Losing The (Electronic) War How The Bush Administration Refused To (Or Didn’t Know How To) Fight

Townhalll ^ | 1/18/07 | Hugh Hewitt

[Valin]

The president gave the Library Room speech on January 10. Tony Snow had briefed some bloggers before the speech, and made a few appearances on talk radio afterwards (including on my program.) The Vice President appeared on Fox News Sunday four days later, and the National Security Advisor made the rounds of the other shows. Senator McCain, Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani –the big three of the GOP presidential campaign—all endorsed the plan. The president appeared on 60 Minutes.

And that was it.

Media offensive over.

It never stood a chance.

First, business-as-usual dictated that the White House released all the crucial details before the speech, thus draining the address of audience and drama. Ratings were in the tank as a result, as one would expect from the closest thing to a rerun the political world sees. I asked Snow why the rush to gut the audience, and he explained how this allows the White House to get inside the MSM’s news cycle and thus positively affect the coverage.

Tony no doubt believes this. It is nonsense, though, and the new news cycle doesn’t care what the morning papers say or don’t say. Americans respond to first person appeals, not the laundered spin of the MSM –an impact that is not merely blunted but wholly destroyed by the promiscuous peddling of talking points prior to launch. If the president is going to have a chance of persuading the public, the public has to actually watch him. They didn't. He didn't. It isn't that complicated.

When I suggested that Steve Jobs built audience and interest by holding all details about the iPhone in the deep freezer, Tony responded that the war in Iraq isn’t the iPhone –completely true, of course, and completely beside the point. Creating audience and gaining credibility with it, whether the financial and electronics press, or the American public, always begins with the audience’s attention.

Want to kill all of the State of the Union’s impact? Tell everyone what is in it.

Want to build audience? Tell no one. Don’t even give a copy to the Speaker. Make her listen and react, and all the Congresspeople as well.

That’s point one. Now to the "follow up" that wasn’t.

Explaining why it is necessary to “surge” and why the sacrifice of American lives is not just noble, but necessary, requires a daily engagement by the Administration’s best communicators, and across the entire media spectrum. The center-right doesn’t much care what is said on Russert’s Sunday coffee clatch, and there is a good argument that independents don’t either. There is no mass audience anywhere, and no single appearance on a single show will do. The key message –the war can be lost in Iraq, with slaughter on a scale approaching Rwanda and immediate effects on American security—is not getting through or not being believed. Part of the problem is that in a shattered media environment, the Administration and the Pentagon, as well as GOP leadership on the Hill, are not making the case day-in-and-day-out. “Making the case” doesn’t mean the Sunday shows, by the way, or an op-ed here or there.

It means the Today Show, the O’Reilly Factor, Lou Dobbs and Jay Leno.

It means the Weekly Standard and the New Republic, and every paper’s D.C. bureau chief.

And it means, most definitely, the blogs, and not just on conference calls that allow the list to get checked off all at once.

And it means the entire Cabinet, and the deputies, and the White House staff. Ask yourself how many of these men and women you have seen or heard discussing the war in the days since the president's speech. Where's the sales force? And that is what it is, just as Reid-Pelosi-Clinton-Obama constitutes a sales force. Only difference: They are out-selling --out-persuading-- the Administration's team. By a lot.

I asked then-Secretary Rumsfeld on May 9 of last year about the information war we are in, and whether anyone at the Pentagon really understood it and was waging it. His response:

I don't know how to answer that. First of all, the truth is, and it's embarrassing to confess this, that I suppose I work about 13 hours a day. And I'll bet you that 12 1/2, or 12 3/4 of those 13 hours a day, I spend doing things instead of thinking about how I communicate, and what the message ought to be, and fighting the enemy on their level, against their media committees, and their active efforts at disinformation. And I probably ought to spend, and we here in the Department, ought to spend more time thinking about those messages, and how we can counteract the lies, because they are enormously successful. They can put out a lie, and then we're asked the question is that true. And we can know we think it's not true, but we have to be honest, and we have to be accurate. So we then have to spend two or three days trying to find out what the truth is, before we can rebut the lie. Well, the lie's been around the world 15 times by the time we even get our boots on.

In other words, "No. Nobody's in charge."

I think the Administration is in a similar bind today vis-à-vis the American public –so harried by the press of the Beltway press that the communications team has lost sight of the fact that they cannot win with old media, period. They need to focus on new media with audiences open to the message.

In the last election the GOP base stayed loyal to the president and the GOP. One major reason for that loyalty has to be that these voters get their information –detailed, reliable, persuasive information—from sources willing to argue the case for victory, and who do so day in and day out. Whether that is Rush or Sean Hannity, Powerline or the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke or Charles Krauthammer on Special Report in response to serious questions from Brit Hume, or a dozen columnists at Townhall.com, the audience that is listening or reading closely is supporting the idea of victory in Iraq (even as they separate from the Administration on other issues.) Repetition matters, as does the appeal through non-traditional channels.

The Bush/Cheney political staff knew the importance of these channels in 2004, and used them to reach not just the base but the center paid off in persuaded voters.

In 2006, the base stayed tuned in, and turned out, but the center did not hold or stayed home. The left had co-opted the various message senders, and the result was a loss of control of the Congress.

Now the whole war effort is being undermined by a replay of the elite media/anti-war campaign which condemned Southeast Asia to a holocaust, and the White House is flat-footed. Even the most able press secretary in a generation cannot be everywhere. Snow needs every Administration official to be part of the effort to persuade the country, and not just to show up, but to be smart on the details and the threat. When cabinet officials make appearances, they cannot be tired of their own points. Worn down or out? Then quit. Still committed to the idea that the Administration is engaged in defending the country? Then get the details right and communicate them.

Why do nine brigades matter?

What about Sadr?

What are the consequences of retreat?

I watched today as Secretary of State used a prime media opportunity to dispatch Michelle Kwan with Undersecretary Hughes on a goodwill mission to China. Fine. Wonderful stuff. I really do appreciate Ms. Kwan’s willingness to help.

But this is not serious, and it may even be defeating the delivery of the crucial messages intended to persuade not just Americans but the world about the stakes.

If, as the president has argued, and as I believe, the war –in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia and across the globe—is the central calling of our time, then the men and women in charge of winning it need to embrace the very difficult task of persuading a public bombarded every day with a contrary argument.

Every day. In many places. With passion.

One final question: Does the United States, more than five years into the war, operate an internet site where the president’s speeches and the other crucial arguments about the war by commentators who genuinely understand the stakes are translated on an immediate basis into Arabic and Farsi? If not, why not?

If the American public’s opinion matters, how much more the opinions of those in the Muslim world we seek to engage on our side?

You cannot win an information war unless you engage in it. And we are not engaged.

[TomGuy]

I also don't think that the Republicans in Congress have given anywhere near the level of vocal support to the President that they should. And I mean from the very beginning, not just recently.

That is because his leadership skills have been weak. The President who stood on the mound with the bullhorn shortly after 911 had the entire nation in the palm of his hand. He squandered it.

As for the Republicans in Congress, at their first balking, he should have taken them to the woodshed. Other leaders have, to keep their party members on board. He didn't. He let them run rampant. And that made him appear even weaker, as a leader.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[GOPJ]

First, business-as-usual dictated that the White House released all the crucial details before the speech, thus draining the address of audience and drama. Ratings were in the tank as a result, as one would expect from the closest thing to a rerun the political world sees.

He's right. When the speech is leaked, Americans take the short version offered by CNN - we have lives... right?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>You cannot win an information war unless you engage in it. And we are not engaged.

Hey Hugh!...... where you been the last six years?.... get your head outta your butt boy! Many of us have been saying the same thing since 9-11. Even the great Tony Snow seems oblivious to the power of the Presidency. Its not called the Bully Pulpit for nothing. Yet in this age of mass communication, this President has fallen down on ther job. If you can't get your message out to the people, you can't be a successful POTUS. Period!

[jnsun]

Either that, or they have intentionally done such a lousy job. It's almost to the point of saying that no one could have done so poorly without concerted, determined negligence every step of the way.

It does seem like that to me. Like this article says, the failure to take on the media and the total incompetence of delivering the conservative message, obvious right from the start (01), and with the bully pupit for 6 years seems almost too naive to be unintended. To the point of there being furtive agenda.

How tax cuts have the economy revived through private enterprise.

How unemployment is lower than it ever was under Clinton.

How oil-for-food and Saddam himself were imminent threats to civilized world commerce.

How Iraq could be the centerpiece of a free enterprise economy in the medieval middle east.

How Syria and Iran desperately do not want this to happen.

How American energy independence is encouraged through private and competitive innovation, seeded but not manipulated through government intervention.

etc. etc.

Could it be that the Bush administration is a front for the CFR?

[xzins]

When it comes to the Information War

Could they be a front for:

The Darwin Awards?

:>)

[highball]

That's exactly right! During World War II, the Roosevelt Administration, the War and Navy Departments, and all the big federal agencies involved in the war effort did a masterful job of "selling" the war to the American public, thus building patriotism, educating the homefront about the exact nature of the enemy, and keeping morale high.

Sadly, this administration has been hopelessly inept at all of this, with the end result that the American public is hopelessly confused about what we are fighting for and how we are doing in GWOT.

Unlike World War II, where you had Audie Murphy and Snuffy Smith, there are no real heroes who have been publicized for their deeds, and none of our top generals are even known to the public at large, unlike Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, Nimitz, Halsey, etc.

In short, the Bush Administration has essentially conceded the information war to both the jihadists and the Democrats, and we shall all suffer for it in the long run.

I think the problem with the Administration runs deeper than that - even when they get the message out, it's the wrong message.

FDR would never have told Americans that their contribution to World War II was shopping.

Part of good PR is managing expectations. W prepared America for a painless war that we wouldn't feel. He essentially promised that we wouldn't have to sacrifice, wouldn't have to change our routines one bit.

He had a momentous opportunity after 9/11. He had his Pearl Harbor, his chance to unite the American people behind the war effort. He could have asked us to sacrifice, to contribute, to roll up our sleeves and pitch in. Instead he told us to go to the mall.

Given that, is it any wonder that once the going got tough the nation lost its stomach for war? The White House completely mismanaged expectations in selling the war in the first place, and it's too late to go back and do it right.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Dittoes, dittoes and more dittoes for this piece by Hugh Hewitt and the first two comments on this thread.

Since Karen Hughes departed, this Administration has been abysmal at PR and communications, managing the message, making sure the good guys understand the details, etc. etc. And W has been pretty much of a failure in his speeches to the American people at least in the past two years.

It gives one pause to think about what the country really needs and who might be the best candidate -- on the leadership front, the communicator front, the visionary -- for 2008. It's sure not another W, I'm sorry to admit.

I know it drives the current administration (and apparently Gerry Ford) crazy, but you always have to ask "What would Reagan do (or have done)?" He sure would have gotten the communications and PR strategies right.

JMHO.

[gonzo]

"...Want to build audience? Tell no one. Don’t even give a copy to the Speaker. Make her listen and react, and all the Congresspeople as well..."

This is how the important message will go down! It'll be a half-hour heads-up notice for a 7:00 PM Important Announcement to the alphabet-networks, and probably an hour for FOX news.

"The President will be giving a Policy Briefing at 7:00 PM"! That's it! Nothing more!

The Drive-By MSM, and the politicos won't have a chance to start the spin-machines until they actually hear the message. They know what the message is gonna be, though.

"...First, business-as-usual dictated that the White House released all the crucial details before the speech, thus draining the address of audience and drama. Ratings were in the tank as a result, as one would expect from the closest thing to a rerun the political world sees. I asked Snow why the rush to gut the audience, and he explained how this allows the White House to get inside the MSM’s news cycle and thus positively affect the coverage..."

This way of releasing news is done to pre-direct the MSM and politicos as much as possible. The White House knows the probable outcome - Bash-Bush - so they don't much care. They've fulfilled their 'news' obligation, and it wasn't that important anyway.

The 7:00 PM quickey will be different. It will be a notification to America and the World that the Iranian Nuclear Facilities are being destroyed as the speech is given. President Bush will also touch on other subjects such as 'Homeland Security'(lotsa mosques in the USA to be contained), and probably North Koreas' fate.

Only a maroon would think that the USA, NATO, and the rest of the 'civilized' World would allow Ahmanutjob and Kimmy to build and keep Nuclear Weapons and missles. For all intensive purposes, diplomacy with these maniacs is finished. Politics will very soon enter the field.

Now, count the number of mosques in your neighbourhoods, note their locations(the FBI knows where they are), then stay well armed and safe. .......... FRegards

[gonzo]

Bump for you. # 29 ........... FRegards

[okie01]

Any future admin. is going to have to have a 24-7 media person who's only job is PR. Or a whole army of them.

Any future administration needs to have a President who looks the MSM in the eye...and tells them who and what they are...and defends his views.

Announcing that you're going to suspend everybody's credentials on the White House Press Corps and, instead, invite reporters from hometown newspapers to get their news direct, rather than through AP.

The press needs to be called what it is: Grotesquely biased. Most Americans recognize this and will applaud an honest attempt to redirect the Fourth Estate toward serving their Constitutional purpose and defending America. Right now, they aren't. They're mere propaganda-mongers for the left.

[raybbr]

Only a maroon would think that the USA, NATO, and the rest of the 'civilized' World would allow Ahmanutjob and Kimmy to build and keep Nuclear Weapons and missles. For all intensive purposes, diplomacy with these maniacs is finished. Politics will very soon enter the field.

We shall see. Aren't France, Germany, the Netherlands and all the other countries now suffering under the weight of cleric pontification NATO? What makes you think that the very countries that are succumbing to hordes of Islam will come to the fight?

[ThePythonicCow]

they DID NOT worry about being accurate.

They didn't have to worry about being accurate. The main stream media wasn't going to roast their backsides if they lied, changed their story or covered up.

The slightest misstatement, or even honorable statement that can be misconstrued, by the Right is a cause for an all out assault by the Left.

It saps ones energy to keep swimming upstream, especially in shark infested waters.

[La Enchiladita]

It works both ways in the ways he has treated members of Congress...

[La Enchiladita]

I guess you didn't hear that Karen Hughes came back last Spring as an ambassador of some sort. It seems she was hired to smooth over hurt Arab/muslim feelings and convince the rest of us that they are really not all terrorists... or something. She is barely recognizable in her new, eviscerated role.

[TigersEye]

Hewitt hits the nail on the head. Not only with the WHs failure to communicate but his take on why the last election went to the Dems is more plausible than anything postulated so far.

[nutmeg]

PR for this administration has come up short....

AMEN to that, FRiend...

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[TigersEye]

Oh great. The biddie-brigade will be here soon trashing this article for even suggesting Bush's admin. is weak on the information war.

You just have to expect that. Some people think and some people are just cheer leaders.