Redstate

This front in the War Against Militant Islamism should be a higher priority

By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

As noted in my previous post, I've been critical of Donald Rumsfeld's performance as Defense Secretary. But my opposition does not extend to cheap shots. An example is the hatchet job by Robert Burns of Associated Press, making stuff up about Rumsfeld's Tuesday speech at the American Legion National Convention. Thankfully, McQ at QandO exposes the rank bias that Burns is guilty of, comparing Burns' interpretation of Rumsfeld's speech with Rumsfeld's actual words. [Update:  In typical fashion, AP changed its content without announcing any changes.  See the QandO update.]

The worst part of Burns' misleading reportage was that it was unquestioningly spread to other news sources such as CNN, ABC, Fox and who knows how many other outlets. Mainstream media was already burned with fauxtography in the Israel-Hezbollah War, yet here we are again, witnessing a mainstream media reporter peddling faux news. Predictably, the Democratic Party took the Burns' hit piece and ran with it, never mind the actual text of the speech. [Update: Allahpundit has found more interpretation problems concerning Rumsfeld's speech.]

It's hard enough fighting an information war against al Qaeda and its sympathizers. The challenge is all the greater when a sometimes hostile media twists and distorts the words of the very people who are directly engaged in fighting this War Against Militant Islamism. Concerning the Information War, Rumsfeld is dead right:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday he is deeply troubled by the success of terrorist groups in "manipulating the media" to influence Westerners.

"That's the thing that keeps me up at night," he said during a question-and-answer session with about 200 naval aviators and other Navy personnel at this flight training base for Navy and Marine pilots.

I should note that the above was also reported by AP's Robert Burns. It is troubling the success of terrorist groups manipulating the media to influence westerners, and the Israel-Hezbollah War is just the latest example. The answer, simply, is to respond quickly and--if need be--forcefully. The Bush administration and the Defense Department need a media war room in order to answer attacks and prevent offenses such as Burns'. They need rapid response teams to rebut false and misleading charges made by foreign media and terrorist mouthpieces. Bloggers can help.

It is good news that Rumsfeld and Cheney are now taking more of an offensive in this Information War. Better late than never, I suppose. But as the saying goes, better never late. The information front is every bit as important as the others, the hot war included. Ayman al-Zawahiri understands this concept well. In his letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi last October, the number two man in al Qaeda wrote the following in his outline for waging successful jihad:

However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.

Al Qaeda knows its doesn't have the firepower to win, so it wins where it can, which is where the Information War enters the picture. This is a war against an ideology. To counter it and defeat it, we must confront the ideology and tell the world why and how it must be tossed into the dustbin of history. Rumsfeld himself admitted that he's fallen short on the information front:

Well, I guess another thing I would say -- that I would change -- I would -- even to this day, I do not spend as much time thinking about how to communicate as I do doing the things I have to do here. I mean, we just evacuated 15,000 people out of Lebanon -- moved a major city. Just -- we just sent 500 firefighters out to the west coast. We have got so many things going on in this department. And I wasn't recruited and asked to take this job because I had spent my life in communications. I just haven't. And yet, the fact of the matter is the enemy is fairly skillful. I mean, they have media committees, they work the problem, they plan their attacks to get the maximum drama so that they'll get on the front page, they lie and cheat and dummy up photographs and do all kinds of things that are totally unacceptable in our society, and they're never held to account for it. They know how to manipulate the media in this country and in the capitals of the world. And they know that they can't win a battle out there in any -- in Iraq or Afghanistan. All they can do is win in the capitals of the Western countries. And the center of gravity of these wars, these conflicts, this struggle is clearly in Washington, D.C., and in the country.

Rumsfeld has been too late recognizing, addressing and responding in the Information War. It's within his power to change the communications set-up, yet little has happened (but give him credit for addressing it these past couple of weeks). In this War Against Militant Islamism, a Defense Secretary needs to have a competent media apparatus. Bush is also responsible for these lapses. This doesn't mean that we answer untruth with untruth, but we do have to answer. If not, false perceptions will continue to supercede in the Muslim world.

Last week, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a piece on the challenges of engaging in the Information War:

So what Mr. Bush is faced with is this nearly impossible paradox of half war/half peace: at a time when most are getting fed up with abhorrent Middle Eastern jihadists who blow up, hijack, and behead in the name of their religion, he is attempting to convince the same American public and the Western world at large to spend their blood and treasure to help Muslim Afghans, Iraqis, and now Lebanese, who heretofore — whether out of shared anti-Americanism or psychological satisfaction in seeing the overdog take a hit — have not been much eager to separate themselves from the rhetoric of radical Islam.

In any case, the administration’s problem is not really its (sound) strategy, nor its increasingly improved implementation that we see in Baghdad, but simply an American public that so far understandably cannot easily differentiate millions of brave Iraqis and Afghans, who risk their lives daily to hunt terrorists and ensure reform, from the Islamists of the Muslim Street who broadcast their primordial hatred for Israel and the United States incessantly.

[...]

What, then, is needed — aside from crushing the jihadists and securing Afghanistan and Iraq — is more articulation and explanation. The word "liberal" — as in promoting liberal values abroad, and reminding the world of the traditions of liberal tolerance — needs to be employed more often.

Some tough language is also helpful on occasion: any time the free democracies of Iraq or Afghanistan wish to vote to send American troops home, of course we will comply. Likewise, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon are under no compulsion to accept hated American aid or military help. And just as the American public needs reminding that millions of Middle Easterners are currently fighting jihadist terror in Afghanistan and Iraq — we wish we could say the same about our "allies" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — so too the Iraqi and Afghan governments should convey to the American people that their support is appreciated, and its continuance deemed vital.

How odd that the president must explain the pathologies of the Middle East to such a degree as to warn Americans of our mortal danger, but not to the point of excess so that we feel that there is no hope for such people. He must somehow suggest that jihadism could not imperil us were it not for the "moderates" who tolerate and appease it — while this is the very same group that we feel duty-bound to offer an alternative other than theocracy or dictatorship. And he must offer a postwar plan of reconstruction to the citizens of the Middle East at a time when many of them do not feel that their romantic jihadists have ever really been defeated at all.

Even the eloquence of a Lincoln or Churchill would find all that difficult.

Yes, eloquence is needed and it is d*mn difficult. But so what. It's hard work, but the effort needs to be made. The issue for Bush (and his inner circle of advisors) hasn't been the message itself, but its delivery. Over the course of these two administrations, rather than being a Reaganesque Great Communicator, George Bush (and, by extension, the administration) has been an Occasional Communicator. As I mentioned here, Stephen Green wrote a long and important piece about this very issue:

Previously, I wrote that in order to win the Terror War, we must "prove the enemy ideology to be ineffective," just as we did in the Cold War. In that conflict, we did so in three ways: by fighting where we had to while maintaining our freedoms, but most importantly by out-growing the Communist economies. I argued that similar methods would win the Terror War. We'd have to fight, we'd have to maintain our freedoms, but the primary key to victory in the Current Mess is taking the initiative.

What I didn't see then - but what I do see today - is what "taking the initiative" really means.

It means, fighting a media war. It means, turning the enemy's one great strength into our own. Broadcast words, sounds, and images are the arm of decision in today's world.

And if that assessment is correct, then we're losing this war and badly.

Green wrote this almost ten months ago, and I think his assessment is still accurate. Last March, I mentioned a commentary by Dick Morris, who wrote the following:

If Bush doesn't get his act together and begin to work hard at building popular support, his self-indulgence will land him in ever-deeper misery. His ratings will stay stagnant; then he'll lose one or both houses of Congress — and spend his final two years in office dodging opposition bullets, subpoenas, perhaps even impeachment. It will mean personal misery for this good man, and leave a cloud on his legacy that will take years to erase.

All because he doesn't want to do what he must — get up every day and go out and speak to America.

President Bill Clinton kept his job rating over 60 percent through all the days of Monica and impeachment. It had nothing to do with a good economy; as Bush is finding out, a growing GDP doesn't guarantee growing approval ratings. Clinton went before the nation every day with a new speech, an executive order, a proposal, a bill signing or some other media event.

He didn't just recycle his old proposals. Each day, he unearthed a new idea or initiative to keep his daily majority. He knew that without it, with an opposition Congress, he was a goner.

Dick Morris has been wrong many a time, but in this case (and communications is his specialty), I think he's right. In his heart of hearts, I'm guessing that Tony Snow agrees with this as well. Here's my outline, for a start:

• • Iraq is one of the two most important issues on Bush's plate. He and his people need to get out there every day, providing new information. The daily campaign is a fact of life, and Bush has the bully pulpit for steering the national discussion.
• • On Iraq, don't cheerlead, don't resort to overused rhetoric and don't get too alarmist. Otherwise, folks will just tune out. Rather, provide more and better information about what's going on and what we're doing to achieve victory.
• • Remind the public of our overall strategy frequently and not just on the U.S. military websites. Give examples of the tactics being employed to accomplish our objectives.
• • Answer the major criticisms quickly. If we've made a mistake, it doesn't hurt to admit it, and then discuss how future mistakes will be prevented.
• • Answer the false and misleading charges instantly.
• • Take al Qaeda and its sympathizers--and the ideology--to task. Put them on their heels propaganda-wise. Personally, I believe Islam is a religion of submission, not peace, but we can at least encourage the more moderate Muslim groups to confront the extremists.

It's a big task, but it's part of the package. We can't win the larger war without winning the Information War. The issue isn't that we're not responding, but not well enough.