In previous posts I have advocated amplifying al-Qaeda’s record of killing Muslims, and argued this practice was doing serious damage toAQ’s brand.  Captured documents from bin Laden’s compound indicate that he was worried about the same thing.

Last week David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote a story based on his “exclusive look” at those documents.  The headline was about bin Laden’s supposed plot to kill President Obama.  But later in the story he describes bin Laden’s hand-wringing over his organization’s image:

Bin Laden’s biggest concern was al-Qaeda’s media image among Muslims. He worried that it was so tarnished that, in a draft letter probably intended for Atiyah, he argued that the organization should find a new name.

The al-Qaeda brand had become a problem, bin Laden explained, because Obama administration officials “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,” and instead promoted a war against al-Qaeda. The organization’s full name was “Qaeda al-Jihad,” bin Laden noted, but in its shorthand version, “this name reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them.” He proposed 10 alternatives “that would not easily be shortened to a word that does not represent us.” His first recommendation was “Taifat al-tawhid wal-jihad,” or Monotheism and Jihad Group.

Bin Laden ruminated about “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere that had killed Muslims, even in mosques. He told Atiyah to warn every emir, or regional leader, to avoid these “unnecessary civilian casualties,” which were hurting the organization.

“Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].” Local al-Qaeda leaders should “apologize and be held responsible for what happened.”

The moral is that words really do matter when it comes to government strategic communication.  As William Saletan writes in Slate, the Obama administration took a lot of political heat for ratcheting-down the “war on terror” rhetoric, but has been vindicated.  Maintaining the idea that the United States is fighting a religion only reinforces the clash of civilizations narrative, which in turns plays directly into the communication strategy of the Bad Guys.

Related posts:

1. Has al-Qaeda Become a Toxic Brand? by Steven R. Corman In business marketing, branding means creating...
2. Osama bin Laden’s Image Appears on Toast! By Chris Lundry It was bound to happen: London’s Daily...
3. Zawahiri’s Curious Recollection of Karbala in Bin Laden Eulogy by Jeffry R. Halverson The Karbala master narrative is one...

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

President Obama has now made his second trip in office to the land where he spent four years of his youth, Indonesia, while on a trip to Asia and Australia. Although Obama’s time in Indonesia was brief, he was welcomed relatively warmly by most Indonesians, who appreciate his ties to the most populous Muslim country. There are, however, plenty of people who disapproved, including the usual suspects, the Islamist extremists.

The trip is part of a plan to shore up ties and increase the US presence in Southeast Asia in order to balance a rising China, and in response to the previous administration’s general neglect of the region (one of the reasons China made such significant inroads there in the last decade). Obama also announced plans to increase the US military presence in Australia, which irked China. The disputes in the South China Sea — the Spratly and Paracel Islands — and China’s increasing assertiveness are certainly part of the decision to increase the US presence there.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia staged a protest at the American embassy prior to his visit. Although their website listed the number of demonstrators as 20,000, other sources gave estimates from hundreds to 2500.

“Why Obama (must be) Shot” is the title of a story on the ar Rahmah extremist web site. The image accompanying the story is one they and others have used before — Obama as pharaoh, invoking a strong Islamist narrative of tyranny and injustice. The caption reads “Pharaoh of this time, demon predator of Muslims.” The article goes on to repeatedly refer to Obama as a “crusader,” another powerful narrative — although an explanation of how he can be both a pharaoh and a crusader at the same time is lacking.

The articlH cites Oscar Ortega Hernandez, the 21-year-old who fired shots at the White House last week. Although Pennsylvania police stated that he was mentally disturbed (he told friends that Obama is the anti-Christ, so I guess he does have more than one thing in common with the extremists), the “psychologists” at ar Rahmah give him a clean bill of health:

Funny thing is the Pennsylvania police who arrested Oscar alleged that he suffered mental illness and was reported missing by his family since last week. Yet if you look at the published photos of Oscar, of course anyone would argue that Oscar is not mentally handicapped, but rather very healthy and very aware of what he did, namely to shoot Obama!

Not sure what they will make his tattoo of the word “Israel” — his young son’s name — on Ortega’s neck, however.

According to ar Rahmah, the plan to station Marines in Australia is simply a pretext to begin a crusade against Indonesian Muslims. In agreement with the English extremist group Muslims Against Crusades (a group recently banned by the British government), the assassination of Obama is allowed because of his execution of two Muslim heroes: Osama bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki.

Jailed extremist leader Abu Bakar Basyir concurs. In another story on ar Rahmah, Basyir argues that because he is the leader of a crusade started by his predecessor, Obama must be fought. Voice of Islam posted a story arguing that Obama was in Indonesia to attempt to “Christianize” the country.

While Obama was in Bali, there was a 5.3 earthquake. Ar Rahmah pinpointed the cause of the earthquake, however: when Obama greeted the Indonesian First Lady Ani Yudhoyono, he (“ferociously”) kissed her on the cheek. It’s another attempt to link a natural disaster with some kind of moral transgression, something Indonesian Islamist extremists do frequently, just as Christian extremists do here in the US.

As usual, ar Rahmah posted a link to their website on Facebook. In a country of around 240,000,000, with around 30,000,000 Facebook users (ranking second in the world), the article about the earthquake received 139 “likes,” 21 “shares,” and 39 comments, including one brave soul who cautioned that posting stories such as this one can make Muslims appear to be provocateurs. In a new democracy with newly found freedoms of press and expression, Indonesia’s extremists continue to test the boundaries. Calling for the assassination of a visiting head of state is apparently within those boundaries. Thankfully the number of supporters of this group are small, and none chose to act on the call to violence.

Related posts:

1. Extremists Stoking Religious Violence in Indonesia by Chris Lundry Violence between Muslims and Christians broke out...
2. Another Bombing in Indonesia, Another Struggle over Framing by Chris Lundry On Sunday, September 25, a lone suicide...
3. Indonesia Events Show Increasing Extremist Influence by Chris Lundry The past couple of weeks have been...

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

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.

There is a new narrative responsible for the success of the uprisings that spread from Tunisia through Egypt and now are heard in the streets of Syria, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.  It is a secular narrative generated by young Muslims who recognize that older jihadist forms of “telling their resistance story” by linking them to Islamic Master Narratives were largely responsible for the binary oppositions that divide them, and Islam, from the West and modernity.

As Jacqueline O’Rourke, a communication consultant working in Qutar and writing in Z Magazine sees it:

This new communications plan is a direct attempt to create a counter-narrative to the predominant one which has dominated Western discourse for the past decade. That narrative runs roughly like this: Muslims are jealous of the freedom and technological advantages of the West. Their society has been in decline after their scientific advances of medieval Europe. Instead, they try to use the West’s technology against itself. Whether airplanes, viruses, or chemicals, Muslims have appropriated science for the purposes of terrorism.

As Thomas Friedman and others have pointed out, the existing “anti-technology/science” narrative is often coupled with Zionist-American conspiracy tales, and together they have fueled the extremist “New Jahiliyya” master narrative developed by Sayyid Qutb.  It depicts a Muslim world in chaos and disorder that can only be made righteous again by a vanguard of True Believers who rise up and seize power by any means necessary, and who essentially return their culture and people to a 7^th Century CE way of life.

Clearly that old religious narrative has been either silent or silenced in the face of these new uprisings by young Muslims throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  Not even the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for an Islamic state.  Instead, the young Muslims and their new leaders are pressing for reforms that offer more freedom, more opportunity, and more control over their own choices, not a return to Sharia law or the reestablishment of a Caliphate.  More importantly, their call for reform is accomplished without challenging the sanctity of the Five Pillars of Islam, which places obedience to God before any other duty or goal.  In this way, young Muslims have opened up a “Third Way” narrative that balances respect for religious traditions with progressive political reforms designed to improve their ability to live well and to compete in a global economy.

But as good as this new secular narrative may sound to Western ears, O’Rourke explains the outcome is unlikely to be one that accepts Western “hypocrisy and condescension”:

One critical reality is that this revolution is not only a revolution against Arab dictators, but a revolution against the humiliation Muslims have been facing in the post-9/11 global landscape. The Arab/Muslim people are not just enraged with political, social, and economic oppression, they are also angry with their rulers’ complicity with imperialism, particularly American and Israeli. In short, the revolution has erupted from Muslim societies as a result of internal oppression and as a response to political, economic, and cultural imperialism, with which the post-9/11 youth are intricately familiar. In this regard, the international community must get the message that this revolution is as much against its hypocritical and condescending manner of dealing with Muslim societies as it is against Mubarak, Ben Ali, or Qadaffi.

One way to think about how all of these narrative tensions may play out is to consider that across this region people are not so much interested in trading one way of life for another, but instead creating a new way of life—a new language for governance—that avoids the pitfalls of either the old jihadi ideological worldview or one that values free market capitalism via oil revenues in exchange for continued support for dictators, particularly if the latter alternative carries with it unquestioning support of Israel.

What might that new narrative be?  One possible story is a hybrid combination of socialism designed to better distribute the wealth and opportunities afforded by revenues (however they are derived) with a progressive Islam dedicated to improving human rights and building communities that are based more on Islamic scholarship and nonviolence than on free market capitalism or extremism.

In this brave new narrative the system of stories would be all about more openness and tolerance, as well as more democratic reform, but there would be no good reason to expect that U.S. corporate or political interests would enjoy any special status in it.  There are other emerging markets—from China to India to the EU—and the political landscape that was once dominated by American foreign policy backed by an unlimited military budget is not what it once was nor do we have the will to wield power in the old fashioned way.

The speech given in Cairo by President Obama last year set in motion a storyline that may well have influenced young Muslims to go ahead with their uprisings.  The president’s late intervention in Libya—and that only with international backing and cooperation—further provided evidence that our intentions are no longer driven by revenge, as they have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead by a steely pragmatism that weighs in on the side of those fighting against oppression but leaves outcomes to those who must then forge a new society.

In general, this new secular narrative is all about accepting this post-uprising/revolution responsibility.  It is thankfully free of the old Islamist rant.  It is so far mostly free from violence, except in Libya.  We should begin to expand our conception of how secular narratives are producing political and social change and rethink our approach to strategic communication as a result.  We don’t want to make the old Pentagon mistake of preparing for the last war, in this case the jihad drawn from master narratives of Islamist extremism, while a whole set of new strategic communication challenges that has nothing to do with those old stories takes shape.

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.

The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia last week beget further democracy uprisings in Egypt and Yemen this week, as well as protests in Jordan and Mauritania.  If the protesters are finally successful in Egypt and President Hosni Mubarak is forced out, this eruption of game-changing scenarios inspired by deep conflicts between the people and their leaders, and enabled by the velocity and spread of social media, poses a whole new set of communication and policy challenges for the United States.

For most Americans these developments are news items that we watch until we tire of the images on the screen and turn the channel or click onto another website or decide to check our email or post a change to our Facebook status.  I doubt many of us could locate Tunisia on a world map.  I know most of my students can’t.  But beneath that surface of relatively uninformed curiosity about the unfolding rebellion lies a deeper empty well of cultural ignorance.  Put simply, most of us couldn’t say why, or how, the words “Pharaoh” and “tyrant” used to describe Mubarak are such powerful narrative IEDs dropped into an already turbulent environment.

Here’s a brief version of the backstory, which you can read more about in a new book, Master Narratives of Islamist Extremism, to be released next week.  (Full disclosure: I am one of the authors.)  The Pharaoh, a tyrant believed by many Muslims to be Ramses II, rejected the Word of God despite being repeatedly being shown signs through Moses who was acting as God’s agent, was drowned in the sea with his army while pursuing the Israelites.  Just before death, the Pharaoh accepted the God of Moses but it was too late.  God did not save him.  Instead, God promised to preserve the tyrant’s body for all time, so all could see what fate awaited those who reject God’s signs.  The body of Ramses II is, in fact, remarkably well preserved and on display in Cairo today.

That is where the Old Testament/Qur’anic story ends, but it is not the end of the story.  Master narratives derive their enduring cultural power over time and across geographies.  So it was that the story of the Pharaoh was used to discredit Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and to cast him as a tyrant.  As we recount it in the book:

On October 6, 1981, President Anwar Sadat was reviewing a military parade commemorating Egypt’s ‘victorious’ campaign in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  While television cameras captured the event, four men emerged from a truck and approached the viewing stand. When Lieutenant Khalid al-Islambouli, the leader of the assassination plot finished firing his weapon at Sadat, he cried out: “I have killed the Pharaoh!” Sadat was shot thirty-seven times. Thereafter, videotapes of the bloody televised spectacle fetched huge prices on the black market and it remains readily accessible online today.

Similar tyrant/Pharaoh accounts and images exist on the Internet and are distributed in pamphlet form for other perceived tyrants, including Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.  In each case, the master narrative is appropriated as a sign of history repeating itself and used to influence perceptions of the targeted leader/ruler.  It doesn’t matter that there may be no direct correlation between the Pharaoh, who was not an elected official, and today’s leaders.  Nor does it matter that thus far no Moses has appeared before the cameras to claim he or she is acting as God’s agent.  What does matter is that once a leader is branded a “tyrant” and called “the Pharaoh,” the details of the old story matters less than the idea that an injustice of historic proportions exists and must be remedied by true believers.

For those of you who may be thinking, “but this democracy uprising has nothing to do with radical Islam or even with religion in general,” that fact doesn’t make the interplay of a powerful set of rhetorical figures well known within and across cultures any less viable.  If anything, it only broadens the appeal.  For it is not just Muslims who are in the streets of Cairo or Tunis, but a diverse array of Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who all know the old story of the tyrant known as “the Pharaoh” who dared to challenge the God of Moses.

In the case of Egyptian dictator Mubarak the comparison is made more relevant by his refusal to yield to the will of his people.  And it is underscored by his friendship with U.S. leaders and our continuing support of his regime.  Regardless of religion, the overt support of the U.S. is often associated with the use of our military and economic power to influence events and protect our interests in the region.  The irony, of course, is that while we officially endorse democracy everywhere in the world, this democratic uprising places our official position in conflict with the support of a major ally in the region.  Do we side with the people who are organizing for democracy, or with a stubborn dictator well past his sell-by date who has been tarnished with the tyrant label?

As Reuters reporter Amr Abdallah Dalsh on the scene in Cairo put it yesterday:

The Administration is caught in a bind, but it’s more strategic than just moral: Supporting tyrants loathed by their own people but willing to do Washington’s bidding in international matters is a decades-old U.S. tradition in the Middle East, as well as in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The problem with Mubarak is not simply that his methods are at odds with professed U.S. values; it’s that his brittle autocracy appears to have entered a period of terminal decline, with the U.S. potentially on the wrong side of history.

Being “on the wrong side of history” is a narrative we can little afford.  Yet no matter what we may or may not do in response to this and other popular uprisings, the perceived lack of U. S. support for the protesters and continuing support for Mubarak does evoke another historical parallel.  Aladdin Elaasar is the author of The Last Pharaoh: Mubarak and the Uncertain Future of Egypt in the Obama Age, and in a op-ed piece published today, he writes ominously of Egypt’s uncertain future:

It is possible to find parallels in Egypt to pre-revolutionary Iran. Given the social ills engendered by extended unemployment, especially among the qualified young; aggravated social polarization in which ill-gained wealth, insolently displayed, stood out against the growing misery of the rural and urban population; and generalized corruption spreading right up to the highest levels of society and state. Indeed, many U.S. analysts acknowledge Egypt’s instability. “It will rock the world,” wrote Michele Dunne, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar. “Octogenarian Mubarak, will leave office, either by his own decision or that of providence.” Instability in Egypt may become an international security concern. There is no clear chain of command or civil society base to facilitate the transfer of power to the next president.

Does the reference to “providence” call up the association of divine will bringing an end to the rule of a tyrant? Perhaps.  But dictators rarely die peacefully in their sleep.

The irony of the U.S. response is not lost on the rest of the world.  As Richard Grenell, Spokesperson for the United Nations, put it in an article earlier today:

[Vice President] Biden’s support for Mubarak in the face of his falling regime sends a powerful and unfortunate message to the Arab world that their freedoms are negotiable. While American interests in the Middle East must obviously be protected, America’s credibility to support democracy for everyone everywhere is crucial. WikiLeaks have already shown American ambassadors and foreign service officers criticizing governments privately but publicly saying very little. How can VP Biden ever talk about the importance of fighting for freedom and democracy again if he chooses to support a corrupt dictatorship at the very time its being so strongly challenged from within? The vice president’s absolute show of support for Mubarak is unfortunately being heard throughout the Arab world. The people of Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea are listening. It’s too bad that Vice President Biden can’t find a way to support everyday Egyptians’ pleadings for more freedoms.

Finally, with the master narrative in the backstory and the label of tyrant firmly in the foreground of published reports used to describe Mubarak, there can be no doubt about the message of the looters who broke into the Egyptian Museum last night and “destroyed” two Pharaonic mummies.

Democracy has proven to be a many-splintered thing in the Middle East and elsewhere, whether it arrives with an invasion that forces a regime change or by the will of angry mobs who threaten to topple a dictator. Regardless of method, the U.S. should pay greater attention to the language used to define the conflict and what the meaning of terms such as “Crusader,” “tyrant,” and “Pharaoh” conjure up for populations who are schooled to respect their histories.  The use of the Internet, Facebook, and Twitter, is not the reason the people have taken to the streets.  These devices are only distributors—and effective ones—of messages that are deeply rooted in culture and time.  What moves people to action is not the technology of rebellion, but the narrative that shapes it and the words used to define it.  Master narratives are powerful because they provide answers to essential questions of identity as well as what it takes to live a just and meaningful life.  As such, they serve as calls to action.  Because, to paraphrase the philosopher Alistair MacIntyre, in order to answer the question “what am I to do?” requires first being able to explain what narratives we are part of.

The Pharaoh is a master narrative throughout the region and most of the world.  We would do well to remember that when we begin formulating what our next move will be.

No related posts.

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

President Barack Obama concluded his brief visit to Indonesia yesterday, fulfilling his promise to travel there despite having cancelled three prior trips to the land where he spent time as a young boy (between 1967-71). The cancellations had provoked much discussion there and among those who study Indonesia, some of whom were worried that that the President had irrevokably strained relations by not following through on his trips.

The naysayers were mostly proven wrong, however, as by all accounts the President was warmly welcomed by most Indonesians. Despite the admonition not to protest from Taufik Kiemas, the Head of Indonesia’s parliament (among other leaders), there were demonstrations throughout the archipelago, but these were mostly small and carried out by Islamist Hizbut Tahrir (more on this below).

The trip didn’t seem to bring much by way of serious negotiations or deals between Indonesia and the United States — and some Indonesians, including parliamentarian Priyo Budi Santoso, expressed disappointment — although the President stated that he’d like the United States to become Indonesia’s #1 trading partner (it’s #3 now). And there were some some items of discussion that were seemingly off the table, perhaps to keep the friendly tone of discussion from deteriorating (see below). The President also visited the region where he lived in Jakarta as a boy, and impressed and pleased his hosts by using some Indonesian terms that he remembered (or relearned).

Critics, however, fired shots from all directions, both in the US and abroad. In the US, controversy over the trip increased last week when Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann repeated misinformation propagated by Fox News that the trip would cost US taxpayers $200 million per day, and require one-tenth of the US Navy fleet. Despite the ridiculous nature of the figure — more per day than it costs to prosecute the war in Afghanistan — it continued to bounce around in some conservative echo chambers. The rumor made news in Indonesia as well, although as this article in the Tribun Timur points out, the coverage contained the White House denial of the figure.

The President’s trip to Indonesia also included a trip to Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta, the largest mosque in Southeast Asia. Conforming to custom, First Lady Michelle Obama wore a scarf over her head. For those Americans who already believe that Obama is a Muslim – around 20 percent overall, and around one-third of all conservative Republicans, according to a Pew poll – the visit worked them into further frenzy as it was proof positive that the President is a secret Muslim. This is simply not true, but no amount of evidence will dissuade the conspiracy theorists.

The mainstream Indonesian media was, for the most part, kind to the President. Stories captured the minute details and goings-on of his trip, what he ate, what she wore, where they visited, what he said, etc.

But the visit also spurred demonstrations and protests around the archipelago, for a variety of reasons. Some protested the US role in Afghanistan and Iraq, or US support for Israel. Some were against US economic policy. Some, however, seemed so anxious to protest the President that they didn’t articulate for themselves a clear message in their protest.

Take, for example, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). Widely considered something of a fringe cult in Indonesia, HTI is the Indonesian branch of a global organization that supports shariah law and the establishment of a global caliphate. It’s banned in some countries, but because it does not openly espouse violence or overthrowing the state except through democratic means, it is a legal, above ground organization in Indonesia, although its appeal is very limited. Perhaps part of the limit of its appeal is in its confused messages.

One post on its website attempted to debunk the myth that Barack Obama is a Muslim — because he is “100% Jewish.” The article continues to invoke two powerful narratives of the Islamic world by calling him a Pharaoh and the leader of a Crusade. Confused? Didn’t Medievel Christians also target Jews? Didn’t the Pharaoh try to kill Moses, an Israelite whose people later became Jews (and then Christians, and the Muslims)? A group called sharia4Indonesia distributed  posters depicting Obama a pharaoh–a reference to a story in the Qur’an about a tyrannical leader who suffers the wrath of God.

A Hizbut Tahrir spokesperson in Makassar — far from Obama’s visit — protested that the President’s visit was to solidify economic domination over Indonesia. Other Hizbut Tahrir posts compared the President to Mt. Merapi, a volcano in Central Java that continues to erupt and that has killed nearly 200 people. I can’t imagine that endeared them to the tens of thousands of evacuees from the volcano, or other rational thinkers in Indonesia.

"Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia with the ummat rejects Obama, president of the colonial country"

Another flap emerged when Minister of Communication and Information Tifatul Sembiring,  a staunchly conservative Muslim from the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party, shook the hand of Michele Obama in a receiving line. Realizing he would be criticized by constituents for having been in physical contact with a woman to whom he is not related, he attempted to stave off criticism with a lamely worded Twitter post about how he tried to prevent touching hands with the First Lady but that she held her hands too closely to him. Video footage clearly shows him enthusiastically stretching out two hands to First Lady Obama, and he has been vilified as a liar and munafik (hypocrite) on Islamist websites and blog posts.

Indonesia’s anti-terrorism police force Densus 88 was on alert in case President Obama faced any threats, perhaps in reaction to recent news that Jemaah Islamiyah leader Abu Bakar Basyir mentioned “taking advantage of” President Obama’s upcoming trip. The statement was made in January about President Obama’s trip that was originally scheduled for March, but was cancelled. Basyir remains in jail on terrorism charges.

The subject of US support for Densus 88 was one that was apparently not broached, at least not in public. Densus 88 is the only arm of the Indonesian police that gets consistently positive reviews from the Indonesian people for its successes in capturing or killing suspected terrorists. It has recently, however, been accused of violations of human rights in the archipelago, and for its apparent “shoot first” approach to terrorists.Despite domestic Indonesian criticism of the group, it appears that the Indonesian government does not want to take action against Densus 88, and the US appears not to want to discuss it either (although the US did secretly cancel ties to an arm of Densus 88 in Ambon over human rights concerns).

Last summer the US renewed ties to the Indonesian military special forces Kopassus, which will mobilize its own anti-terror unit. Critics point out that the problems within Kopassus that brought the cancellation of ties have not been remedied, including gross human rights violations in trouble spots such as West Papua. A recent video of soldiers torturing West Papuans caused an outcry, including from American activists who disagree with the reinstatement of the ties.

American activists have called on the US government to cut ties, as have Australian activists. Despite recent arguments (such as this by American academic Bill Liddel — response by Head of the Global Nexus Institute Christianto Wibosono here) that Indonesia remains relatively politically weak, especially with regard to its relationship with the United States, it appears as though Indonesia still holds some cards when it comes to the two countries’ relationship.

No related posts.

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

This series has examined the reaction, mostly in mainstream news sources of foreign Muslim societies, to the recent surge in anti-Islam events in the United States. Part I focused on the Park51 (or Cordoba House) project, the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” In part II we looked at the controversy surrounding the “International Burn a Qur’an Day,” previously scheduled for tomorrow. Part III examined various other  incidents involving Muslims (actual or imagined) and mosques. In this final installment, we analyze common themes from the incidents discussed in the first three parts, and suggest implications for how these kinds of events could be better handled by the media and government.

Before turning to our analysis, here are updates on some of the events we’ve covered.

Park51 Update

The Siasat Daily, a newspaper in Hyderbad, India, carried a story reporting the condemnation of anti-Muslim sentiment from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF). The story also discusses the other incidents mentioned in this blog series. A representative of the HAF is quoted as saying: “‘If Americans adamantly reject any particular community, what makes them different than Saudi Arabians who don’t allow any other place of worship or the import of any other religious item other than what their Wahhabi leaders allow?”

Qur’an Burning Update

Earlier in the week more high ranking government officials added their voices condemning the event. President Obama said it could “increase the recruitment of individuals who’d be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities,” and that it is contrary to American values. Secretary of State Clinton called the planned event “disgraceful” and said it doesn’t represent who we are. Sarah Palin and David Axelrod have also made statements condemning the plan. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Clinton had instructed diplomats to reassure foreign leaders that the event does not represent American values.

The proposed Qur’an burning got increasing coverage in Indonesia, in both mainstream and extremist media. An element of the coverage focused on reactions in other predominantly Muslim countries, such as this story in the English-language Jakarta Post. It focused on Bahrain and Pakistan, and included a conspiratorial anti-Zionist rant.  This story from Islamist Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia covered a demonstration in Kabul where an effigy of Terry Jones and the American flag were burned. Much of the coverage also noted the Vatican’s recent condemnation of the event.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to prevent the burning, and several stories question why the U.S. is not stopping Jones: “United States, don’t pretend to be a stupid nation by not banning or taking strong action against Terry (Jones). What will be done by Terry (an insult to Islam) out in the open, he has to be sentenced to death under Islamic law,” said Secretary General Muhammad Al Khaththath of the Muslim Community Forum.

Christian groups, wary of retaliatory violence given Indonesia’s past and recent sectarian violence, continued to release public condemnations of the event. Indonesia’s Minister of Religious Affairs, Suryadharma Ali, issued a statement for Indonesians not to be provoked, but notes that “Whereas only a small group of Muslims committed acts of terror, how could it be that they have given rise to hatred towards millions of Muslims throughout the world?”

Perhaps as a result of this pressure, Terry Jones announced yesterday that he would cancel the event based on assurances that the Park51 project would be moved, and said he would travel to New York to meet with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the project. This is a bizarre development because to our knowledge Jones never previously linked the Qur’an burning event to the Park51 project, and because Imam Rauf said he didn’t know what Jones was talking about.

Now there is a new report that Jones believes he was lied to by Imam Muhammad Musri of Florida who brokered the erstwhile deal, and that the burning event is only “suspended,” not canceled.

Meanwhile, a report surfaced that another minister, Rev. Bob Old of Springfield, Tennessee, planed to burn a Qur’an at his home on Saturday and post a video of the performance on the Internet. Other Tennessee religious leaders immediately condemned his plans: ”The guy is a nut,” said Rev. Larry Herbert of Faith Covenant Church in Springfield.

Assorted Incidents Update

The Ahlul Bayt News Agency out of Iran carried a story on the vandalism of a mosque under construction in Phoenix, Arizona. The article is a standard news report taken from the local CBS affiliate.

Building a Narrative

Beyond opposition in the Muslim world to the events we’ve reviewed, there is reason to be concerned about the larger narrative they create. A narrative is a system of stories that relate to one another and provide a coherent view of the world. Since narratives are collections of stories, the bigger the collection, the more weight the narrative will have.

We find clear evidence that the anti-Islam events that we have described are being linked by foreign sources to form such a system, especially the Qur’an burning and the Park51 project. This Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia story, for example, references the Qur’an burning, the Park51 project, and Qur’an defiling actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This story on Sybab links the Qur’an burning with recent vandalism in mosques in New York and California in the context of “Islamophobia.” Another Hizbut Tahrir story condemns a “wave of Islamophobia” in the U.S., “peaking” with the 9th anniversary of 9/11 and cites the Park51 project, the Qur’an burning, and the stabbing of taxi driver Ahmed Sharif as evidence. Despite the condemnation of some religious groups, it continues:

Anti-Islamic sentiment in the U.S. continues to grow in recent weeks… the alliance of Zionists, Christian fundamentalists, neo-conservatives and American racist groups continue to revoke the political and social rights of millions of Muslims in the land that “protects” religious freedom.

With yesterday’s developments, we see that some of the players in the U.S. events are now providing linkages too. Terry Jones has implied that his Qur’an burning event was linked to the Park51 project by announcing that his cancellation was due to a decision to move the project. Rev. Old, who has announced a personal Qur’an burning, is located only 60 miles from the site of the construction site vandalism in Murfeesboro, Tennessee.

Linkage to a Master Narrative

A master narrative is an enduring system of stories that is deeply embedded in a culture. In a forthcoming book we describe master narratives that support the causes of Islamist extremists. One of these is the Crusader, which depicts Muslims as under attack by hostile foreign forces bent on subjugating them and destroying their religion. This is not only about the actual Crusades, but later events which many Muslims view as analogous.

There is evidence that recent events are being tied to this larger master narrative. Numerous stories emphasized the idea that Christian political forces in the U.S. were inciting anti-Muslim sentiment for larger ends, perhaps reminiscent of Pope Urban II’s incitement in the 11th century. Many of them used the word “crusade” explicitly.  There is further evidence in reader comments that the analogy to the Crusades was being made.

In Indonesia, several stories have explicitly referred to the Crusades in their coverage of the events that we have chronicled in this series. The English-language extremist blog Prisoner of Joy notes that terrorism is the “counter reaction from (sic) the global colonization carried out by America and Co,” and argues that the Qur’an burning is a sign that the West is at war with Islam and has already been defeated intellectually.

Narratives–either master narratives or the less grand kind–start with a desire rooted in conflict, and create a trajectory of events that promise satisfaction of the desire. The danger is that for Muslims, these recent events will signal a trend of hostility toward Islam in the United States. Extremists will work to relate such perceptions to the larger Crusader historical pattern. If Muslims view this as the conflict they will desire safety, and a logical narrative trajectory will be to defend themselves against the attackers. This is, of course, exactly what the extremists want. We concur with Marc Lynch, who said in a recent post:

By fueling the narrative of a clash of civilizations and an inevitable war between Islam and the West, this unfortunate trend is empowering extremists on all sides and weakening moderates.

Other Notable Patterns

There are some other regularities in the coverage we reviewed. One is attempts to connect the events with Zionist interests. An Iranian government spokesman sought to link the Qur’an burning event to Zionist interests. In the Park51 case, there was an attempt to create a double bind by saying Jewish supporters of the project were part of a conspiracy to inflame U.S. passions against Muslims. In this case the U.S. is in a no-win situation: If the project goes forward it serves Zionist interest, and if it does not, it is evidence of discrimination against Muslims. The Zionism linkage, incidentally, invokes another master narrative, al-Nakba (the catastrophe), which is about the loss of Palestine to the Israelis.

We also found a pattern of selective attention in the reports. There was an effort to identify opponents of the project as Jewish while overlooking the fact that Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken supporter, is also Jewish. Foreign sources failed to mention available evidence that Jewish groups were supporting Muslim interests–for example that the Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned the Qur’an burning event. Foreign media neither depicted the opposition of Veterans’ and mainstream Christian groups to this event, nor emphasized that the Dove World Outreach Center is a fringe group consisting of only about 50 followers.

Another clear pattern is that most of the foreign Muslim media sources reported on these events by relaying U.S. mainstream media stories. These were often re-published verbatim, but were sometimes enhanced to sensationalize the incidents. For example, two sources included pictures of a bloodied Ahmed Sharif in their reports on the attack against the taxi driver.

Implications

Official U.S. policy in both the Bush and Obama administrations has been that the United States is not in a conflict with Islam or all Muslims. Yet the events we reviewed form a coherent narrative suggesting the opposite. This is undermining U.S. policy toward the Muslim world, widening its say-do gap, and diminishing its already low credibility with mainstream Muslims.

It is tempting to conclude that some of the players in these incidents want to undermine U.S. policy in this area, and stoke conflict with Muslims. For those of us in the majority who are interested in supporting U.S. policy, there are some implications about how events like this could be better handled in the future.

First, the mainstream media in the U.S. plays a key role in diffusion of these stories abroad. As we noted, most of the foreign reports were straightforward relays of stories in U.S. news outlets. Accordingly, the way U.S. outlets report these stories from the beginning is very important.

Critics (for example, Jackson) believe that the media have an interest in sensationalizing stories, amplifying the controversy they contain and/or emphasizing actions designed to gain attention. This is indeed what seemed to happen in much of the reporting we saw. For example, until recently stories about the Qur’an burning event did not emphasize the obscure nature and small congregation of the Dove World Outreach Center. Nor did they position it within the spectrum of Christianity in the U.S., or feature the negative reaction of other secular and Christian groups to their plans. Early reports on the Park51 project focused on opposition to, rather than support for, the project.

We suspect that most members of the domestic media view their audience as primarily made up of domestic readers and viewers. But in controversies involving Islam or Muslims (if not in other cases) this is a mistake. The domestic media outlets are the primary conduit through which impressions of the U.S. are created abroad. Reporters and editors should bear this in mind. When reporting stories that they know (or should know) will inflame foreign audiences they should take care to put them in context, and seek out commentary from less extreme and/or opposing viewpoints.

A second and related implication has to do with timing. A clear pattern we see is that these controversies arise, are reported, and diffuse in foreign sources, while it takes time for opposing points of view to develop and be reported. Yet it is well known that attitudes are resistant to change once they are established. Accordingly the opposing points of view may have relatively little impact once they are reported (if indeed they are), given the context created by the original reporting. This was the case with the story of the militia group that planned to provide armed protection for the Qur’an burning event (which was reported) but later decided this would be un-Christian (not reported). Those interested in supporting U.S. policy should therefore be more proactive in getting in front of these issues when they emerge, ideally within the same news cycle.

Much the same can be said for U.S. public diplomacy efforts, our third implication. We applaud Secretary Clinton’s recent instructions to diplomatic personnel to fan out and denounce the Qur’an burning event. But had Jones not canceled, it may have been too little, too late. It would have been much better to start this effort when the event was announced earlier this year and was beginning to diffuse in foreign media.

We saw a pattern of willingness to cover U.S. diversity of opinion on these controversies in many cases. The State Department should take advantage of this by playing a more proactive role in detecting the early up-trend of these controversies, encouraging early pro-policy statements by U.S. groups, and drawing the attention of foreign media to these statements.

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.