I feel like sending this article to every official in the executive and legislative branches…
William Saletan in Slate today
Why doesn’t the administration address the sanctions on Iraq and the Palestinian situation like this? Do they think it would be seen as weakness? Or legitimizing the terrorists’ claims?
See: http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/clevey/?id=95001301 on the virtues of not negotiating with terrorists.
In this country, journalists would air Bush’s speech refuting the “point-by-point critique” in bin Laden’s video.
In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in other repressive countries – a Bush rebuttal would likely not be aired.
Who needs to be convinced?
December, where in my original post or in the linked article do you see anything about negotiating with terrorists?
Bricker, I agree that you wouldn’t see an open dialogue in a repressive regime. I’m not saying Bush himself should go on TV and try to convince the Taliban that they’re wrong. I’m just saying that in order to keep the moral high ground, we should answer these charges to the satisfaction of the greatest number of people possible without compromising our own values. This may be a clear cut good vs. evil issue for you and me, but a lot of the world’s people are teetering on the brink right now. Some of them are right here in America!
Yes, that is what they think, and they’re right.
So what? There will always be people who disagree with our foreign policy. Let them teeter.
Besides, why debate with a madman?
Since, obviously, none of you are reading the linked article, I will quote:
Our President has said that this will be more than a military campaign, that we will need to concentrate on intelligence and diplomacy as much as if not more than on military action. We continue to be attacked with propaganda every day. As we disable Afghan air defenses, we gain no ground on the propaganda front, and it’s because we’re not trying hard enough!!! Are we above it? I say hell no! But some of you seem to think we are.
Once again, there is no call for “debate with a madman” here, just a call for more action on the front of public opinion.
What if the US announced that they would overthrow the Taliban to establish peaceful Islamic rule in Afghanistan. That might keep some Muslims from thinking that US is anti-Islam. Phrases like “cult of evil” may come across as anti-Islamic and they need to be clarified since they are aimed exclusively at the terrorist regime.
Is anyone else getting troll vibes from Osama bin Laden?
Well, I suppose maybe the U.S. government could publicly explain and justify its foreign policy, as indicated in that article. I thought that you were implying that the U.S. should revise its foreign policy based on a heightened awareness of its flaws.
I don’t know how much good it would do, since most people just believe what they want to believe. That kind of information is out there anyway, whether George W. Bush repeats it or not. But I suppose it might sound better than this constant “attack against freedom” stuff…
Maybe “Minister of Propaganda” should be a cabinet-level post. And I’m not tongue-in-cheek here. Change the title of the position to something less politically loaded, and it makes sense to air our side of the story wherever possible. If nothing else, it would help re-inforce in our own minds what our government is doing vis-a-vis the Israeli/Palistinian issues, the Iraqi issues, and the Cuba situation (shudder), among others.
Right, on more careful reading I realize that I totally missed the point of your linked article, cuautemhoc.
Actually, the question could be expanded beyonod the President. Not just Bush should be answering bin Laden, the West in general should be responding. In fact, we ought to be putting out our POV throughout the Arab world with or without bin Laden’s statement.
I think the Voice of America should be in the business of presenting America’s POV to the world. I have read that in some cases the VOA thinks of itself more as an impartial news bureau than as an American agency. The VOA should be taking our side of the argument.
Furthermore we need to pressure our middle eastern allies not to present so much hatred of the west on their radio and TV.
I think those of you who think the answer to this question is “Because we don’t negotiate with terrorists” are missing the point.
Sure, Bin Laden and his cronies don’t deserve the gum I stepped in three blocks ago, much less any kind of response. But he isn’t making these charges; he’s merely repeating them for political effect. This kind of propaganda crap has been bouncing around the Middle East for years, and in the wake of 9/11 has merely taken a new form–that 4000 Jews stayed home from work that day at the WTC, that Israel is really behind the WTC attacks, yadda yadda. Heck, it’s nothing different from Germany in the 1930’s, or the Spanish Inquisition, which nobody escapes.
Bin Laden is simply using this as another prong in his offensive to win the hearts and minds of Muslims the world over. Our coalition includes Muslim countries because we can’t let this conflict be seen as ‘Western vs. Islam’. Yet we haven’t noticed that while we’re addressing the governments of Muslim countries, he’s addressing their populations. WTF?? What if there are popular revolutions in the Gulf states, in Egypt, and all of a sudden all of Islam is against us? That means Osama has won.
Riots have occurred in Indonesia, far from the conflict, because an aggrieved population sees a target (the U. S.) to focus its anger upon. Why let them?
Are we honestly expecting Muslims the world over, who most likely have never tasted freedom or even modest amounts of wealth, to take our side, when all they have been fed is anti-Semitic propaganda their whole lives?
IMO, Bush is making a big mistake. Not answering Bin Laden’s message because “we don’t deal with terrorists” is akin to not doing a damn thing about airline security after 9/11. We can no longer put our heads in the sand about this; we must engage the enemy on all fronts.
Tony Blair, who impresses me more each day, seems to be trying to do this. Still no explanation why Bush is not, though - Saletan’s point seems a good one to me.
I have heard the “Iraqui sanctions kill thousands each day” argument floated almost every day on THIS BOARD. The fact that Saddam chooses not to feed his people as a lever to control public opinion never quite reaches some people, no matter how often it is pointed out. I question the utility of a response by the Bush Administration. Those who believe Saddam automatically reject what Bush has to say anyway.
On the Palestinians, Saletan points out we are trying to walk a tightrope. Bush just floated the Palestinian State idea, again. Yet, no browine points with the terrorists. Shocking, the left is wrong on appeasement, again.
Many Arabs and others will always assume we are in Israels pocket. So, as on the Iraqui sanctions issue, what is the point in addressing the accustions of a mass murderer?
It sounds like you’re saying we shouldn’t try to win hearts and minds because it won’t work anyway. If there were a great cost associated with presenting our side of the story and making sure people heard it, I would say you had a point. But there isn’t. All it would require is a relatively minor shift in focus in the upper echelons of the executive branch. Where’s the harm?
Hell, we’re on the defensive now with all the talk about how this isn’t a war against Muslims. Bush has to disabuse people of this dangerous perception because it exists, and it shouldn’t exist. We’ve allowed terrorists to frame the debate, and not just for other terrorists, but for decent people all around the world who only see a big, powerful empire picking on a weak, starving nation in the middle of nowhere. We can’t allow this to continue without making our voices heard.
I would like nothing better than a true understanding of the facts to be possible around the World, U.S. included. I’m constantly confronted with incredible amounts of garbage right here at home - those who are ready and willing to spew pure U.S. hatred without so much as an ounce of evidence to back it up. We are evil capitalists, and that’s that. How can we hope for millions of people in truly repressed circumstances to have a better understanding of us when we have so many wack jobs right here at home who accuse this country of being the root of all evil. No wonder that “great satan” line works in the Middle East.
I agree, the OP has a good point - I’ve often listened to those one-sided presentations even in our own media, wondering when someone will speak up with the rest of the facts, only to hear nothing. Like you, cuautemhoc, I wish there was a clear answer to some of these claims on the World stage, including admissions of the wrongs that are done if/when they are done. No person, group or nation on this earth is without wrong doing, so let’s not have this saint vs. sinner delusion; let’s just say it like it is. State our beliefs and what we are willing to do to back them, clearly and without the nasty word tango politicians are famous for.
I’m not a big Bush supporter by any means, but I believe that the administration has been addressing many of these points behind the scenes. We’re currently enjoying a lot of support in the Afghanistan campaign from various Middle Eastern countries, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if part of the reason we’re getting that support is because we’ve already made promises to work towards “fixing” some of these issues (I can bet that “cracking down harder on Israel” would be #1 on that list).
Not that it’s a bad thing, of course – as I’ve said before, if we really want to put an end to terrorism, we’ll have to look beyond bombings and food drops and try to help maintain stability in the Middle East for long-term peace. But as for not speakign much about it now, I agree that it would be misinterpreted by too many lay folks as “capitulation” to the terrorists, which might result in even more terrorist attacks. “Hey, if we commit another atrocious act, maybe we can get MORE compromises!”
More than likely, any talk about changing American policies in the Middle East will come out after a prolonged Afghanistan campaign and some sort of resolution of the bin Laden issue, probably dressed as a “Now that we are trying to rebuild Afghanistan into a peaceful nation, we must look to see who else in the area is downtrodden, and help them get to their feet”-style presentation. At least that’s my guess.
My bad…post. I agree with you. I am just a little defeatist when it comes to our chances of success in the propaganda war. I get that way, in part, from hearing all the college kids and grad. students on the internet. They know everything, and rage about, about our escapades in Guatemala. Scandalous to be sure. But if you mention Stalin, his purges, the Fulda Gap, or the Warsaw Pact they draw a blank or don’t care. I, over and over again, have to justify our ever having opposed communism anywhere in the world. The propaganda spread around by the Soviets seems to still pervade higher education today. Which seems normal, it did when I was in school too. In the 80s, though, many students rebelled against the one-sided leftist professors. All I want is a balanced approach to education in this country, one which presents both sides. It seems too much to ask that other countries change their minds.
I’m doing it again. What I mean is, there are a lot of propaganda victims out there. If you think you can rage against that machine, I am all for you. Moreover, I agree that Bush is doing an inadequate job as the national mouthpiece. Right now he is on TV talking about “rounding up the evil-doers.” Egads, what is this, the Justice League (comic book organization)? In his defense, he has a lot of responsibilies right now. I question his understanding of the dynamic you express in your OP. One of my friends and I continually e-mail on this very subject. He is as upset as you and I are. Nobody listens to us.
Personally, I think we should end the sanctions on Iraq. They don’t work. Nobody will ever acknowledge that Saddam himself may be slightly responsible for the welfare of his own people. You know, that he spends his money on WMDs and not food or medicine. Also, every angry Arab I have heard on TV in the last several years brings it up right before they burn a U.S. flag or an effigy of a president. I would love to hear what new reason they come up with to hate us when that one goes away. Generally I oppose appeasement. This, I think, has no downside. If one says, “it could strenghten his regime.” I ask, are we talking about the same Iraq? His regime is set in concrete, he already snuffed out the opposition. To “get” Saddam requires the U.S. going back in there, sanctions will never do it.
As for the Palestinian issue, I seriously wonder what the Palestinians think our position is. If we condemn Israel, it makes no difference. I guess we need to drop leaflets on the occupied territories when we say something critical of Israel.
The most significant thing that could ever occur in the “hearts and minds” war would be the birth of a moderate Arab press. In Egypt there are a few balanced sources. But, for the most part, it is wacky rumors and vitriolic anti-“Little Satan” (Israel), and anti-“Great Satan” (U.S.) propaganda all over the Middle East and the rest of the Islamic world. So, even if our message changed, it would never get to the people who need to hear it. What can we do about that?