A follow-up to my several previous posts on propaganda and its use during wartime. From Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing in the Washington Post:
Once again we are confronted with stories about how the Pentagon and its ubiquitous private contractors are undermining free inquiry in Iraq. “Muslim Scholars Were Paid to Aid U.S. Propaganda,” reports the New York Times. Journalists, intellectuals or clerics taking money from Uncle Sam or, in this case, a Washington-based public relations company, is seen as morally troubling and counterproductive. Sensible Muslims obviously would not want to listen to the advice of an American-paid consultant; anti-insurgent Sunni clerics can now all be slurred as corrupt stooges.
There is one big problem with this baleful version of events. Historically, it doesn’t make much sense. The United States ran enormous covert and not-so-covert operations known as “CA” activities throughout the Cold War. With the CIA usually in the lead, Washington spent hundreds of millions of dollars on book publishing, magazines, newspapers, radios, union organizing, women’s and youth groups, scholarships, academic foundations, intellectual salons and societies, and direct cash payments to individuals (usually scholars, public intellectuals and journalists) who believed in ideas that America thought worthy of support.
Not to mention all that televised baseball—and apple pie recipes in just about every domestic glossy magazine! The slippery, colonialist bastards.
But I digress.
It’s difficult to assess the influence of these covert-action programs. But when an important Third World political leader writes that a well-known liberal Western book had an enormous impact on his intellectual evolution—a book that, unbeknownst to him was translated and distributed in his country at CIA expense—then it’s clear that the program had value. It shouldn’t be that hard for educated Americans to support such activity, even though one often can’t gauge its effectiveness.
Nor should it be so hard to support even more aggressive clandestine action in developing democracies such as Iraq. Let us make a Cold War parallel. As is well known, the CIA for years financially maintained the British journal Encounter. This magazine, which was perhaps the most important English-language outlet for anti-communist U.S. and European writers, influenced debates among the Western intelligentsia from the 1950s through the ‘70s. By bang-for-the-buck calculation, it may be the most effective nonmilitary highbrow covert action the United States has funded.
Does anyone seriously believe that the French intellectual giant Raymond Aron was compromised by regularly writing for this publication or for French magazines also funded by the CIA? Regardless of whether Aron or others at Encounter might have suspected that their checks were cut by the U.S. taxpayer, are their insights and reporting any less relevant and true?
Ah, but you miss the point, Reuel! “Relevant and true” are substantive notions pertaining to the nature of content that can be empirically evaluated; whereas what critics are concerned with is process—most specifically, has the playing field been effectively leveled, and the information presented in a context that is “fair” to all involved parties (that is, without an interested framing mechanism, such as a pro liberal-democratic mooring), with no “side” being granted greater legitimacy than its counterpart.
The irony here, of course, is that those who are making such an argument—pretend neutralists, historical ironists, etc—tend to tack politically and ideological toward the philosophical position that concepts such as “fairness” are themselves mere constructs borne of a particular, and not-disinterested, mindset (see, for example, Stanley Fish: “How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words”).
A historian looking at Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty when it was subsumed within the CIA would probably find it hard to suggest that it was less truthful or more subject to political manipulation than today’s Radio Liberty, which operates under the oversight of the politicized and idiosyncratic Board of Broadcasting Governors. RFE-RL was probably the most successful “soft power” expenditure that Washington ever made. East European and Soviet dissidents didn’t have a problem with the CIA backing. The issue with them, as it is today with Uzbeks listening to Radio Liberty or Muslims elsewhere reading or listening to U.S.-supported material, is whether the content echoes the reality that they know.
Contrary to what is commonly believed, CIA funding of intellectual “propaganda” projects—including direct cash payments to American and foreign journalists—has usually been done with the lightest touch. In my direct experience, and in reading files covering CA activity in Europe and the Middle East, I never saw an instance in which agency officers manipulated the final product. What was regrettable was that CIA officials often didn’t have the linguistic skill or education to match the countries they covered and had no real grasp of what their CA assets were writing.
Yet another irony: critics of our “propaganda” efforts are often the same folks who in one breath will tell you how ineffectual and bumbling are our intelligence services and military leadership; and then in the next breath they bemoan our sinister covert ability to secretly manipulate the world and will it into our image.
It is a view of spying and intelligence that is more “X-Files” than “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”—strange, insofar as it comes from the self-professed possessors of educated nuance.
That is, rather than see CA for what it is—an aid in a battle of ideas, and the spook equivalent of direct mailings—they see it as evil secretive men in black hats molded the world in our image, with all others powerless to stop us. But this is simply not the case.
The battle over ideas is essential to a peaceful world; and to insist that the process of disseminating ideas be fair and balanced—that because we are a hyperpower, our use of propaganda is unseemly, whereas the use of propaganda by, say, al-Qaeda, is a natural part of asymmetrical warfare—is to engage not in self-righteous idealism, but rather to devolve into a moral relativism that disguises itself as high-mindedness. It is the CNN view of the world, one in which the purveyor of information forgets that s/he is supposed to be “objective” and not neutral, particularly where neutrality means resisting taking the side that is objectively pressing for freedom rather than, say, theocratic tyranny and medieval law.
Why did the United States spend so much covert-action money in Western Europe after World War II? Washington was unsure of Western Europe’s commitment to democracy and its resolve to oppose the Soviet Union and its proxy European communist parties. The programs had to be clandestine: The foreigners involved usually could not have operated with open U.S. funding without jeopardizing their lives, their families or their reputations. Did these CA projects retard or damage the growth of a free press and free inquiry in Western Europe after World War II? I think an honest historical assessment would conclude that U.S. covert aid advanced both.
Surely democracy in Iraq is at least as shaky as it was in Western Europe after the defeat of Hitler. The real complaint that ought to be made against the Bush administration is that it has allowed such important work to be contracted to a public relations firm (in the case cited above, the Lincoln Group) that has done a poor job of protecting anonymity. Nevertheless, one has to give the Pentagon credit: It seems to be the only government agency that is at least trying to develop Iraqi cadres to wage the “hearts and minds” campaign. The CIA seems to have all but abandoned its historical mission in this area.
Heart and minds. We hear this over and over again, but we’ve reached the point in this country where some believe that our mere existence should be enough to win those hearts and minds—even as they themselves view their own country as an imperial state bent on trampling the civil liberties of its citizens and installing a Christian theocratic police state.
The arrogance of the US, I’d submit, comes not from George Bush attempting to spread the idea of freedom and democracy, as a worthwhile “universal,” around the globe—and in the middle east in particular; instead, it comes from those who expect such to happen, but would self-righteously demand that any and every tool that gives us the advantage for achieving that goal that is not available to competing ideologies creates an unfair power dynamic—one that needs to be constantly mediated by self-appointed referrees of universal fairness.
It’s a game. And the rules are such that, given our position of power and dominance on the global stage, we are forced to spot opponents certain advantages.
But hey, that’s okay: perhaps one day we’ll be knocked down to size, and then our ideological opponents will have to extend us the same courtesy!
(h/t Bill Ardolino)
****
update: More, from Dr. Shackleford, James Joyner, and Glenn Reynolds
If I had my way, not one word of anti-American propaganda would ever hit the Islamic airwaves. I would jam it, blow the transmitters, override with pro-American propaganda; in general reduce anti-American crap to word of mouth.
The problem with actively preventing a countermessage from getting through is that the news of you trying to limit its delivery may inadvertantly give that message an additional (specious) level of credibility: “What the Great Satan doesn’t want you to hear.” At the same time, if untruths/bad messages go unconfronted they can become conventional wisdom. This catch-22 is why in many cases–political, business/marketing, etc–knowing when to respond to something and when to just let things go is just as important as knowing what your own message is.
Then how would the NY Times and CNN make any money?
If the “War on Terror” is worth fighting, then it is worth lying, and it is certainly worth telling the truth, no matter the medium.
The problem with the Democratic Party is that a large portion believes there is no war, and a smaller portion believes even if there was one, it is not worth fighting.
Exactly, even in the face of overt propagandizing from the other guys in the form of academic articles and classes and teach-ins, films and books that portray us as the bad guys. The anti-Americanism of today did not spring out from nowhere. It is partially the result of the campaign begun by the Cold War Soviet Union after WWII. For instance, the East Germans paid editors of the “student” radical newspapers in Europe in the ‘60s. The Czech Commies sponsored world terrorist meet-ups.
How are we supposed to get our message out? I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to usher in a Dark Ages just because some people want to die like martyrs to some juvenile, moralistic process.
*And a smaller portion believes it is worth fighting for, only not on our side.
Unfortunately, Patricia, the current leadership generation spent the 1960s as the American spiritual brothers of those 68ers in Europe. Self proclaimed “anti-anti Communists.” They couldn’t recognize enemy propaganda then, they still can’t now. Danny the Red, Joschka Fischer, John Kerry, 3 peas in a pod.
Well, we should try and win hearts and minds, we should just somehow do that without spending any money. Or having any contact with Arabs. Maybe just send out mind rays.
But really they only oppose it due to practical considerations. Nothing wrong with the program itself, it just makes America look bad when they’re inevitably blown by patriotic liberals. Now every pro-US story published in Iraq will be suspect. Thank god the NYT is around to keep us informed on secret programs that are otherwise unobjectionable unless they get leaked to the NYT.
Damned good point, Jeff.
Al-Hurra (“The Free One”), our Arabic-language satellite channel, was reportedly making great strides last I heard in 2005.
But hey, that’s okay: perhaps one day we’ll be knocked down to size, and then our ideological opponents will have to extend us the same courtesy!
Of course, it’s more likely they would simply exterminate anyone who didn’t support them, is their usual modus operandi.
BUT THAT’S BESIDES THE POINT!!
So true, Cutler. Schroeder was once the defense team for Horst Mahler, one of Baader’s gang. Now he’s luxuriating in a payoff sinecure from Putin. How he’s changed! Or maybe not so much.
Yeah, what you said, Jeff.
Well, as Thomas Jefferson said “Free speech is quite over-rated.”
I was glad to read this in the Washington Post. U.S. propaganda is crucial in an area of the world where the population is regularly regaled with the terrorist-supporting spin of Al-Jazeera and the outright lies of some of their own leaders. I remember thinking to myself as Saddam’s statue was being pulled down that we had better have good plans in place for strategic propaganda or else the military ops would be for naught.
Have those people who express shock and outrage that we would promote propaganda in Iraq ever heard of Radio Free Europe or Voice of America? I can remember the role Voice of America played in the 70s & 80s in the fight against the Soviet message machine and their official Pravda propaganda and I have read about their efforts during and after WW2. An alternative voice needs to be offered to a people whose freedom of access to factual information has been denied for so long.
Might Iraq succeed due to “unfair” influence? Scandalous!
-and not only b/c that would be unfair to terrorists, but, worse, because it would be unfair to American critics who said Iraq would never work. Bush and neocons would’ve won this argument, and proven critics wrong, through the use of unfair and unethical tactics. Shameful!
Zawahiri’s splutterings: Newsworthy.
Stories illustrating the freedoms that Americans, including Islamic Americans enjoy: Distorted Chimpy Propaganda that is a threat to our way of life.
I’m not sure even Newton had this kind of crazy math in mind when he invented calculus. Even more frightening, the lefties can work the equation.
I’ve been calling them “anti-anti terrorists” for almost four years now.
(That post is almost terrifying in how little as changed. The only difference is that Daschle got a copy of the home game. The French still can’t protect their citizens from Islamists, the UN is still a cesspool, and NATO is still acting like the US is the only member with any responsibilities.)
Whoah. While digging that link up, I found a post with the following quote:
Byrd, on Afghanistan, in 2002 sounds eggsactly like [random Democrat], on Iraq, in 2005/6. It’s like they know one song that has one note and one beat.
What about all the paid “safe-sex” advertisements Bush is funding in Africa – I guess we should pull those, too.
Or is condom-use an advocacy allowed to Bush’s cultural Imperialists.
Who is Biden’s dentist?
-Steve
Didn’t any of you sick freaks get the memo? No good news about the U.S., GWOT/Iraq. Ever…Until Hill is in.
I think several of the commenters are mischaracterizing criticism from the left on this issue. The problem isn’t that the US is doing things to win hearts and minds, the problem is that is doing them in a way that is counterproductive.
This is not the cold war. We are in the 21st century where information is zipped around the world in the blink of an eye. You just can’t expect to get away with these kinds of things anymore, and when they are discovered, any moderate, pro-american voice becomes immediately suspect of being a CIA stooge. Does that sound helpful to Iraqi democracy?
Abu Aardvark has a good post on this below.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/01/gerecht_on_iraq.html
Al-Hurra is widely watched, but Salameh Nematt, Washington Bureau Chief of the international Arab daily Al Hayat and the Lebanon-based Arab satellite television channel LBC, claimed that Arab audiences are disappointed that Al Hurra does not do the kind of reporting about repressive governments as the US had done with Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America Arabic service the latter of which was replaced by the music and news channel, Radio Sawa.
It would seem that the issue is not who pays, but the perception that covert propaganda ops taint the content. (Though a restatement of this is that the US must plan for its own media to work against its policy) And that the audience would like content more in line with Bush’s stated foreign policy of promoting freedom in the region.
Probably not the answer the Left wants to hear on the issue.
Rashad,
These are public service announcements, nothing more.
If you were standing on a beach, you’d like your government to notify you that a tsunami was heading your way, wouldn’t you?
This is nothing more than a government-sponsored “get-out-the-message” campaign whose intent is the pacificatioin of Iraq’s populace.
We all want “peace” there, don’t we? Help.
-Steve
Would it be preferable for us to blow up schools where they are teaching that killing Americans is a noble venture, or to interfere with that teaching? The choice may come down to that.
“You just can’t expect to get away with these kinds of things anymore, and when they are discovered, any moderate, pro-american voice becomes immediately suspect of being a CIA stooge.”
The kinds of things that have come out have come out only because they’ve been leaked to the Times.
There ain’t no first amendment in Iraq or Palestine. I will gladly apologize in ten years for breaking a generation of programming for Jihad. But I would do it, and those who would not are fools.
I mean, you might as well say “In this day and age you can’t run a secret propaganda program because the people running it will just blab to the New York Times.”
I don’t give a rat’s ass who knows we aredoing it, just as long as the Jihadists cannot spread their word any way but by camel. Wining is a whole lot more important than feeling good.
They are attacking this on moral terms. That is not an argument over efficiency. If it was, it would be less surreal. But it isn’t.
My history prof cut me down to size when he pointed out to me that the word “propoganda” was politically neutral in its definition. It doesn’t (or hadn’t pejorated at that time) carry a negative connotation, but has been co-opted by the grieving Left.
Walter’s 5:59 post: Yes, it would definitely be preferable to blow up schools… or better yet, assassinate those promulgating attacks on Americans.
I’d bet a lot of money that Arafat would have knocked his shit off quickly if his kid got popped after the first “suicide” bombing hit Israel.
I’d also bet a lot of these radical Imans would find some other Satan to go after if they and their families started having accidents…
Not that we would ever stoop to such a thing. Much better that a few thousand civilians should just have a building come down on them at work some morning <\sarcasm>
Propaganda, yes. But don’t let THEM speak to their people. Jam, jam, jam. Better than kill, kill, kill.
That right there is the unbridgeable gap.
From a proper perspective, US efforts in this arena aren’t anything anyone’s trying to “get away with”.
The stories are a) true and b) a much more humane way of encouraging people to see our point of view and the good things we can accomplish.
That anyone could see those as BAD things tells me a lot about their loyalties in this operation.
I’m frankly a bit puzzled by some of the criticism of my last post. Sure, in a world like the 50s and 60s, governments had much greater control of information. Blame the Times, or the times, but the reality is that any complex information operation is bound to be revealed within a few months or a year of when it is undertaken. That’s just reality, and decision makers should take that reality into account.
Look, I WANT us to win in Iraq, which is why I was upset about this. Iraqis, and most Middle Easterners view the West as a package. If they find hypocrisy, or one thing detestable about us, they reject the whole package. They know what our ideals are, they just don’t think we really believe in them, but use them as lip-service excuses to periodically criticize and invade Middle Eastern countries. There are sizeable numbers of moderates in the Middle East trying to convince their fellow Middle Easterners that the US really is concerned about these values, and that they should be too.
Unfortunately, consistent US actions that undermine these values give the average Iraqi and Middle Easterner fodder for the argument that the US is dishonest, power-hungry, and immoral. When we say next to nothing about blatantly rigged elections in Egypt, that undermines our cause. When it is revealed that we are paying to influence the coverage of the US in the “free” iraqi press (which Iraqis want!) that undermines our cause. When we have helped create an atmosphere that anyone that speaks favorably about the US in the Middle East press could be a CIA stooge (as many people suspected to begin with) that undermines our cause. When our vice president goes to great pains to try and preserve the right to continue things that sound awfully close to torture, that undermines our cause.
This is a battle for hearts and minds, and the only way to win it, in an information age where every US action is scrutinized around the world, is to act in a way that earns people’s respect. I was upset because the Bush administration should have known that this program would get exposed (either by the US media, or by an Iraqi participant. Who knows how it was revealed?) and that it would hurt its cause in the long run.
Rashad