Sunday night President Barack Obama officially declared Osama bin Laden dead.  He began his speech with these words:

Good evening.  Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history.  The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world.  The empty seat at the dinner table.  Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father.  Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace.  Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together.  We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood.  We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country.  On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice.  We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe.  And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

From a narrative perspective our president provided a pitch-perfect set-up for what would follow.  He pointed to the singular events of 9/11, augmenting our collective memory of tragic images of unprecedented public destruction with the private images of personal loss and grief.  From this dramatic opening sequence he revisited the sudden coming together of all Americans against a common enemy, a terrorist organization and its leader who had declared war on the United States.

This opening sequence retells the tragic events of 9/11.  It rhetorically resembles the two post-9/11 addresses by President George W. Bush, two speeches that together created the terms guiding the narrative justifying U.S. actions during the past 10 years:  the brief message on the night of September 11 and the much longer address to a joint session of Congress on 9/20.  Yet there are important rhetorical differences between the approaches used by Obama and Bush.  For example, consider the opening of Bush’s 9/11 message:

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices: secretaries, business men and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge — huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.

A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw evil — the very worst of human nature — and we responded with the best of America. With the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.

Bush’s theme was that America—and all that the American way of life represents to the world—was attacked by “evil” forces (still unnamed at the time of that speech).  Echoing FDR’s “Day of Infamy” speech following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Bush promises that “none of us will forget this day” and invokes the 23rd Psalm as both a prayer and a promise:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.

Bush’s 9/11 speech and the later speech to Congress on 9/20 both recount tragedies in order to establish a just standard for a declaration of war.  Yet both speeches are more than calls for justice.  They are ideological statements that divide the world into binary opposites–“us” vs. “them”–on the basis of a clash, not exactly of civilizations but certainly of values (e.g., freedom, prosperity, democracy, justice).

Despite overt attention to the idea that the emerging post-9/11 war on terror was not a war on Muslims, it was nevertheless a just war that drew strength from “our” religious heritage.  From a strategic communication perspective, it was an unfortunate rhetorical choice to use Judeo-Christian scripture on 9/11, and it was certainly a mistake to invoke the “crusader” image in the speech to Congress (as Bush himself has since admitted).

By contrast, Obama’s speech avoids any overt reference to religion other than to reaffirm Bush’s firm conviction that we are not at war with Islam, and except to close the speech with the traditional political coda, “And May God Bless America.”  Nor does Obama invoke the values espoused by Bush in quite the same way.  Instead of pointing out how powerful we are in order to suggest, however innocently, a theme of wealth driving a righteous Christian revenge, Obama is more circumspect: “Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are:  one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  In other words, it is our core national identity, our character as a people, that makes us successful, not just our business model and certainly not any one religion.

In the body of the speech, Obama quickly passes over the intervening years in two short paragraphs that do not use the terms “war” or “invasion” to describe our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead he focuses on a narrower and more strategically useful narrative trajectory that is all about the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda:

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort.  We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense.  In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support.  And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan.  Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

From that brief assessment that essentially reduces the hunt for bin Laden to a failed quest by his predecessor, Obama moves into the heart of the speech, which is a clear assertion of his personal leadership and direct involvement with the actions that led to the successful completion of original mission:

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.  It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground.  I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.  And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.  No Americans were harmed.  They took care to avoid civilian casualties.  After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies.  The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

This triumphant announcement carries with it an air of authority as well as finality.  It is a powerful message not just recounting the heroic events that led to the killing of a master terrorist. Moreover, it is to remind Americans that for an African-American who has in recent weeks was called upon by critics to “prove” his citizenship, deny that he was raised in Kenya, and to counter the rumor that he was a “secret Muslim,” this bringing to justice of the most wanted man in the world was a major achievement.

Yet Obama the pragmatist does not use the occasion of completing the mission to call for an end to vigilance:

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort.  There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.  We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

At this point the trajectory of the narrative is complete.  We have moved with the president from memory of the original tragedy that gave rise to the conflict between the U.S. and al Qaeda/OBL through an arch of carefully selected events that led, finally, to the successful completion of the mission.  As a leader he stands before us and proclaims: “Justice has been done.”

Obama the politician, who is necessarily mindful of his audiences and an impending re-election campaign, then gives thanks to public and private communities united in the struggle to find bin Laden:

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome.  The American people do not see their work, nor know their names.  But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.  And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

This secondary narrative completion is anthropological.  It is all about closing the cultural arch of a politeness ritual that began with Bush “asking Americans for their help” in the fight against violent extremists with Obama thanking those who participated in that heroic quest for their work and sacrifice.

But still this masterful speech is not quite over.  Obama uses the ending of his address to offer another narrative closure, one that reminds listeners of the unity we felt after 9/11 with the need to work together as a people once again:

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11.  I know that it has, at times, frayed.  Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete.  But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.  That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Overall, the speech and its narrative closure was a complete success.  Yet as important as the death of Osama bin Laden is to this storyline, as urgent as what Kenneth Burke calls “the symbolic kill” is to the morale of our nation and its warriors as well as to the image of the president as an effective leader, it is nevertheless little more than a good speech.

Unfortunately, the death of OBL is not the death of the OBL narrative. As many observers point out, al Qaeda is still a powerful ideological force for violent extremists. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a likely successor to bin Laden.  There are far more people worldwide who hate America than there were 10 years ago, and surely there will be attempts to seek revenge by those who see this final act against bin Laden less as the work of “justice” than as the work of Crusaders or “the Great Satan.”

It will be interesting to see how the events of May 1^st translate into the ongoing competition for narrative dominance over our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It will be fascinating to see if it has any effect on the uprisings known now as the “Arab Spring.”  And  it will also be instructive to see how bin Laden’s death—which is already being cast by extremists as the death of a martyr—plays on the world stage.

Ultimately it will be the task of those of us who study strategic communication in relation to these events to connect this speech to a whole new set of dots.  We are entering a new narrative phase, the endgame, of our involvement in the conflict formerly known as the “global war on terror.” Obama announced the end of bin Laden, but he has yet to announce the end of our combat operations in Afghanistan or the withdrawal of troops and “support personnel” throughout the region.

Given the timetable that he apparently plans to follow, that means that those of us who think about such things need to begin to think about how to leave the battlefield with our narrative intact.  In other words, we need to begin planning for how we will withdraw without the other side claiming victory, particularly one that reminds the world of the defeat of the Soviet Union, or of the crusaders, or of any one of the master narratives that depict the defeat of a superior force by small bands of true believers, armed mostly with the will of Allah.

Osama bin Laden is dead, but his narrative has yet to be defeated.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In our work identifying and tracking the use of Islamist narratives here at the CSC, the second most frequently invoked among Islamist extremists in our research (after Nakba or Palestine) has been the Crusader master narrative. The use of this term among Islamists connotes religious war, subjugation by Western Christians, injustice, and eventual colonization. Its use in the West, however, connotes a much different meaning: a righteous cause, good triumphing over evil, a reclamation of holy lands. Hence perspective is key in the use of narratives, which is why they are so powerful and able to convey deep meanings with the invocation of a few key terms. The use of narrative to convey meaning is important, and it is equally important to understand how audiences perceive the use of these narratives.

Islamists the world over continue to use the term “crusade” to describe the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when George W. Bush referred to the war in Iraq as a crusade, he was roundly (and rightly) criticized for playing into the Islamists’ narrative. While he may have wanted to convey the justness of the struggle to eliminate violent extremism, to Muslims worldwide he conveyed the meaning of religious war in order to dominate Muslim lands. The narrative slip is widely considered the gaffe that it was.

When NATO forces began to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya in an effort to prevent Muammar Qaddafi from bombing and strafing his own people, the opinions of observers – including allies and enemies of the United States – ran the gamut from full support to condemnation. Because it was an attack on a predominantly Muslim nation by predominantly Christian nations (Qatar an exception), Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized the effort and called it a crusade (Qaddafi also used the term). Russia’s President, Dmitry Medvedev, in a rare public difference on policy, condemned the use of the word in this context.

The Putin-Medvedev rhetorical dispute was covered in the mainstream press, including the New York Times, which carried a story with the connotation that Putin’s words were not well chosen (Christian Science Monitor story here). My colleague Jeffry Halverson wrote a Comops blog post about Putin’s comments here.

This is why it was particularly surprising and disturbing to read a front-page story on March 29 about the conflict in Libya that invoked the crusade narrative in referring to Samantha Power, President Obama’s advisor on human rights.

The Times fell into a narrative trap that it set for itself. The issue of human rights in the Muslim world – and elsewhere in Asia and Africa – is contentious. Dictators – in Africa, Latin America, and Asia – have often portrayed western ideals of human rights as an imposition of foreign values on these countries, and claim that democracy, for example, is inconsistent with their cultures (here is a recent essay on the topic from the Chinese embassy in the US).  This is belied, of course, by these countries’ grassroots human rights and pro-democracy movements – including those in Libya (although it remains to be seen exactly what would hold the rebels together if they should achieve their goal of ousting Qaddafi). Sharp observers of those condemning “western” human rights point out that this criticism is made frequently by those for whom human rights and democracy are a threat – such as Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew, Indonesia’s Suharto, and more recently Syria’s Bashar al Assad.

When the Times refers to a human rights promoter as a “crusader,” however, it plays into the historical notion of human rights as a foreign, western concept, and provides rhetorical ammunition for Qaddafi and his supporters, as well as opponents of democracy and human rights elsewhere. It is as if the United States is suggesting that human rights are an imposition of western or foreign or even Christian values, similar to the crusades, and it is a particularly curious and troublesome choice of words on the part of the Times. It sends an unfortunate message that undermines its intent when viewed from a Muslim perspective. Many Muslims have beliefs about human rights that are mostly consistent with international norms. We need to engage and empower these people, not alienate them.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

President Obama’s speech from the Oval Office last night announced the end of combat operations in Iraq. The speech was largely driven by his choice of a defining metaphor:

“We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home” . . . “Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.”

But as I’ll explain, that page-turning metaphor fails to deliver the closure that is so important to a good narrative.

Ever since he assumed the presidency, I have been following Obama’s “narrative gap” on matters related to the conflict formerly known as “the global war on terror.” His speech in Cairo seemed like a good start for defining a new beginning in our relations with Muslims and with the Middle East.

Yet I found his subsequent speech at West Point to be a narrative failure. It neither advanced the themes of the Cairo address nor broke new ground in the way Americans (or indeed the world) were to understand our continuing role in the Middle East.

I was then greatly pleased to see a major leap forward in his masterful Nobel Prize address in Stockholm. There he not only outlined a clear and–in my view–responsible mission for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also complicated the dominant binary of war/peace that so divided public opinion.

Viewed as a narrative trajectory, the previous speeches defined the U.S. mission as a reluctant but noble quest, casting the women and men fighting the war in the role of reluctant heroes who aimed to secure the safety of war-torn countries and reestablish local authority for policing and governing them. The speeches reserved for Obama the behind-the-scenes role of a wise wizard who commands “the long view.”

In such narrative constructions–think of “Lord of the Rings” or “Star Wars”–otherwise ordinary citizens are called to action (usually against their better judgment) to fight dark forces that threaten their way of life (or sometimes the security of the universe). The wise wizards provide helpful advice and direction, but rarely give final answers. Nevertheless, these oft-told tales–whether in fiction, film, nonfiction, or presidential speeches–provide powerful cultural expectations for not only “what should happen next” but also for “how it should (or must) end.” In other words they create expectations for closure.

The president’s speech last night offered him the opportunity to provide narrative closure on Iraq. Did our would-be wise wizard succeed? The short answer is that he did not. Those on the left wanted to hear our president blame his predecessor for an unwarranted war that cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and over a trillion dollars in treasure that has been a major cause of our burgeoning budget deficit. There was no blame for the Bush administration; in fact, the president was gracious in his avoidance of blame. There was even praise for Bush’s patriotism.

For those on the right it was (predictably) even less successful. As Representative John Boehner (R-OH) observed even before the speech was given, it didn’t give credit for the surge where it was due–the Bush administration. David Gergen, commenting on CNN on the speech on behalf of mainstream Republicans, said the message that Obama “loved the troops but hated the war” probably wouldn’t help. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, when asked after the speech whether the war had been worth it, replied somewhat evasively if honestly, “It really requires a historian’s perspective in terms of what happens here in the long run.”

Beyond these partisan interpretations, Obama’s end-of-war speech was also notable for what it did not include. There was no declaration of “victory,” no mention of “democracy,” and no clean announcement of an exit from the country or region. There was no mention of the awkward ironies that permeate our seven-year involvement in Iraq:

• We declared victory after two months of war despite the fact that nothing has been won.
• The democratic government that we promised has yet to fully materialize and is possibly even in serious jeopardy.
• No clean exit was likely, there would be no immediate “happy ending,” because there is rarely a clean-cut outcome in this kind of conflict.

Instead we are “turning the page” from combat in Iraq to combat in Afghanistan, and the story goes on. This is a fact that is neither popular with the American people nor with politicians on either side of the aisle.

Realizing this, President Obama, in his role as wise wizard, once again affirmed the longer view:

“One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power — including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example — to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes — a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time.”

Given these responses to the speech, it would be wrong of me to suggest it was successful. There was good in it–praising the troops for their valor and sacrifice, ending the official combat commitment to Iraq, and reminding us that we still have responsibilities to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it was narratively and pragmatically unsatisfying because it clearly demonstrated a lack of closure so necessary to a successful “end of war” speech.

Put in the terms of narrative trajectories associated with heroic quests: order has not been fully restored and justice does not yet prevail. True to his theme, Obama announced only that we had “turned the page.” But what he failed to do was close the book.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Indian novelist and activist Arundhati Roy wrote an opinion piece in the British daily The Guardian, stating:

[Bin Laden] has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by American foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of ‘full-spectrum dominance,’ its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts.

In case you were wondering, Roy is neither an Islamist nor even a Muslim; she’s the daughter of a Christian and a Hindu. I cite Roy’s words because I think it illustrates a widespread international attitude toward American foreign policy, or what some have described as American “imperialism” and “militarism.” Wherever you stand on this issue, I want you to focus on one important question: At what point do actions speak louder than words? It’s a vital question. So far the American government is failing to support its words with appropriate actions. America’s ideals and principles are not being communicated by its actions.

The speech that President Obama gave in Cairo at the beginning of his term was generally met with enthusiasm and approval in Muslim societies, albeit with some caution and reserve. Justifying that reserve, I dare say that the government’s actions have yet to live up to the President’s words. Meanwhile, the public discourse in the United States has taken a decidedly hostile turn against Muslims, hardly the “new beginning” Obama spoke about.

From Congress all the way to Main Street, the majority of Americans, if polls about the Cordoba House project are indicative, appear to equate the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from the UAE) with all Muslims, including American Muslims, despite the fact that there is no evidence Americans were involved in the attack. “They” are all one and the same.

For instance, a popular Facebook group opposing the Cordoba House project in New York City has over 115,000 online supporters and states:

Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. . . They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people. [Emphasis added]

Apparently there is no distinction between American Muslims, including those who have lived in NYC long before the 9/11 attacks, and the 19 foreign nationals (most of them Saudis) who killed some 3,000 Americans, including many Muslim Americans. Opposition to mosques is not limited to the two-block radius around Ground Zero either. It is being documented around the country. Detractors are no longer citing traffic concerns either, they openly claim that mosques will bring terrorists into their neighborhoods.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, there was a conscious effort on the part of the Bush administration and many other groups to try to allay anti-Muslim sentiment in our country and prevent the outbreak of widespread violence against American Muslims. Furthermore, despite persistent urban myths to the contrary, there was widespread condemnation of the attacks throughout the Muslim world.

In the years since that time, in which violence against American Muslims did nevertheless occur, the efforts by the Bush administration and others to promote coexistence have become the subject of ridicule as dishonest “political correctness” and “pandering” to extremists. President Bush’s televised statement that “Islam means peace” has since become a derisive joke. This is even evident in President Obama’s own obvious discomfort with Muslims, rooted in his need to distance himself from anything that may feed the persistent conspiracy theories that Obama himself is some sort of “covert Muslim,” or even an Islamist.

For example, after a statement of support for Mayor Bloomberg’s position on the Cordoba House project, Obama–who is still in his first term–qualified his remarks, stating that:

I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

The Cordoba House case, along with many incidents at home and abroad, communicates a clear message: A substantial number of Americans, even a majority, think, or privately suspect, that we are at war with Islam as a whole. This idea is furthermore guiding actions and informing public discourse. In such a climate, all the bags of wheat with the red, white, and blue logos on them, all the smiling soldiers playing soccer and handing out candy, all the official Ramadan greetings and public speeches relating holiday words of kindness, do nothing so long as our actions provide ample fodder for Osama bin Laden and other extremists who are telling Muslim societies that we are at war with them, with “Islam,” the religion of over 1 billion people.

There are plenty of non-Muslim Americans, including government officials, who agree with Bin Laden too, and they write best-selling books, give speeches, fund organizations, and elect candidates to communicate Bin Laden’s message for him, of America versus Islam. In fact, I would say that those who advocate the fantasy of a holy “clash of civilizations” are far more inclined to action than those who disagree with it. Far more.

So what do these actions communicate? When an audience cannot understand English, they can still understand a bullet, a bomb, or, yes, a reconstruction project. When Afghan civilians are killed by an American drone firing missiles into the mountains near Peshawar, no amount of apologies, translated or not, will atone for it. No bags of wheat, medical treatment, school books, or new wells, will make up for the loss of a family member or a child (if indeed they get any of those things). America will be seen in the unflattering terms expressed above by Ms. Roy. Of course, the extremists have killed countless civilians. In fact, al-Qaeda and its affiliates have killed far more Muslims than they have “infidel” Americans. Far more.  So what are the extremists saying or doing that America is not?

America is a foreign power; a superpower, in fact, with over 700 military bases around the world. The Taliban may be brutal, oppressive, tyrants, and thugs, but they are Afghans. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) may be vicious, but they are North Africans (Arabs and Berbers). A narrative of freedom from occupation is a very easy message for extremists to communicate, a story long understood in many regions of the Muslim world. We must be far more attentive to what our actions are communicating in such contexts.

It is wise and informed actions that go farthest in neutralizing the shamefully effective actions by extremists to cast America into “crusader” narratives. The invasion of Iraq was an absolute gift to them, in more ways than one. The ongoing financial and political support of authoritarian regimes is another. Words about freedom and democracy mean nothing to people in the Middle East when our actions and tax dollars support the Saudi monarchy and the Mubarak regime. How can so many Americans be up-in-arms about the American Muslim Cordoba House project, when they buy products and stock from companies (such as Apple and Priceline) that are part-owned by members of the Wahhabist Saudi monarchy?

Yes, actions do speak louder than words. The act of building the Cordoba House has created irrational outrage before construction has even begun, despite statements and speeches attempting to allay the hostility over the project. The act of America’s physical military presence in numerous Muslim societies also speaks louder than a thousand statements about noble ideals of freedom and democracy for those societies, especially when America fails to live up to those ideals by backing oppressive authoritarian regimes.

In terms of a communication strategy, there’s obviously serious work to be done — not just talked about — as the status quo goes on. Our current actions clearly aren’t communicating the right message, and our well-intended words are being undermined by our actions.

Editor’s Update — August 23

Since Jeff posted this, there has been news of growing concern about the public diplomacy and strategic communication implications of this controversy.  Two articles, in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, cite counterterrorism officials saying that the controversy is being exploited by extremists.  The latter article is especially interesting because WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation, which liberal commentators like Frank Rich accuse of stoking the controversy.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

At his final news conference yesterday President Bush responded to a question about whether the nation’s image needs repairing given the “damage that Gitmo, that harsh interrogation tactics that  [members of the incoming administration] consider torture, how going to war in Iraq without a UN mandate have damaged America’s moral standing in the world.”  He said:

I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged.  It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America as a country provides such great hope.

If “moral standing” is a synonym for moral authority, we are talking about a rather abstract legal concept, but I found a more concrete definition at Wiktionary:

(of a person, institution, or written work) The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.

Anyone who doesn’t recognize that, at present, the rest of the world respects us less, questions our character more, and sees us as a lesser source of guidance is simply refusing to let facts get in the way of their opinions.

The downturn has been well-documented over recent years in research by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.  Last month Pew published a summary of their studies entitled Global Public Opinion in the Bush Years.  In it they present a graph (shown here) that is pretty hard to reconcile with the President’s strong disagreement.  It shows an average drop of 28% in favorability ratings of the U.S. in European countries since 2000.

And the problem is not just in Old Europe or among “some of the elite.”  The Pew surveys were based on data from a total of 175,000 respondents in 54 nations and the Palestinian territories.   So “the U.S. image abroad is suffering almost everywhere.”  The report goes on to explain that

Mounting discontent with U.S. foreign policy over the last eight years has translated into a concern about American power. In the view of much of the world, the United States has played the role of bully in the school yard, throwing its weight around with little regard for others’ interests.

The research shows that there is some truth to the President’s statement in that foreigners still have some hopeful feelings about us:

For many people from all over the world, America is still the land of opportunity. …Most countries surveyed in 2008 give America high marks for its respect for the personal freedoms of its people. … Also, the American people continue to evoke far more positive reviews in many countries than does their country.

But it’s a mistake to think these positive views somehow obviate the negative ones.

Recognizing problems is the first step in taking action to correct them.  I think the new leadership does recognize them, and will be able to capitalize on the hopeful attitudes toward the U.S. also noted in the Pew report in order to begin turning things around.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Last week I noted that the U.S. had decided to stop calling the Bad Guys “jihadis.”  Well as Jeffrey Imm over at CT Blog points out, there’s just one little problem:   Apparently the State Department and the President didn’t get that memo.  Imm details 30 uses of the word or its derivatives in the latest Country Reports on Terrorism, and in a recent Bush speech.  He (rightly) wonders:

Does the NCTC and DHS now think that the State Department and President Bush are “legitimizing” the actions of the enemy by using such terms?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

About a year ago, Ian Dirk did a post on COMOPS about a Palestinian children’s story hour where the featured stories included a tale of a Jewish woman who tried to poison the Prophet (moral: “the Jews are a people of treachery and betrayal.”), and the story of a little kid who left his family to kill infidels, only to be killed, buried and resurrected.

And who can forget Farfur the mouse? He channeled Mickey on Palestinian TV until international criticism led to cancellation of the show. In the final episode Farfur was martyred by an Israeli agent who beat him to death.

Proving once again that it’s nothing if not creative with children’s programming, al Aqsa TV is out with a new puppet show. It features a puppet-kid having his homicidal way with puppet-Bush, as in U.S. President Bush. Here’s a bit of the script as reported by MEMRI:

Child: “You are impure, Bush, so you are not allowed inside the White House.”

Bush: “What are you saying?! Why am I not allowed into the White House?”

Child: “Because it has been turned into a great mosque for the nation of Islam. I will kill you just like Mu’az killed Abu Lahab. I will kill you, Bush, because that is your fate.”

Child stabs Bush repeatedly

Child: “Ahhh, I killed him.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Pardon my rant. I say that in advance but without apology. Today’s New York Times article about the United States Senate vote to approve President Bush’s plan to grant legal protection to telephone companies for cooperating with illegal wiretaps on American citizens as well as to expand existing government spy powers on citizens adds to global suspicions that consistent definitions for the terms “freedom” and “democracy,” as well as our Constitutional rights, are largely the hobgoblins of small minds in domestic policies at home and foreign policies abroad. But the larger issue in that vote may be the role played by secrecy and coverups in the American political arena when real world political action has been superseded by virtual politics. (Self-disclosure: I am a certified child of the 1960′s and, as you can read here, a member of the blogging class.)

While many political observers, pundits, and academics have used every available communication media to comment and critique the cult of secrecy that defines Bush administration’s “global war on terror” and the culture of national (in)security and heightened fear that feeds and nurtures it, there seems to be no way in the real world to stop it. Observers, pundits, and academics have failed. Yesterday’s vote in the Senate adds to the shame of elected officials by demonstrating conclusively the failure of the Democratic party and sensible Republicans to halt these transgressions against American citizens. And if the party of loyal opposition cannot stand up to the task, not even with Presidential approval ratings at an all time low, then who will? I wish I could say it was us. But it is not. Certainly not we the much appealed-to “ordinary citizenry,” those of us who continue to shop rather than protest in any way; watch reality television rather than hold elected officials accountable; and remain at home with our worries about higher gas prices and the decreasing value of our homes rather than do anything personally to stop the Constitution from burning. Face it: Ordinary citizens are even less likely to take to the streets or march on Washington than to give up their cell phones. But at least some of us are willing to take phones away from our ears long enough to blog about it.

Democracy relies on free elections and free speech, and perhaps the hope afforded by these freedoms is what keeps us off the streets and on the blogs. As voters, and as bloggers, we steadfastly await the November elections and keyboard away to January 20, 2009 with the hopeful optimism of lifelong sinners praying suddenly for a miracle and salvation.

Unfortunately, like many who pray, we may find that we are talking only to ourselves. Our daily reports about the talk of leading Presidential candidates and the failures of Congress, or the ongoing war in Iraq, or the possible coming attractions in Iran replace real-world coordinated political action with virtual world self-satisfaction. Online our rhetoric smacks loudly of a national desire to rally behind a hero or heroine who can win back our pride, our good name, our status, and salvage our economy in the world. I may blog, but in this activity I also have learned good reasons to fear for the future of my country. After all, we are most dangerous as women and men when, out of fear, we urgently meet among ourselves to create a powerful new God to rule us and change our fate.But for the time being, at least we have the freedom of speech, free elections, and political blogs. With a Congress so prone to give away our freedoms in the name of national security, this too may pass.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In early March, President Bush embarked on a five-nation tour of Latin American with the goal of advancing America’s image in the region. According to the White House website, the message of this tour was clear:

The President Is Committed To Helping Democracies In The Western Hemisphere:

• Build government institutions that are fair, effective, and free of corruption;
• Meet basic needs like education, healthcare, and housing; and
• Maintain economies that make it possible for workers to provide for their families and rise in society.

Bush’s visit focused on introducing initiatives in strategically important countries in the region that emphasize America’s positive role in supporting democracy and working to reduce poverty. In Brazil, Bush and Brazilian president Lula convened a press conference to announce an agreement to increase cooperation in the development of biofuels such as ethanol. Bush appeared with the presidents of Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico to introduce similar cooperative measures. The visit was part of a larger effort to engage a region that critics say the administration has neglected during the Global War on Terror.

Bush’s tour was complicated by the competing tour of one of the administration’s harshest critics, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Chavez toured the region at the same time as Bush, visiting countries not on Bush’s itinerary and introducing his own agreements with those countries’ leaders, while also taking the opportunity to lead rallies against Bush. However, despite Chavez’s persistent taunting of the president, Bush refused to acknowledge Chavez during his trip.

Principles

Bush used a common debating tactic in his refusal to mention the name of his primary adversary in the region. Rather than humanize an opponent by using their proper name, debaters will often refer to them with the formula “my opponent” or refuse to acknowledge them at all. In these cases, recognizing an adversary, or “sanctioning the devil” as it is commonly called, is believed to lend credibility to the other side, while denial of the opponent indicates an attitude that their arguments are not even worthy of consideration. Because the Bush tour was focused on promoting the US image in South America, to acknowledge Chavez would presumably distract the public from the message of American solidarity with the region.

Communication scientists have done studies that reveal a potential flaw in this type of strategy. Allen et al (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of how message sidedness affected persuasive outcomes by distinguishing between one-sided, two-sided and two-sided refutational message strategies. One-sided messages, such as that illustrated by the Bush strategy during the Latin American trip, convey the type of unified message that Allen and his colleagues found to be more effective than message strategies that simply acknowledge an opponent’s position. However, Allen el al found that the most persuasive messages are those that include both acknowledgement and refutation of oppositional views. Presumably two-sided refutational messages are most effective because, unlike one-sided message strategies that do not take into account other possible interpretations and non-refutational two-sided messages that allow oppositional interpretations to remain unchallenged, these more complex arguments give reasons why the position advocated is superior to alternatives.

Multiple interpretations to a single message can be understood through the pragmatic complexity model of communication. As an alternative to the older transmission model of communication (Source -> Message -> Audience), the model of pragmatic complexity draws on systems theory to explain how communicative success is dependent on a number of factors, not simply the skill of the communicators. Whereas the traditional model encourages repetition of the same simple message, this model requires diverse methods, messages modified for context and audience, experimentation, and an expectation of communicative failure. Put simply: Repeating an unsuccessful message does nothing more than breed repetitive failure to communicate.

Analysis

Bush’s denial of Chavez during his Latin American tour is consistent with the administration’s attitude that giving credence to many of their opponents would constitute “rewarding bad behavior.” However, one has only to look as far as Cuba to see not only a model of Chavez’s form of government but also a model of a failed policy of “sanctioning the devil,” where the decades-long embargo has failed to topple the Castro government. Fortunately, relations with Venezuela have not yet deteriorated to that extent, and opportunities exist for engagement with the Chavez government which may offer additional benefits.

The success of American engagement with South America rests on following up this visit with further initiatives that reinforce our commitment to the region, with an emphasis on refutation of oppositional positions. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s planned trip to Latin America is one such opportunity to continue this focus on cooperation with Latin America. Additionally, collaboration with Brazil provides support to counterbalance Chavez’s influence in the region. History shows that a strategy of triangulation can be effective in defusing tensions with a similar socialist adversary. Henry Kissinger’s strategy of détente with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev during the height of the Cold War was especially effective because of Nixon’s simultaneous engagement with China. Despite adversarial rhetoric on both sides during the Cold War, America’s ability to negotiate with communist countries helped to bring about the peaceful fall of the Soviet Union and the modernization of China. Combined with closer relations with Brazil, there is a potential that engagement with Venezuela may open doors to solutions of other major conflicts around the world.

Chavez has relationships with some of America’s primary adversaries on the world stage, including North Korea and Iran. The CSC has already released a white paper about the Iranian letter to President Bush advising that we modify our communicative strategies in dealing with Iranian president Ahmadinejad and adapt our public diplomacy to engage with these opportunities for discussion despite the clear differences in the approach to diplomacy. A better relationship with Venezuela may open up new channels for communication with these other countries.

Reshaping America’s image abroad requires more than simply repeating positive messages about America, because these messages allow for undesired interpretations. One-sided message strategies can be spun as avoidance by adversaries of American policy. Perhaps Chavez drew inspiration for his challenge to Bush from Ahmadinejad’s unanswered call for a debate between the Iranian leader and Bush. Chavez knew that Bush would not allow himself to be dragged into a name-calling session, so Chavez was able to use this expectation to reinforce his counter-message to American openness and freedom of speech. If someone like Condoleezza Rice, who inspires less personal hate from Chavez, would answer the call to debate, it would not only disrupt expectations but also create new channels for communication between the two countries. This type of debate would give U.S. leaders an opportunity to directly refute the arguments against America and create a more persuasive positive image.

The primary obstacle we face in dealing with Venezuela is Chavez’s animosity towards President Bush. In a recent interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters, Chavez said that his problem isn’t with America, but with Bush himself. However, he also indicated a willingness to apologize for past name-calling. Another insight gained by ABC’s David Puente, who interviewed Chavez’s psychiatrist, may shed light on Chavez’s often irrational behavior: he suffers from bipolar disorder. Debating with an irrational person may have its risks, but a public debate would expose his irrationality on an international stage.

The influence Chavez has in the region cannot be ignored. A strategy of simple pro-U.S. messages does not address the diverse experiences of the people in the region. Opening communication channels and experimenting with different messages is a better approach. Our continued relations with Venezuela, combined with Chavez’s willingness to admit his own mistakes, mean that we may still have an opportunity to mend relations with the Venezuelan leader, so long as he stays on his medication.

Further Reading

• Allen, M. A., Hale, J. L., Mongeau, P. A., Berkowitz-Stafford, S., Stafford, S., Shanahan, W., et al. (1990). Testing a model of message sidedness: Three replications. Communication Monographs, 57, 275-291.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.