|
|
Blowback
Posted by Stephen Green · 30 November 2005
Pick an international boogeyman, any international boogeyman, sometime in the not-too-distant future. It could be Red Chinese Hordes, done eating up East Asia and hungry for more. It could be the Apocalyptic Army of the Caliphate, storming our gates to install sharia over America. A resurgent, revanchist Russia. Nazis. Heavily-armed Jehovah's Witnesses. Whomever you chose, imagine that they've invaded our great nation. We're at war the kind of purely defensive war that even the most doctrinaire libertarian would have to support. Our invaders aren't here to promote democracy or free markets; they're here to install a dictatorship and plant bombs at markets. You know, bad guy stuff. As they rape and pillage because that's what Nazi Chinese Islamofascist Witnesses do they also try to break our will to fight back. They use every means at their disposal, including propaganda. Using little more than Sony Handicams and "liberated" local TV newsrooms, they bombard our airwaves. They remind us of America's history of slavery and racism. They argue that America only rarely lived up to her ideals. Night and day, they tell us they have a better way. (Readers of the New York Times will be familiar with all this dogma already.) Naturally, there would be a counter-propaganda campaign. Some of the efforts would be voluntary, grass-roots efforts like you see on blogs or in low-readership political magazines. Others efforts (believe it or not) would be orchestrated by our very own Mainstream Media assuming, of course, they didn't all surrender when the first enemy soldier stormed the first American beach. Our very own army might even join in the propaganda campaign. Considering the state of our infrastructure (physical, electrical, and otherwise) during an invasion, our armed forces might indeed be the only people with the ability to counter-broadcast effectively and widely. Would the US, or what's left of it, be morally correct in trying to combat the enemy's propaganda with its own? Well, of course it would even if the Army was involved. With all that said, let's admit that propaganda can be a useful and necessary tool. Of course, we must also stipulate that propaganda can backfire and cause more harm than good. Then there's the case of what the US Army is doing in Iraq1, which probably isn't doing much either way. Maybe then, propaganda is nothing more than a necessary tool if you give up the airwaves to the other side, your side will assume you've given up in some small way. Bad form, that. NOTE: The two World Wars were aberrations. Most wars aren't fought for total dominance; they're fought for some perceived advantage, oftentimes for nothing more than honor.2 As such, victory usually comes from simple bloody-mindedness the will to fight just one day or hour longer than the other guy. That's the kind of war we're fighting in Iraq, in hopes of averting a future Total/Cultural War with Islamism. It's my belief that to not fight in any sphere where the enemy chooses to fight, is to give him an advantage, even if only a small one. So then. Let's rephrase: "Propaganda is a legitimate and necessary tool of war, the utility of which is often suspect." Are we all agreed? Good. Then let's move on. Some of my old libertarian comrades3 are in Full Hand-Wringing Mode (others aren't) over the Army buying some newsprint and broadcasting some positive messages. Reason's Kerry Howley headlined his Hit & Run post with "Paging Armstrong Williams." Right as if the shameful act of using tax dollars to pay an American columnist to sell his readers on a partisan political program is anything like buying some good, non-partisan press overseas with the locals in a theater of war. Unless, of course, Howley (and his amen corner) view the Iraq Campaign solely through the overused anti-Bush prism. But the important subject here isn't Iraq. We can debate night and day over whether our efforts in Iraq are noble, misguided, or something in between. In fact, we've been debating just that for three years now. What is important is that people whose views I respect on many other topics, are attempting to de-legitimize a legitimate tool of war all to score a handful partisan points against the Iraq Campaign. That's as silly (although admittedly not nearly as dangerous) as the misguided international campaign to ban landmines. And as shameful, too. FOOTNOTES 1There's another argument to be made about the Army's Iraq propaganda program, but it isn't germane to this essay. So I'm getting all pretentious again and using footnotes. Our enemy's propaganda mostly consists of crudely-produced videos featuring cowards in masks, cutting off the heads of innocent people whose wrists have been bound together. Our propaganda consists of human interest stories about the good works the US Army is doing in Iraq. Both products are "true." Barbarians are cutting the heads off of captured aid workers, and American soldiers are digging wells and building schools. But Reason's Kerry Howley thinks such softball stories will lead to Iraqis thinking they're "being condescended to, resent it, and proceed to assume everything the government says or does is part of the same nefarious conspiracy." I wonder what he thinks of the beheading videos. Furthermore, since when are Libertarians in favor of people believing everything our government tells them? 2See Donald Kagan's On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace. 3I've been reading two libertarian magazines for over a decade now. One, Reason, is a "respectable" magazine with a glossy cover. The other, Liberty, is not quite so much. But what are they? What purpose do they serve? They are propaganda publications in the war of ideas. That's a noble calling, and one necessarily performed in and by the private sector. What we're waging in Iraq is a real war, with real battles and real bullets. It is therefore a government effort. So it should come as no surprise that the government is waging to whatever effect a propaganda campaign with the locals. Comments
What we've been selling over there is freedom, including freedom of the press. This little project doesn't help us sell that. You've written about the power of the media in this war. It would be nice if the administration were to better factor the media into their strategy--and I don't mean to write phony news stories, I mean to consider the negative impact if something like this project or, say, Abu Ghraib were to be exposed. There's no point in whining about how the newspapers are so treasonous to expose our dirty little secrets, any more than there is to cry about how bright the sun is or how that darn sand gets in your eyes. You factor it into your damn strategy. Posted by: LNS at November 30, 2005 10:48 PMLNS, As you well know, I once spent 3,000+ words explaining how Bush doesn't understand the nature of a media war - then you go and put the word "treasonous" in my mouth. Take your strawman elsewhere. While you're at it, search my archives for the word "treason." You'll come up with 12 hits and not a single accusation - out of over 8,000 posts. Take your strawman elsewhere. You've also failed to notice that I rather was explicit in mentioning that the Army's propaganda effort at best "probably isn't doing much either way." So again I'll ask you to take your strawman elsewhere. Now then. What is your "goddamn strategy," other than to belittle me for points I never made?
You said: "What we're waging in Iraq is a real war, with real battles and real bullets. It is therefore a government effort. So it should come as no surprise that the government is waging to whatever effect a propaganda campaign with the locals." The above is true but does not go far enough. Our government SHOULD BE waging a massive propaganda war HERE in America. It should have ads, commercials, posters, billboards and all the trappings tht it had during WWII. Would it not be PC to see a commercial about driving the speed limit (or insert your own subject) so as to save gas so our troops would have a good supply of gasoline to fight the Islamic hordes? Well, that might be a bad example, but you get the Idea. We have lost a lot of Americans because all they hear is the propaganda of the insane, hate filled "lefties". What do I mean "lost"? Well, most apparent is lost support for the war in Iraq, but that is not in my opinion the worse damage. The worse is they have lost confidence in our elected representives and see that our Nation's business is not getting done or getting done with results that the majority don't like. Between our S.C. who's judges have lost their minds and the PC overkill that allows nutcases to be teaching our kids in college, people are not only losing confidence but getting highly pissed. Well, maybe that is good. If we get pissed enough we might kick a few of the losers out and try to get someone better in. But, we always try that and very seldom does it turn out the way we think it would. Meanwhile the Islamics, both the "True Believers" and just the plain ol' "believers" are sitting back watching and sharping their long knives getting ready to further subvert our country before slaughter time. First [e]urope, then us. Papa Ray Posted by: Papa Ray at November 30, 2005 11:00 PM Well, I had typed a long comment and it came back saying: Comment text is required.. Go figure. Papa Ray Posted by: Papa Ray at November 30, 2005 11:04 PMI threw away my Reason subscription card a couple of weeks ago. After being a continuous subscriber for 15 years, I've given up. I even passed up a golden opportunity to attend their recent Las Vegas "Reason After Dark" event. I was speaking at a tech conference that started the day after their event, and I came out to Vegas early. But when I looked over the lineup and saw names like Jesse Walker, I just decided it wasn't worth the effort. (One look at the pretentious picture that heads Walker's columns is all you need to know about his writing style.) Their current crop of hipsters can't seem to distinguish between glibness and analysis. And they are more dismissive of serious arguments that lead to a different conclusion than I've ever seen in Reason. I'll miss Ronald Bailey and Jacob Sullum (even though I sometimes disagree with both). The rest are a waste of newsprint and pixels. Posted by: Billy Hollis at November 30, 2005 11:12 PMTO: Stephen Green The truth works more effectively. But even the truth would be painted/smeared with the brush of "Propaganda" by those who would oppose it. The term "propaganda" is being applied, here, as an effort to silence the truth of the matter; soldiers stories in an Iraqi newspaper. Just like the term "chickenhawk" was used to try to silence other people earlier. Indeed, every now and again Vox Day trots out that golem in an effort to silence people he disagrees with over the Iraq campaign. The most important thing is to keep fixated on the truth and forget the cries of 'propaganda' made by those who despise it. Regards, Chuck(le) Doesn't the fact that the army had to PAY to get the stories printed PROVE that the newspapers had the FREEDOM to print or not to print as they chose? They chose the money. Sounds like capitalism to me! Posted by: owen at December 1, 2005 07:17 AMAgain. This is to be expected, and I am not shocked by those who profess themselves shocked and sadly disappointed. They are the same ones who have [for the most part] done their damnedest to hobble the prosecution of this war from the get-go. This is merely one more piece of evidence for them, proof of the overwhelming perfidy of America and the west. Sorry, I refuse to be surprised that we fight back on all levels, and I refuse to be surprised that we don't advertise everything we're doing. And I refuse to accept the hobbling of this nation's war-making capacity because of the faked outrage of a passle of fascist anti-American sympathizers. Posted by: Mikey at December 1, 2005 07:32 AMI'm a much too old and crusty writer to believe that the truth shall set you free, but I do appreciate Nietzsche's observation that "when you gaze long into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you." Using propaganda as a Tool of War is legitimate? I suppose it depends who wins. For Meister Goebbels it was a no-no. We'll see how it shakes out for those uniformed desk soldiers at the Pentagon. Incidentally, Our Great Leader is, in a phallic sense, A Tool of War. But then what do I know?..I haven't published a novel in years and I have idle (idyll) time to troll the Internet(s) only because I'm suckled by the teat of academia. A Defense of Propaganda is entertaining because it's fun to see Bush Apologists employed in the busy work that is Apologizing for the Unapologizable; at least they're not out putting stickers on our biology textbooks, shooting doves, beating the poor with sticks, masturbating to their stock profiles, or whatever it is those "successful" members of society (of whom Im sooo jealous, or so Ive been accused) seem to enjoy. In any case, as disagreeable as I find much of your ideology, you're still somewhat clever. I'd be interested in seeing you share a recipe or two. Kindest, Posted by: Brown Trout at December 1, 2005 07:37 AMYes, Mr. Trout, you are correct. It does depend who wins this one, very much so. As it has in every war. Personally, I'd rather not see the light of academia extinguished by a know-nothing new caliphate, dedicated to keeping all humanity shackled to a Twelfth century social and religious order. And I would lie to prevent that, even if it means your sanctimonious, smug, self-rightous self can keep your hands soft and clean, untainted by any of that nasty necessary work. But don't thank me, I'm just real generous like that, a true humanitarian. :) Posted by: Mikey at December 1, 2005 08:12 AMPlease forgive me if in my clumsy writing I appeared to conflate your views with those of some of the commenters who jumped all over me in a previous comment. Such was not my intent. The fact is I know what you've written regarding Bush's inept handling of the media war, and my point is that this is simply another manifestation of that ineptitude. Propaganda good? Sure--good propaganda. Bad propaganda bad. The fact that we're all now discussing this tactic to my mind demonstrates it wasn't done well. The fallout from having this little tactic uncovered IMO completely undoes any of the benefits. So more Radio Free Europe stuff, fewer planted news stories that are rather easily exposed and then do more harm than good. And again, my apologies. Posted by: LNS at December 1, 2005 08:27 AM"Pick an international boogeyman, any international boogeyman, sometime in the not-too-distant future. It could be Red Chinese Hordes, done eating up East Asia and hungry for more. It could be the Apocalyptic Army of the Caliphate, storming our gates to install sharia over America. A resurgent, revanchist Russia. Nazis. Heavily-armed Jehovah's Witnesses." Dammit Steve, we need to understand why they hate us. Except the JW's, those rightwing Christer bastids... Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 1, 2005 08:45 AMTO: Brown Trout "I'm a much too old and crusty writer to believe that the truth shall set you free... ... I have idle (idyll) time to troll the Internet(s) only because I'm suckled by the teat of academia." -- Brown Trout So, what do you teach? Lies and propaganda? It goes far to explain what we keep hearing reported of 'academia'. Regards, Chuck(le) Most intelligence experts agree that the WOT will be a long, "twilight war," with most of the battles fought in the shadows. Since the terrorists have the majority of the Arab media and MSM on their side today, it only makes sense for this administration to try to counteract these biases. The news media's job is to differentiate from fact and fiction, and the reality is that they can no neither effectively these days - witness their inane posturing and trafficking in the wild rumours during the Katrina flooding in NO. "Our Great Leader is, in a phallic sense, A Tool of War." Sounds like a classic case of projection here. Pray tell us, how much does your esteemed university cost to impart this pseudo - Freudian craptacular analysis on the poor, benighted souls who attend? TO: Dmac ...Brown Trout's blog. It's all about sex. Or at least 90% of what I saw was. Not to mention his earthy comments here (above). Looks like his mind has been thoroughly corrupted by his sucking at the tit. And it reinforces my opinion of macadamian nuts such as he. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at December 1, 2005 12:02 PMAh. I understand. Brown Trout swim in a porcelain bowl. Posted by: Mikey at December 1, 2005 12:25 PMTO: Mikey "Brown Trout swim in a porcelain bowl." -- Mikey However, there are a species of trout that are called "brown". See But, considering the blog this guy operates.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at December 1, 2005 12:40 PMOoops... ....See.... http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/angling/game_fish/brntrout.phtml Posted by: Chuck Pelto at December 1, 2005 12:41 PMI know, Chuck. The European Brown Trout and the Rainbow Trout displaced the Michigan Grayling. A good game fish, but I doubt the gentleman is into those kinds of games... Posted by: Mikey at December 1, 2005 12:52 PMI honestly don't see the problem with what the military is doing here. This is not a propaganda campaign in the sense of publishing incorrect and misleading information. Even the news source which broke this story admits that the information in the articles in question is factual. This is a case of us producing some stories along the lines of "here are some good things we are doing for your country - it isn't all bad news". Further, the papers were free to publish the stories or not. I think that telling true facts of progress is entirely appropriate, especially since the western media refuses to publish anything that makes the effort in Iraq seem even marginally successful. I think it would be a mistake if we *weren't* trying to spread some of this good information. Posted by: Some Guy at December 1, 2005 12:54 PMTO: Some Guy "I honestly don't see the problem with what the military is doing here." -- Some Guy ...is from the perspective of the so-called major media. They can't stand the idea that good news is getting into print. So, they're calling it 'propaganda', the same way some people label others 'chickenhawk'. It's an effort to silence the other side. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at December 1, 2005 01:32 PMalso, Kerry Howley's a girl. Posted by: some guy at December 1, 2005 02:38 PMTo: Chuck Is the tit in question really a metaphorical one? Methinks not. Posted by: Dmac at December 1, 2005 05:07 PMI can see it now. After the invasion, a TV broadcast..... "I for one welcome our new Nazi Chinese Islamofascist Witnesses overlords." -Kent Brockman Posted by: N. O'Brain at December 1, 2005 05:51 PMI even passed up a golden opportunity to attend their recent Las Vegas "Reason After Dark" event. I was speaking at a tech conference that started the day after their event, and I came out to Vegas early. But when I looked over the lineup and saw names like Jesse Walker, I just decided it wasn't worth the effort. (One look at the pretentious picture that heads Walker's columns is all you need to know about his writing style.) I wasn't aware that my columns appeared with a picture on top of them, pretentious or otherwise. Then again, I also wasn't aware that I appeared at the Reason conference in Las Vegas. Posted by: Jesse Walker at December 1, 2005 07:03 PMYour entry draws attention away from the basic facts. Propaganda and counter propaganda are of course tools of modern warfare. However, your point has virtually nothing to do with why what the US has done here is wrong. You engage in propaganda to win the minds of those you are selling to. This effort is only proving to those Iraqis sympathetic to the insurgency, that we say one thing and do another. Posted by: James Bedell at December 1, 2005 08:06 PMTO: James Bedell "This effort is only proving to those Iraqis sympathetic to the insurgency, that we say one thing and do another." -- James Bedell Please explain how so.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at December 2, 2005 10:59 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Best Free Booze on the Internet... and that's saying something!"
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
