT Granger?
Al
A smart, articulate combat veteran of OIF? OK. Pretty shameful, really.
Oh, where to start? Well, we can start with how it presents the US to the muslim world: Instead of promoting the rule of Law (wich has been the US main propaganda point through Hollywood for 50 years) you suddenly put yourselves on moral parity with Al Quaeda. Seen in conjunction with Abu Ghraib, those images of the kneeling prisoners in orange jumpsuit about to enter Hell must be one of the most amazing, stunning incompetent propaganda-spiels ever conducted. Why the orange jumpsuits? Why the sensory-depravation goggles? Why the "extra-legal" status? Why the whole damn spiel? Not for military reasons, at least.
By choosing quite willingly the public profile of humiliating the enemies of the US, Rumsfeldt chose to profile the US as a nation without honour. When seen from a COIN perspective, that was the exactly wrong play, to put it mildly, so wrong in fact that at least I thought it was intended to create maximum conflict with the muslim world.
me thinks there is nowhere to "start" with the gentleman in question. Other than to suggest, were I in charge of marketing, at some large corporation, i would consider hiring him for the sole purpose of seeking his advice on all marketing issues. And then doing the exact opposite of whatever he suggested in the first place.
We'll start with al-Jazeera, which leads with the goofy Hamas operation to destroy Egypt's Rafah crossing and send more than 100,000 illegal (temporary?) immigrants into the Sinai on a buying binge.
Hamas says that "new arrangements" should guide Egypt's border policy. What would these "new arrangements" entail? Why, Hamas running the border, not Egypt!
So, what's Cairo's response? No problem, we'll turn the border over to Fatah's Abbas (no, I'm not kidding, and it's brilliant). According to Abbas, an international conference of donors to the Palestinian Authority determined this would be the most prudent course of action a month ago.
Touche, Hamas!
The director of Egypt's Intelligence Division, along with other government officials, will hold separate briefings with the Fatah-controlled PA and Hamas later.
Abbas has been in negotiations with Israel's Olmert government, too. On behalf of the UN, Israel has continued to supply fuel and electricity to Gaza, but authorities in Jerusalem said they would tinker with the gas, again, if rockets fell on Israeli territory.
The second top story is continuing unrest in Lebanon, where a recent slaying of the lead investigator into assassinations of pro-democracy politicians (most likely by agents of Syria).
More protests have been sparked by people demonstrating against electricity blackouts. So far, three dead (including one member of the Amal militia), 19 wounded.
The fifth most important story, to al J, was Obama's victory in the SC primary. According to the story, Obama told reporters he was the "agent of change" and that Hillary Clinton represented the "status quo."
How they formulated "Super Tuesday" was actually kind of weird, but they say that the primary will be important (and they're right!).
Al J doesn't seem to know the political office Sen McCain actually holds, but he's mentioned along with Romney and Giuliani.
Romney pops up a lot in the Middle Eastern press, mostly because Arab reporters have no idea how to explain his faith to their readers. When they talk about Obama, they tend to mention first his Kenyan heritage, then his race, then his youth, but that's a distant third.
Rival al-Arabiya goes with Lebanon as the top story, then pure sex!
Well, sort of. They do a feature story about a public intellectual from Syria, Muhammad Shahrour (he's the genial, grandfatherly figure in the photograph). He's known for controversial views about Islam, and here he's advocating for sexual relations between young men and women in temporary marriages (how much do you want to know about that?).
It's inside baseball, but for those who don't know Shahrour's most famous essay advocates a revisionist approach to the Koran's Sura of Repentance. He says that these comments about jihad against the pagans should be considered historically and that the Prophet did not mean for everyone to still be trying to create a martial caliphate.
He's also made controversial points about veiling women.
In case you're wondering, he's an engineering professor in Damascus and not a theologian.
1. An old story about the 600 foreign fighters smuggled through Syria into Iraq (we call it the "Sinjar List"). Well, it's old to us. It's been on CTC's website for a couple of weeks. Most, of course, are Saudis, but we were surprised to see so many names from Libya.
2. Which leads me to another top story in Iraq. Iraqis tied to the "Awakening" movement are accusing the son of Libya's Kaddafi of personally sending foreign fighters to Iraq. Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi runs a Libyan charity and is often used as mouthpiece for his father. He's the dude who made the first formal, public apology for the Lockerbie bombing. Whether it's true that Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi personally directs a 150-member terror squad in and around Mosul is beyond me. What's interesting is that prominent Sunni authorities in Anbar and Mosul believe it.
3. Iraqis find Penelope Cruz to be hot.
4. A shiekh in Najaf is murdered.
5. There are about 20,000 detainees being released from Iraqi/American jails, with about 70 departing the Coalition's facilities daily, but most might be leaving because of a proposed "amnesty" program. Disqualifying allegations would include the (suspected) crimes of kidnapping, terrorism, rape, incest, etc. There's no handy estimate of how many are in Iraqi prisons or how many are going to go. This is part of a "national reconciliation" program percolating along for about a year.
6. Lesbians! Well, a film star of a movie making all the rounds in Cairo recently showed two women smooching, which has led religious scholars across the region to yap about the eroding values, yada yada yada. Abdel Sabour Shahin, a famous Egyptian scholar, is leading the charge to arrest the filmmaker (Khaled Youssef) and his stars, but they still blame the "Zionist Jews" and "Americans" for what an Egyptian director put into a script performed by Arab actresses for a movie distributed only in the Middle East. Regardless, it gave the newspaper a chance to show a picture of two women hugging, which goes along with its typical lot of scantily clad tennis stars and Penelope Cruz.
In other words, Americans often are blamed for things they have nothing to do with, and hypocrisy typically has as much to do with the kerfluffle as anything else.
a film star featured in a movie... Amend as needed...
You've misread Hamas political intentions. They're more sophisticated than mere border crossings at Rafah. The goal is inclusion in the political negotiation process for Palestine. BTW: From a purely military perspective, you must admit that the operation involving the wall destruction was a masterstroke. At once, the military siege led by Israel came to a dramatic end. Now Gazans possess military, social and economic access to Sinai. And the pressure's on for the government of Iraq and political leadership of the WB.
Al-Hayat reports that President Ahmadinejad's official state visit to Baghdad will take place this March. It is assumed that Iraq's internal security and regional defense will be on the agenda. In the past, the Islamic Republic of Iran has signed agreements related to Iraqi security, defense and training. While these agreements have not been completely implemented, due to pressure exerted from the occupying power, this potential cooperation nevertheless provides the government of Iraq with a form of leverage with which to counterbalance efforts made by extra-regional forces intent on the pursuit of policies not wholly in the interest to the Iraqi nation.
Fuck Off.
My point is the USA is not going anywhere for anybody anytime soon. Thus when Kofi sent a letter to Bush to go fix darfur, and well Bush said FRAK no.
And one million died.
Be carefull what you ask for, you just got it world. How many more will die before you figure this out.
That maybe South Carolina has of all places become a high water mark for the last of poison that has shaped us since the 1980's. A time when regardless of which party sat in the White House it has been a quarter of a century where the lie did as Twain would say get around the world long before truth put on its boots. And so with the voice of Barak Obama who spoke of being united and the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy who spoke of the inspiration equal to that of her father we have an opportunity to turn ourselves. The Tide has turned. South Carolina, they sure know how to fire a cannon. Maybe us Yankees here in New Jersey will continue the volley.
I'll give you this Bill....my old phone worked well back then. And lasted for ever. Cost alot. But i lived without people hovering over me, like helicopters, with cell phone calls.
I'm all for who the Dems nominate. But don't try and sell me with a sound track of cannons going off in South Carolina. I saw what happened the first time they went off down there. Latch on to some other symbol Bill, to sell your dream. My two cents anyway. Oh, and just for the record...what, exactly, is the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy, or Ted, for that matter, really supposed to mean to me?
The pig is a pig because you say it is a pig. If you say it loudly enough and for long enough, it might eventually be true, you hope.
But I think you need to question your premises and look more objectively at what we need to do. There is no point in having an independent country if our decision making should center around what others want us to do. While I find the world opinion of America mildly interesting, it reflects more on the world and indicates that we need to focus on both policies that make sense, match our values and our priorities, and communicate those in an appealing way for everyone. That is what Rumsfeld wants.
Your hope for appeasement and following the plans of the external masses is exactly what OBL expected our reaction to his offensives to be. He wants us to cave and to behave like the dhimmis we really are. The most recent terrorism arrests in Europe were targeting 4 nations that are opposed to Bush and are not participating in the GWOT. Spain was the only one participating in combat operations until they pulled their support after they were attacked. That was the goal of the attacks, and they succeeded. The islamic terrorists are attacking again, going after nations they want to have submit.
Mr. Carter, you appear to want to be a dhimmi. Enjoy your dhimmitude but don't try to sell it to me. And instead of trashing other peoples' plans for how to move an agenda forward, attack the agenda, push for your own in specific. What of the world opinion do you want America to follow?
Shutting down Abu Ghraib?
Withdrawing yesterday from Iraq?
Leaving Afghanistan to NATO and the UN?
Turning everything of world import over to the UN?
Participating more fully in the UN Human Rights committees excoriation of Istrael?
Or should we follow the wishes of so many who just want Israel moved outside of the Middle East?
I agree that this post and much of what I read indicates that the left is not capable of leading, particularly in the world arena where we are strongly opposed. While we might give them that leadership, I shudder at what the consequences will be.
OK, Cameron: "Rule of law is violated by holding prisoners of war in human conditions?" Nope, it is done by declaring "prisoners of War", for wich treatment there are clear and specific rules, Unlawful Combatants and then suspending their right to a trial.
EntropyIncreases: "There is no point in having an independent country if our decision making should center around what others want us to do." Yeah, and there aint no point in having a wife &kids if you cant beat the shit out of them whenever you feel like it. Piss on international Law, Geneva Conventions and such are for sissies, right?
BTW, the most recent terrorist-arrests in Europe was the spanish-pakistani cell who came to take out Musharaff. The one before that was in London, and before that in Copenhagen (both of wich were really stupid kids on the net getting all fired up and not exactly the calibre of the Barcelona crew, wich was an adult operation.) All of those have had troops in Iraq.
How many muslims do you actually know, sir? Have you travelled abroad, especially in any muslim countries? Your continued use of the term "dhimmi" suggests to me that you are just another of these islamofascism will conquer the world panicked clones. In the early 90s it was UFOs. In the late 90s it was brain-control and scientologists. Post 9/11 its islamofascists. The real funny part is that when the economy comes crashing down around you, when the gasoline prices soar and everybody pisses on the US financially, you will propably find a way to blame it on A) the Democrats B) the islamofascists and C) the UN. I guess thats the nice thing about living in a paranoid dreamworld: Everything is explained.
MSR: the move by Egypt demanding Hamas/PLO cooperation as the price for the lifting of the siege of Gaza is a very interesting play. I think the "We will fight to the death" crowd might find that the people-power of Gaza will beg to differ, given an opportunity for normalization. The NRK (norwegian statechannel) took a taxi from gaza to egypt, the driver had not been outside the fence in 18 years. Imagine being stuck in a warzone for 18 years with nowhere to run. No matter what we might feel about the gameplay down there, that situation sucks.
What makes you think you're objective??
Mr. Bush is a criminal. Iraq is his worst crime.
Mark, are you really full of that much bullshit? The crossing was held not by Israel, but by Egypt, and had been for more than a year.
If you wish to look at the states implementing a "siege" (bs there, too, because Israel never cut off water, food, medicine or electricity, despite the Hamas photo op to the contrary), look to Egypt, the PA and Israel.
In the end, what has Hamas done for their people? Nothing. They have their Gaza, and yet all they can do is vie in their own civil war against Fatah, spar with the Egyptians and make life even more miserable for what's really a class of international welfare recipients.
End the terror and Hamas might have their own state. They don't want to end the terror because their elites get more from Iran than they ever will from their own taxpayers. And so the rockets keep falling, the people of Gaza continue to suffer, and Fatah establishes its own state along the West Bank with a capital shared in Jerusalem.
For all his corruption, Abbas at least can tell his people that Israel won't occupy them, they'll return to Jerusalem and they will have the benefit of international investment (land and cash for peace).
What with Gaza have? Whatever Iran says they can have.
Well, pot meet kettle.
Lets take a long look at this statement...lets see, since the /ahem "Right" has been in power for the past seven years lets take a good look at what the "Right" has done for the United States of America...
Come with me, little man.
A useless war in Iraq which is costing the United States BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
A failed enconomic policy which is costing the United States BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
An International dollar devaluation which is costing United States Businesses BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
A International failure of lender oversight which is costing the United States BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, which oddly enough is also leading to homelessness which costs the United States BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
So, your "Right" government is INCAPABLE of...
1: Policing itself.
2: Governing
3: and Fiscal Restraint.
What I find highly Ironic, and yet poetically pleasurable is that the "Left" is talking about...wait for it...Policing itsel, good governance, and OMG...the "Left" is talking about...CAN YOU FREAKING BELIEVE IT!...Fiscal Restraint.
You sir, have failed in trolling, failed in history, and failed in properly following the talking points your Republican leadership have handed you. Go back to Rove and company, and get your information rebooted, reloaded, so that you can properly parrot the party line.
Oh, and find a new handle...entropy seems to be your weak point too.
The only thing I want to hear about Rumsfeld is his mea culpa penned by a weeping Cheney as they both languish in Spandu Prison.
Al Jazeera begins their broadcast with more on Gaza(no)gate. Those are Egyptian troops filtering back along the border (an Israeli-Egyptian accord locked troop levels), closing up gaps in the wire.
Apparently, the Egyptians want to close all but one of the gates into Sinai after "several hundreds of thousands of" Gazans illegally crossed to go shopping (Al J's estimate is conservative; some Egyptian papers are quoting 700,000 illegal immigrants, which seems absurdly high -- that would be HALF OF THE STRIP'S POPULATION!!!!!!).
If half of Gaza is in a couple of Sinai shopping malls, who is still in the Strip? Fatah, now is your chance! Strike while everyone is in Sinai!
The Arab League has
sold outdisagreed with Hamas and now sides with Fatah and Egypt: They think Abbas should control the border crossing and special teams of security guards should be sent tobecome targets for Hamasthere to stem the flow of illegal immigration.While al J is going batsh*t over Gaza, Mosul, the West Bank, et al, rival al-Arabiya is local with its story about King Abdullah taking action (at the advice of a special council) to counter rising prices boosting the cost of living in KSA.
Blame the Israeli "siege!" Uhhh, no.
The King is going to increase social security payments by 10 percent and assume half the costs of the ports bringing in all those goods KSA's people would never dream of making themselves because that's work for lessers.
Billions and billions of riyals also will be spent building more public housing for KSA's rising population of
dead beatscitizens.The second big story is about Lebanon's putative "military" attempting to clamp down on riots in the southern suburbs of Beirut that killed several people over the weekend.
Last week, Christians and Sunnis were burning tires in the northern 'burbs and along the Tripoli Road to protest the slaying of the lead investigator into Syrian murders of popular politicians.
Over the weekend, Shiite demonstrators began burning tires to protest electricity brown-outs. Apparently, some particularly wired demonstrators went from burning tires to throwing grenades and randomly shooting toward a Christian neighborhood, at least according to the papers most loyal to those complaining factions.
The various Shiite parties in coalition with Nasrallah's
cult of personalitypro-Iranian Hezbollah claimed it's the Lebanese Army that's always been the bad guys, shooting people. The confessional parties blamed the government for "every spilled drop of blood."The Arab League recently tried to arbitrate the ongoing political disputes in Beirut, gave up, and now will hold a conference in Cairo diplomatically explaining that it was
Hezbollah intransigence and idiocyan environment in which it was too difficult to resolve the issues.1. Al Sumaria TV has an exclusive interview with Nuri al-Maliki! Maliki wants to increase the number of prominent ministers from 17 to 23 (more people probably want in on the take), which actually is down from the highpoint of (I think) 33 or so in 2006. The PM says he personally will go to Mosul with his army to hunt down salafist terrorists beyond the recent bombing spree. He holds out a peace branch for Anbar's "Awakening" sheikhs, saying that with pacification will come carrots (posts, political weight, etc).
2. Radio Free Iraq reports that the nation's electrical output probably won't improve much until after 2011 due to fuel shortages and security glitches. It's not so much that the crude needed to operate the plants isn't there, but rather that the pipes routinely are sabotaged. Some neighborhoods in Baghdad get power about an hour per day.
3. Other news agencies report that the government is negotiating a return of key Sunni Arab parties to the coalition. Allawi's Iraqi List group also is poised to consolidate positions in the cabinet. The List and Front groups left the cabinet last year, but in the spirit of "reconciliation" are willing to return. Maliki said he's ready to make compromises to keep the groups in the cabinet. Somewhere, Moqtadr al-Sadr is crapping himself.
4. After five Americans are killed by combined SAF and IED in Mosul, the Minister of Defense says that security actually is improving in Ninevah Province, but not in the city. A bomb detonated by foreign insurgents last week destroyed nearly 170 homes in Mosul, according to the Red Crescent.
5. Kurds are bitching about their proportion of the federal budget (17 percent) proposed by the parliament.
Background: The Ministry of the Interior claimed last week that provocations were spurred by foreign agitators (which was idiotic; if there's anything that could be seen a uniquely an Iraqi pathogen it would be the goofy Shiite death cults tied to the Soldiers of Heaven/Sky movement).
Al-Sistani himself in an interview I posted last week said (rightly) that these weird cults were festering during the decadent final years of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and burst fully on the scene in the chaos following the liberation.
On the cultural front, all the newspapers are still
hypocritically hypingagog over the Egyptian lesbian smooching scene!Since I don't want to be accused of milking Egyptian lesbian movies simply for my personal popularity, I'll turn to other cultural news.
Breaking news: Nancy Ajram is hot. That's her picking up some award in Doha.
She's sort of Lebanon's version of Debbie Gibson (I'm getting old), selling millions of albums across the region. She's also the voice of Coke in much of the Middle East.
We don't need/want your "Paul Harvey" distilations of today's news.
Why do you waste so much bandwith/time hijacking threads?
Maybe not.
You might notice how fracturing this would be to an
ossifiedtraditional culture awakening to a globalized assault on their values (a riot broke out in Bahrain when Ajam attempted to perform there during Ramadan).In this regard, I believe MR Carter is unfortunately right -- "rebranding" won't necessarily help us assuage those who feel most at odds with America.
It's not the message. It's the medium.
What I would suggest is that the media of popular culture will themselves (eventually) produce changes that drastically change much of what we think we know about the Middle East, but that these alterations will come in fits and starts and won't always be good.
Why? Because the media that feature Lebanese sex symbols hawking Coke also will show American Soldiers getting killed in Mosul, produce racist images of Israelis and facilitate the communications of terrorists with delusions of 12 centuries of persecution on their minds.
IRR,
I happen to find these news roundups interesting...though I find my inability to read Arabic annoying. German, I can wade through, Arabic, not a word.
As for Paul Harvey, Paul Harvey was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq...I haven't encountered that with MSR.
I'm defending him, he can do that himself, but I do find his news round ups fascinating...just wish he would start a blog about it...hint-hint.
The fiscal irresponsibility of the republicans is one of the reasons they lost so much credibility amongst conservatives. So I do not disagree with most people who don't think the conservatives have done too well with that. Love all those negatives...
It is ironic that the democrats think of themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. And for people who think that government is a nanny, and should fix their problems, then they will definitely not appreciate true conservatism. Fix New Orleans. Hold back the oceans. Hold back the mighty Mississippi. Reduce carbon emissions by 80% or 60% or 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5%, and maybe the Chinese and Indians will follow our good example and the oceans will stop their rise. An iceage might save NO, if enough water can be turned to glaciers...
Entropy does increase, kind of one of those fundamental things that probably escapes more of the commenters than I would have guessed -- but I guess education has been falling for some time, now.
So the war in Iraq has proved "useless". I would disagree, but since you just state it as a priori fact. I guess there is no point in asking you what you meant or what makes it useless. But if you have meaningful thoughts, please write them somewhere.
The failed economic policies which cost us billions have seen an economy that has outgrown any other in the world, continues to outpace other countries', and has earned us trillions. The failed policies oversaw the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever, an economic bubble that the last administration unwittingly aided that burst. They beat many growth estimates. Not that I credit them with most of that. I support america and pro-growth economic policies. The stimulus package being pushed by both sides shows that neither side should be trusted with economic policy. But if you think that higher taxes and socialism are peachy, then none of the plentiful evidence to the contrary will pursuade you otherwise.
The devaluation of the dollar also earns us billions. Things made outside the US cost more. Things we send out cost our consumers less. Parts of Europe are not too pleased with the strength of the Euro. I wonder why? I wonder if you understand the reasons for its decline. Or if you understand why the Chinese had pegged theirs to ours. Gasoline will continue to cost more and more. The reason the cost is declining recently is because the world thinks that a recession in the US will lead to less oil consumption on our part, leading to less demand, IIRC. But the east's thirst will continue. An energy policy that does not broaden our base across all production mechanisms will fail and lead to higher costs and brown/blackouts for the superpower of the world. And failing to take advantage of our natural resources and broaden our efforts across the board is something for which both major parties are responsible.
And a nanny state really should look after stupid people. I just don't want to live in a nanny state. And in our country, even stupid people can do quite well. Except for when they take out a large loan that they cannot hope to repay. Or when they think that bundling a whole bunch of bad loans together and selling them is a good idea. Banks are appropriately feeling the crunch. And I hope they learn a good lesson from this.
So the left learned some good lessons from the right. One would have hoped, but earmarks have continued. Bad government has continued. The new Congress is inept and has lower approval ratings than Bush, unbelievably. And many people on the left want one of the most contemptibly dishonest politicians in our history returned to the White House. (If you care, read about the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the clean coal connection. Connect the dots between coal, Riady, Pres. Clinton, and the monument. Clinton taking over a $1 Trillion worth of clean coal off the market for a $1 Million dollar illegal donation -- pitiful, if true)
For other threads, I know many Muslims. Most of the ones I know would rather live in the USA than in all of the Muslim countries of the world. I love that feminists support radical Islam, if it opposes Bush. Burkhas free women from the oppressive male masses, I guess. Beating wives is allowed within Islam according to the Koran, and the Saudi clergy who interpret it. I don't approve. But you might as well claim that I do since your telepathic powers are overcoming the tin hat I have worn since that UFO sighting in the 90s. I love this... I know Muslim women who didn't like the Taliban, because with them you never knew why you were being beat up. With the Iranian police, you always knew. So they preferred Iran to Afghanistan. I know Muslims who revere other religions they think worship their God. I do not often think that all Muslims are our enemies. I am pleased that OBL's popularity in most Muslim countries has fallen since AQI attacked other Muslims. And that approval for suicide bombing is falling, across the world, and even among Muslims in the US.
The bombings pushed by Pakistani jihadis was to be on behalf of AQ. And if you have not read OBL's, or Zawahiri's, or Zarqawi's opinion of the West, and understand how they predicted this blogs and many of this blog's commenters' comments, you miss the irony. If you do not understand how OBL interpreted our abandoning Somalia under Clinton, you cannot fully appreciate Bush's pigheadedness. When OBL and Zawahiri call for the same action as our fearless Democratic leaders, you must question them more closely.
I find it breathtaking because of the lack of brains and the mob mentality. Group think is an interesting phenomenon to observe, even if it is best to stay at a distance from the average mob. I will not be too upset about it, and look forward to the next year. If the dems take the oval office, I will not lose too much sleep. While they will take more of my money, spend it on stupid stuff, it won't be stupider (much, at least) than the bridge to nowhere the republicans approved. Clinton or Obama will not handle Pakistan well, but neither has the Bush administration, apparently. I expect that Iraq will be much different when the next administration takes over, but I could be suprised by the direction it takes. The progressives have mostly won popular agreement that government is supposed to be big, even if it is inept. People will rage against its ineptitude, but it will not change. Bureaucracies rarely do. They regenerate themselves and resist all change except their own growth. And thus entropy increases. It increases when we exhale, it increases when we burn fuel, it increases when we form steel. It increases during a recession and during a boom. It increases during fission, fusion, digestion, etc. It can decrease locally through effort, but that costs elsewhere. Work always does. Even work that increases order.
We aren't an evil country stealing people's oil. We are liberating them from tyranny and terror while protecting ourselves. It's a shame you people on the left take exceptions to the rule (a professional and decent U.S. military) and try to spin them as the rule. It disgusts the hell out of me.
If you care, read about the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the clean coal connection.
Without commenting on any of Mr. Entropy's other opinions, and leaving aside the political allegation, allow me to note en passant that there is no such thing as "clean coal" to be found anywhere on the planet, much less in any of the nation's national monuments.
Certain types of coal might be charitably described as being "slightly less filthy and dangerous coal". That's all.
The NYT a few days ago had a piece highlighting the fact that a single serving of bluefin tuna from any of several chi-chi sushi restaurants in Manhattan will deliver to the consuming patron a whopping dose of mercury, enough to be medically unsafe. Where is that mercury coming from? The overwhelming majority of it is coming from coal-fired power plants.
As a longtime advocate of civilian nuclear power, I sent a copy of the article around to all of the Sierra Club members of my acquaintance, pointing out that nuclear wastes go in deep geologic storage, rather than from smokestack, to sky, to sea, to ship, to dinner plate.
--
So give me coal, use your geothermal, solar, wind. Build nuclear, research those cool IV generation nuclear power plants.
From http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
"German Nazi Party member Joseph Goebbels became Adolf Hitler's propaganda minister in 1933, which gave him power over all German radio, press, cinema, and theater.
In 1925 Goebbels met the party leader Adolf Hitler. In 1926 he was made Gauleiter, or party leader, for the region of Berlin, and in 1927 he founded and became editor of the official National Socialist periodical Der Angriff (The Attack).
He was elected to the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1928. By exploiting mob emotions and by employing all modern methods of propaganda Goebbels helped Hitler into power.
His work as a propagandist materially aided Hitler's rise to power in 1933. When Hitler seized power in 1933, Goebbels was appointed Reichsminister for propaganda and national enlightenment.
From then until his death, Goebbels used all media of education and communications to further Nazi propagandistic aims, instilling in the Germans the concept of their leader as a veritable god and of their destiny as the rulers of the world. In 1938 he became a member of the Hitler cabinet council. Late in World War II, in 1944, Hitler placed him in charge of total mobilization.
As Reichsminister for Propaganda and National Enlightenment, Goebbels was given complete control over radio, press, cinema, and theater; later he also regimented all German culture.
Goebbels placed his undeniable intelligence and his brilliant insight into mass psychology entirely at the service of his party. His most virulent propaganda was against the Jews. As a hypnotic orator he was second only to Hitler, and in his staging of mass meetings and parades he was unsurpassed.
Utterly cynical, he seems to have believed only in the self-justification of power. He remained loyal to Hitler until the end. On May 1, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming Berlin, Goebbels committed suicide.
Listed below are the principles purported to summarize what made Goebbels tick or fail to tick. They may be thought of as his intellectual legacy. Whether the legacy has been reliably deduced is a methodological question. Whether it is valid is a psychological matter. Whether or when parts of it should be utilized in a democratic society are profound and disturbing problems of a political and ethical nature.
GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA
Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.
2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.
b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.
c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences
3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.
4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence
b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions
c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself
d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity
5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign
6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.
7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.
8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.
9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.
10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.
11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.
12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness
14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof
15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.
16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves
17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective
18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.'
I don't know if this is true or real or not. I just found it on the web. Sure ought to make us think, though.
Based on the previously reductive statements about Islam, I'm not sure you quite gather how politicized, radicalized Islam is used to communicate grievances. I'm fairly certain you haven't really listened to al-Zawahiri's in their proper context, most assuredly not a very different man -- al-Zarqawi -- and his polemics.
I'm completely convinced that Osama bin Laden has yet to tackle comments made in blogs, although I can well imagine a project for a young acolyte being pressed to do so.
What I find is odd is that I actually post in translation the top stories of the day in the various Arab presses and TV/radio stations, and this is considering thread hogging.
I've even concentrated on Iraq. This was done so that we shall quit projecting what we think they're saying about us and actually read, you know, what they read and hear what they hear about us.
That seems to me the entire point of MR Carter's post. Instead, it again devolves into people who think they know, in abstract, how we're perceived, and each comment seems to frame us not with the boxwood of the Arab world, but with the stuff of his or her own political convictions.
Nothing is simple about the many worlds of Islam. It's not a monolith that internalizes "messages" about America and spits them back at us. Quite the opposite.
I've presented to you one commercial that "sells" an idea about America to the Middle East. This is a commercial that runs from Egypt all the way to Iraq and the Gulf States. How is the medium through which it flows perceived? How destabilizing is the image of a sexy Lebanese teens cavorting with other nubile Arabs understood? What is the reaction to it?
These are important questions.
Actually, I think before the war he was a registered Republican (in California!). I might be wrong there, but that's how I remember it.
Maybe you should be asking yourself why an OIF vet who went to war as a Republican returned to post valentines for Obama.
By acknowledging that salient fact, I'm not endorsing the transformation, nor suggesting that it's even typical. But it's interesting in its own right, and probably not the square peg you're trying to pop into a round hole.
You don't need to read the text. Just look at the photos.
We have an unseen figure of authority (cop) extending a lance-like billy-club to prevent the movement of an obviously devout Muslim woman and -- reading this from the vantage of a Middle Eastern audience -- a young man who is either her husband, son or a sibling.
In the background, a policeman (representing the state) is holding his hand over his nose, as if repulsed by their smell, and laughing at them.
In the background is a blurry person, but most likely a young, poor woman who has contrived for modesty's sake a quick abaya.
Does it matter that the story involves Egyptian policemen trying to reassert control over the Rafah border crossing? The text to the online story (and the voice-over for the TV broadcast) narrates a less gripping image: The Palestinian Authority, under Abbas, is being asked to take over security at the border crossing, with Israel, Egypt and the Arab League supporting that reform. EU monitors might join in to lend international legitimacy.
In response, Hamas (the guys who opened up the border with a military operation) says that Egypt, the EU, the Arab League and everyone else involved in the PA decision were controlled by an "international conspiracy" run by the "Zionists" and their neighbors (the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan, Egypt, et al).
Fair enough. That's what the words say.
But what does that image "mean" to consumers of the news across the Arab world? This is complex.
I would suggest that the image is a bracing one that reinforces notions about heavy-handed, dictatorial states (strangely un-liberated by US military power) keeping down the poor, the dispossessed, those abandoned by the regional Arab powers.
Again, this is a dispute that won't likely bring in the US, except at the margins. Indeed, the US isn't even mentioned in the entire story.
But who is the US supporting? In this image, it's the men with the clubs keeping a poor, devout woman from escaping her hell. The cop disgusted with the smells of the devout poor, who laughs at them. Derides them.
Perhaps before we talk about changing the "message," we must acknowledge that the medium itself is jolting to a traditional, hierarchical society largely kept in an old, comfortable place because of petro-dollars.
Further, we should acknowledge that the very "western" values we embrace are uniquely poised to disrupt these ossified cultures when they confront each other, as they surely will increasingly because of the new media (internet, TV, et al) and the free global flow of products, peoples and ideas.
A very large proportion of traditional Arab society will "hate" (it's not so simple) the west regardless of whether we shut down GITMO or not.
I argue we should shut down GITMO for us, not them. But that's just me.
We can't change much about this without becoming something we can't become or, I would argue, shouldn't become. It's stupidly simplistic when those on the partisan left say, "They hate us for our foreign policies."
No. Some hate us for how they've constructed us in regards to those policies, without any nuance. They also will hate us regardless of our foreign policies because of the media we represent.
In KSA today, a very great debate is going on concerning "facebook." I won't pretend to understand either the mechanics or the allure of this newfangled "facebook" gadget.
But let me give you an idea how even the word "facebook" would appear to a devout cleric in KSA: Faces are images, craven at that; the only "book" that really matters is that recording of the divine word as transmitted through the Prophet. Any computerized tool that allows for a changing, online portrayal of faces -- especially those that would mix young male and unveiled female mugs -- is a direct assault on the culture that is the bedrock of a quasi-theolocratical state.
We won't even address the fact that gay KSA Facebook sites erupted once it reached the Kingdom, or that the dating spaces are some of the most popular.
For a dictatorship like the Alawite thugs who run Syria, they look over the border at Lebanon and see how "Facebook" became a social tool for organizing political revolt against them, and they don't like it. So it's banned.
The reason? Since all power in Syria is based on an idiotic claim that the state is in constant war against Israel, it's outlawed because it's a tool of "Zionist agents." Since it was so popular before the ban, this is considered complete BS. But are you willing to risk five years in a Baathist prison over the issue?
Regardless of how the utility is used, "Facebook" is seen as (rightly) an import from America. It is at once all liberating (I can have my own Facebook? Netting my own friends, randomly, regardless of their religion, caste or tribe?), and therefore threatening.
Yet would you be the one to say: As Americans who care about Middle Eastern opinion, we hereby restrict the use of Facebook or any other social network invention we come up with, lest be prove too destabilizing?
I guarantee you that Facebook -- as humble as it seems to you -- has been far more destabilizing to nations and cultures across the Middle East than all the images of Abu Ghraib.
What do you do about it?
Oy, coffee not setting in.
I think it's an excellent point that you emphasize not what we see, but what the Arab world sees, and how a picture is viewed by us, a police officer stopping a woman and son[?], vs the Arab world seeing a secular state harassing one of the faithful.
Interesting presentation of pictures reinforcing the notion of western politically infused secularism in the Arab state vs Islamic Cultural sensitivities.
I'd use the term "spamming", but whatever it's called, it's not anything that might represent an honest effort to discuss the issues. It's just you blowing a lot of smoke to strike a pose that you are very, very knowledgeable and that the only way anyone here could possibly be worth of discussing anything with you would be to devote ourselves entirely to the study of what you think is important to study.
Or something like that. Pure bunk is another term that comes to mind. If you really think this stuff has value, you should start your own blog for it. All you are doing here is submerging what little real discussion there is under an avalanche of noise.
How many times have I asked you what the objectives in Iraq are MSR?
And how many times have you ignored the question?
Since MR Carter likes Obama, here's the story on him playing on al-Jazeera.
Al J's story is slightly critical, noting that he recently met with Israeli media and that he said he wasn't going to strictly apply the notion of the right of return for Palestinians to Israel.
This is one of the first major stories on al J I've read that didn't start with the fact that he was a "Kenyan." His campaign outreach obviously is having some effect on al J.
Meanwhile, you're still dodging the question because you're too chicken-shit to answer it honestly and expose yourself to an actual discussion of your views. This much is clear: you don't scare me a bit, you disgraceful fraud.
January 29, 2008
NECK DEEP IN THE MUD, PRETENDING WE'RE NOT
by Jon Carroll
this amuses me.
:)
..
You wrote: "I guarantee you that Facebook -- as humble as it seems to you -- has been far more destabilizing to nations and cultures across the Middle East than all the images of Abu Ghraib."
This strikes me as a silly, and incorrect, assertion. Although I know of no objective criteria to back up my comment,, and I don't have the time to search for it if it exists. So, I'm left to offer my subjective opinion which you do not care for, or rate highly. Ok, well enough, we disagree.
What seems certifiably ludicrious to me, is the following: that you "guarantee" the soundness of this assertion is flat out bunk. How can you guarantee anything with this regard? It is your opinion and a shoot from the hip one at that.
a complete idiotJon Carroll, Charles. He's neck deep in something, and I'd say it's a steaming pile of his ownlieshypocrisy.Jon Carroll, Jan 29, 2008
Jon Carroll, Feb 27, 2007
Actually, one would assume that the same Jon Carroll bloviating only 11 months ago about a subject he seemed to only vaguely understand, would be most surprised to note the very opposite of what he predicted would transpire.
The so-called "Surge" seems to have done quite a few good things he didn't believe would occur. Now he suggests it's "no surprise" when these good things happened.
Now, perhaps we should give the redoubtable Jon Carroll the benefit of the doubt, and concede that he probably forgot
how ass-backwards he waswhat he penned 11 months ago before trying to rearrange himself before the mirror of punditry.But why should we concede this to him? He's a big boy, right?
He was wrong. Hopelessly, incompetently wrong. Why not just say it?
One would assume that since Syria, KSA and UAE have either begun or finished efforts to outlaw Facebook, citing the destabilizing effects of its use on their cultures and government, and not one of these regimes has sought to ban photos of the Abu Ghraib debacle or felt even the slightest pressure by their subjects against them because of what Americans did in a cellblock in Iraq, this would be obvious.
But obviousness isn't a hallmark of this forum, is it?
Dr Brin asserts that the greatest contribution the Western Enlightenment has brought to the world is the primacy of the individual, and that our entertainment industry is the vanguard of it. In other words, that we should not strive to preserve societies or organizations, but rather, the people in them. Human life is more important than the survival of the hierarchy. One should always be suspicious of authority. We spread this idea through our movies and fictions to the rest of the world, where the young, upstart Maverick prevails at the end, and where we laugh at the dour Air Boss. His great review of Lord of the Rings explains the above much better than I do.
My point is, viewed in this light, Facebook is indeed subversive by promoting individualism and alternative social structures. The KSA might ban it, but then they already lost when they allowed in American action movies, which are full of the everyday heroes challenging authorities and exposing conspiracies.
The surge has accomplished absolutely nothing of real significance. We're still there, Iraq is still a disgraceful mess, and there still isn't any legitimate reason for us to be there in the first place. It remains what it was from the start: an inexcusable crime against peace that has done nothing but make a bad situation worse. You people have all the strategic understanding of a rat running inside a wheel. The wheel speeds up and sloes down and your exactly in the same spot you were when you started.
They were better off under Saddam.
I agree that it is a mess. But it is no longer a mess that is likely to create a hostile country with WMDs, which supposedly would have been re-created with nascent programs and personnel Saddam was keeping in his pocket. Apparently, one of the reasons he wanted the world to think he had WMDs was to stave off what he thought would be an imminent Iranian invasion which he no longer had the military strength to withstand after the first Gulf War and intervening sanctions. It is also a mess that motivated at least one country to halt its secret nuclear weapons program. And if we read between the lines of the most recent NIE summary and trust their most basic and well-CYA-ed judgement, halted Irans weapons program.
I am very glad that Saddam is gone and that Iraq has a brighter future. It is not assured, obviously, but it is more likely now than it was a decade ago. I think it sucks that we had to do it shouldering almost all of the sacrifice. But the rest of the world (excluding quite a few countries), punted.
It is a mess, partially because Rumsfeld and some of the senior military are moron's who did not understand an insurgency or COIN theory. It is also a mess because AQ decided to make a stand there. Not that they were originally allied with Saddam, but they saw a golden opportunity to attack the US with extended supply lines, and a sectarian divide they understood well enough to exploit. We have done pretty well against AQI, and it appears they are shifting/have shifted more of their focus to Afghanistan/Pakistan. AQIM has also had some disturbing success.
Someone who has seen war, seen death, seen sacrifice, and thinks it not worth it, is going to have issues where switching parties is not surprising. While it bears some thought, weighing the costs and benefits on a larger scale seems more fruitful. More people who have been seem to support it than not, but even a minority has a right to their opinions. And the majority is not necessarily right.
What are the military objectives in Iraq?
You can't pretend to be talking about success or failure until you answer that. Iraq was no threat to the United States before the invasion, and it's just a bleeding wreck now.
If you want to talk about casualties, I want to see some actual numbers. The US hasn't sacrificed anything compared to what we've inflicted on the people of Iraq, and pissing away money and lives for nothing is a WASTE, not a sacrifice. We've occupied Iraq for nearly five years now, and the country still isn't even remotely close to being pacified or secure.
And I ask again: what are the military objectives?
MSR, when a Lebanese or Palestinian person sees IDF/AF warplanes in the air, they know the planes are built in the US, so is the ordnance being dropped on them. They even know that most or even all of it is paid for by US taxpayers. When they're confronted by IDF troops assaulting their towns and villages, they see the small arms being used against them. And they know that much of it is manufactured in the US and given to the IDF using funding from US taxpayers. In their eyes, they know the source of their pain and grief.
Come on MSR. You've been to the Middle East. You've been to Iraq. You've seen the faces of families facing daily tragedies of war. The closest thing most Americans will ever see to such a reality is a viewing of the old pro-gun movie, Red Dawn. But you know better. You were there. When an aerial bomb dropped by a USAF F-15 Strike Eagle hits a house in a village, and the collateral damage kills a nine year-old girl, it is considered morally acceptable due to the fact that she was not the intended target of the attack. Well, you know, the family thinks otherwise. So do the rest of the folks in the village. Multiply this by 100,000. You know what I'm talking about.
MSR, I don't know if you have any experience as a combat officer, whether you're infantry, armor, etc. or whether the bulk of your experience is in some form of staff duty. But surely, you must have had occasion to see some of the human suffering that has taken place in Iraq, during what the Iraqis refer to as "The Second American War".
So please, go right ahead with your renderings from the mainstream Arab internet press in Arabic. I find it interesting, too. And I agree, you should start your own blog. I'd read it.
Actually, I think many things are obvious here. First and foremost is the, in this case, relatively minor, but
revealing example of the 'magic thinking' that has dominated the discourse in this country the past 6 years or so. You start out, as is the hallmark of this kind of nonsense, with the false bravado.....you "guarantee" that your assertion is accurate. Well, up until recently, self doubt and reflection have not been in fashion among the powers that be. Then you offer some lame reasoning backed up by no objective criteria. Of course you have to be forgiven for that because there really very little criteria to measure in this field.....objective or subjective. When called on it...you double down on your bravado.....like the lout in the bar who raises his voice as the quality of his arguments sinks. And look at the argument you proffer....it is worthy of some attention:
You mention three regimes that are in the process of attempting to 'ban' access to Facebook, juxtapose that with the odd assertion that these same states