Posted on 11/03/2003 3:40:43 AM PST by kattracks
November 3, 2003 -- SUPPOSE the Saudi government launched an "information campaign" intended to convince Americans to adopt a strict Islamic lifestyle and that democracy, women's emancipation, open government, human rights and freedom are not in our best interests. One doubts that the Saudis would change American minds.In essence, that's the challenge faced by our own efforts at "public diplomacy" - at changing stubborn minds in the Middle East. We persuade the already-persuaded, but don't make a dent in the Arab street's perception.
All men and women cling to their cherished values. It isn't a matter of right and wrong, but of what's familiar, comfortable and reassuring. It's a foolish error to imagine that, if we only find the right combination of reasoned arguments, we might convince the populations of the Middle East to love us and embrace our national values.
Words never alter deeply rooted beliefs - although words can enliven drowsing hatreds.
If you want to change the mindset of another culture, your only hope is to "lead by example," as our military puts it - to demonstrate the incontestable superiority of your approach until it sinks in. The cliché is invincibly true: Deeds speak louder than words.
This doesn't mean that our efforts to provide accurate information to Middle Eastern audiences are completely wasted - only that we must have realistic expectations about their impact.
The prejudice of the campus bleeding heart or the diplomatic dilettante in favor of "reasoned argument" is utter nonsense. When you hear calls for "con- structive dialogue," grab your flack jacket, because the end result will always be greater violence.
You can't win a debate with Osama bin Laden. You can't persuade God's self-appointed avengers to channel their madness into an academic conference. You can't even talk the man in the street into believing that your way of tying shoelaces is better than his own.
Yes, freedom and human rights are objectively superior to oppression and torture. Yes, the cultures of the Middle East are decayed, dysfunctional and unable to compete in the modern world. But the Muslim populations of Eurasia don't want our logical explanations for their failures.
They want revenge for self-created disasters. They want excuses for the inadequacy of their social, political and economic regimes. Arab civilization, especially, has backed itself into a historical corner where it deteriorates by the day. It's humiliating to them.
The downtrodden don't want sober analysis. They want someone to blame. And the United States (along with Israel) fits the bill perfectly - facts be damned.
The failures of the Middle East are no more attributable to the wickedness of the West than the triumph of the West is due to the weakness of the Middle East. But comforting lies are humanity's favorite narcotic.
The cultures of the Middle East are so crippled that they can't even limp along without the psychological crutch of blaming all their ills on foreign devils. No amount of well-intentioned information disseminated by the United States will persuade the Arab masses that we're innocent of the cruelties their own leaders and social systems have inflicted upon them. Men and women everywhere believe their own kind first.
The only hope we have of eventually convincing the populations of the Middle East that our intentions are sound and that our interests lie in their success, not in their continued failure, is to take a long-term view and demonstrate our purpose on the ground.
Still, even if we spend decades doing good in the Middle East, the most embittered Muslims will be unwilling to accept our advocacy of human rights and freedom. We have entered an age of fiery reaction, of ecstatic, irrational rage, of global fundamentalist rejection of the demands of modernity.
Our enemies everywhere praise their God, but prefer a powerful Satan they can blame for their disappointments. We are, and will remain, their indispensable bogeyman.
Our only hope of building a constructive, long-term relationship with the people of the Middle East is to focus on what Americans do best: Work. Starting in Iraq.
Leave the bilious rhetoric to the demagogues. Work to bring positive change. Let our deeds proclaim themselves. Prove our accusers wrong. Prove that our values breed success.
It's an approach that requires enormous patience and fortitude. But it's the only approach that has a chance to succeed. It's easy to dismiss a government pronouncement. It's harder to deny practical results.
Indeed, the greatest informational danger doesn't come from our failure to broadcast positive news, but from the negative effects of our own rhetorical folly. When a general assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense makes public statements that echo Osama bin Laden's bigotry, he undercuts the constructive work done by all of our soldiers in Iraq.
Yet, for all his ignorance of fact and his prejudice of faith, Gen. Jerry Boykin's weird remarks about Islam as a religion of idols offer an exaggerated illustration of an undeniable fact: We lack the deep, nuanced understanding of the Middle East necessary for a strategic debate. Our weapon of choice should be results, not rhetoric.
Ralph Peters's latest book is "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
They just put the last sentence on your mirror:
"Our weapon of choice should be results, not rhetoric."
I, like you, loathe the media-RAT concentration of power which seeks to distort every news fragment to President Bush's disadvantage.
But they are not (NOT) the enemy we are fighting in Iraq.
And Bush's rescue, if it is to come, will not come from countervailing stories about giving candy bars to urchins, or about giving civil government to savages.
Bush's rescue will come from unambiguous victory over our enemy in the field, or it won't come.
The RATs (in this context) are irrelevant.
Bush can beat the RATs by beating Islamic fundamentalism-but he cannot move Islamic fundamentalism a micron by beating the RATs.
They are the enemy we are fighting here!
We must do what has to be done, but the Rats will do anything in their power to stop Bush, for the sake of regaining power.
The rhetoric will not win the war there, but it is necessary here.
I find myself in the unusual and uncomfortable position of disagreeing with you.
Only victory in Iraq can save Bush.
No rhetorical tropes, no amount of counterspin, no political gamesmanship at home will avail sans complete victory over our enemies.
And, I am afraid that they don't really care about what the nine dwarves are up to. WE care-but some raghead toting an RPG in Fallujah has never heard of them and would just as soon shoot it at them as at a real American.
Fighting this war as a political exercise will bring defeat in Iraq AND at home.
Fighting to win in Iraq MIGHT bring defeat for Bush, but unfortunately for him failing to do so brings certain defeat.
And what if the negative propaganda put out here helps to defeat Bush?
Unless there is total victory in the next year, the Rats will continue to bombard us will all the negatives, and none of the positives, as they have been.
Do you see total victory within the next year?
It doesn't matter what I see.
Our people are not prepared to fight a guerilla war in Iraq.
Why they are not is another topic.
Every day that our current propaganda strategy at home and our current in-country military strategy continue is a day closer to defeat for Bush (and for America).
There are 366 days left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.