RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
Update added at end.
It’s time for a deliberate domestic-information program and office to be established
Jeb Babbin:
Wartime presidents must lead their people. In this, Mr. Bush has fallen flat. It’s not enough to say we must complete the mission. It’s not nearly enough to repeat the truism that our soldiers are performing bravely, with skill and humaneness not seen before in history. As important as those facts are, they pale in comparison to what we aren’t told: What is the mission? Who are our enemies, and where are they? How are we going to attack and defeat them? What, specifically, are they trying to do and how are we going to stop them? We know none of those things from the President. To say what he says again and again — without saying much else — leaves wartime opinion-making to Vladimir Putin, Russell Feingold, Chuck Hagel and Cindy Sheehan.
Military theorist Marshal de Saxe observed in 1730, “The courage of the soldiers must be reborn daily. There is nothing that is so variable.” In the same way, a wartime president in a democracy must always remind the people why they fight and expend their blood and treasure. The will and determination of the people to persevere is highly variable.
Every business executive knows that consumers must always be reminded of the business’s products or services. There is nothing so variable as a customer base. So businesses advertise repetitively; one key to successful advertising is repeating the message over and over. Commercial ads are openly propagandistic, of course, and no government information agency should engage in propaganda. It’s true that in World War II the US government engaged in domestic propaganda but today is a different era. Unlike then, the government today cannot manage information on a macro scale. There are too many observers, too many writers, too many information channels and too many cameras. If the government tries to mislead or cover up its success will be only temporary. The truth will always out and do so much faster than ever before.
Yet a scandal can race around the world while good news and succcess stories are still tying their shoes. The Bush administration has allowed the information status quo of the war to be maintained too long in the public eye. The information agenda has been set by the mainstream media (MSM), attenuated to a significant but not large degree by bloggers. I think the administration should begin immediately a vigorous domestic-information program to do these things:
— remind the American people “why we fight.”
— inform the public of successes achieved.
— educate the public of the national objectives being sought, and how.
I have no grand plan on exactly how such a program should be carried out, but its success would depend on sidestepping the mainstream media. None of this information has been unavailable in the public arena. The MSM could have been reporting such stories objectively all along but have deliberately avoided doing so.
Yet such blame cannot be carried too far because the media aren’t responsible for carrying out anyone’s information strategy. My complaint is that the government has no domestic-information strategy to begin with. I am not recommending the reestablishment of the Office of War Information which the Roosevelt administration used so suspectly that Congress curtailed its operations mid-war and finally shut it down altogether. I do think an integrated, comprehensive information program is long past time to be emplaced.
Mr. Babbin is right when he says, “The President needs to explain to us, in detail, what defeat would mean to us and the rest of the civilized world. He needs to tell us where we are fighting, and how.” But the task is too great for the president and his handful of spokepersons to do alone. An integrated, interdepartmental, permanent program should be established to do this. Simple briefings at Defense, State and DHS aren’t doing the trick.
As a thought experiment, I’d propose that a joint information office be established with the responsibility to integrate information from executive departments for distribution to the public. The “JIO” would have no authority to censor anything, nor would it have the authority to direct departments what to release to itself or the public. It would have the authority and budget to reuse information through multiple media in order to carry out the tasks above.
What media, you ask? Just some ideas:
Ad buys in print and broadcast media. Direct mailing. Internet. “Trailers” in movie theaters shown before the feature film. Radio spots. Public seminars. Certainly there are downsides, but the status quo must not continue.
“In wartime,” said Dwight D. Eisenhower, “public opinion is everything.” Like the courage of soldiers that must be reborn daily, the determination of the people be routinely nourished as well. If our cause is just, justly waged for a just end, then we should have no fear of doing so.
Comments on.
Update: John Burgess, whose work and resume I respect, says in a comment,
This [proposal] is currently prohibited by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. The act, created in the aftermath of WWII and the recognition of the perniciousness of the Goebbels’ domestic propaganda machine, led Congress to specifically prohibit the domestic dissemination of “propaganda” by the government.
I must disagree. The act to which John refers is officially titled the “United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948″. Its full text is here. The act did not found the VOA but it did define its role and functions to what they are today, with a few amendments that have been enacted in the intervening years.
The act is very specifically written to govern the role of the US State Department in disseminating information about the United States to foreign audiences:
The Congress hereby declares that the objectives of this Act are to enable the Government of the United States to promote a better understanding of the United States in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. Among the means to be used in achieving these objectives are
(1) an information service to disseminate abroad information about the United States, its people and policies promulgated by the Congress, the President, the Secretary of State and other responsible officials of Government having to do with matters affecting foreign affairs;
(2) an educational exchange service… .
Far from prohibiting the release of such information to the American public, the act actually specifically requires it in Section 501:
Any such press release or radio script, on request, shall be available in the English language at the Department of State at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations [italics added], and, on request, shall be made available to Members of Congress.
To make the information available to the American media is the same as releasing it to the general public. Furthermore, my proposal specifically stated that the JIO would use information already being produced by the various executive departments and already being released by them. As well, the Smith-Mundt Act is concerned exclusively with State Dept. information programs for foreign audiences, while my proposal is concerned with an information program for a domestic audience, not produced by State or any other existing executive department.
I also recognize that the president can’t simply create a JIO out of thin air. Congress would have to authorize it in any event, even if only to allocate funding. What Congress can legislate in it can legislate out; the Congress is not bound by its own precedents or preceding legislation. That a JIO would come under appropriate Congressional oversight would only be right and proper, just as every other executive department and agency does.
Comments policy
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Sep » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
16 queries. 0.543 seconds
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:06 am
I agree completely. I’m in Iraq right now and can’t believe what I’m seeing on network news. We do get one thing on our Armed Forces Network that other Americans don’t see: short 1 minute features called “Why We Fight.” These outline the positive things happening all over Iraq. If only the government had a TV channel that it could put these out on…wait a minute… what about PBS?
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:58 am
Sounds like a great idea. But it would be jumped on and slandered by the MSM and anti-war folks before it even started, and its credibility would be suspect at best from the beginning. Any resulting sign of ineffectiveness would then be pointed to as an obvious demonstration that there is no defensible reason for the war.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:11 am
The problem is well stated here, but the solution is not. The idea that the government would have to buy advertising to counter the MSM is a non-starter. Part of the war is between the MSM and the US. If even 40% of the daily newspapers and one of the flagship papers (and one of the three broadcast networks) were supportive there would be no issues (and an honest debate).
The boomer Vietnam era MSM leadership will push this to the end. However, their hold is not as firm as it looks. They need to be “embarassed” a bit. In WW2 we were constantly reminded of the peril presented by the enemy. While is was pumped up, it was not false. The japanese and germans were conducting brutal wars and atrocities were constant. Showing people leaping to their deaths out of the twin towers, bodies in the pentagon, mass graves in Iraq are the basis of this conflict and are all TRUE. The fact that the MSM choose to make this go away appeals to the publics natural desire that this somehow go away. It has not gone away.
Here’s a simple idea. Let’s press our local media to re-run all their coverage from Sept 11 on this Sept 11. Perhaps cut it down to the key points, but otherwise no editing. This isn’t my idea, but I think we can demand that the media remind us exactly why we are fighting.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:34 am
I know it never seems like enough but every time the President speaks I hear him talk about the mission, its’ goals and consequences of failure.
I don’t know what more the administration could do.
Big D is correct in saying any attempt at this would be attacked. I can see the headlines now, “Bush Starts Ministry of Propaganda”.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:35 am
I think that’s all that Cindy Sheehan is asking: that the President tell her (and us) “why we fight.” Why do you think he’s refusing to do so?
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:42 am
Bob, the answer to your post came before it. Look to comment number three.
That being said, I too must express frustration with the admin. What kills me is that these people are (supposed to be, at least) BUSINESSMEN!! What business out there does not make marketing absolutely fundamental to it’s being, with a director of same on it’s Executive Committee? I don’t get it.
Look at it this way. Every single one of us knows EXACTLY (well, 90%) what to expect when we walk into McDonalds. Oh, they may have some cute new salad or whatever, but we all know what’s there, basically.
So when was the last time you saw an ad for McDonalds? This morning on the way to work? Yesterday? Day before at the most?
Either McDonalds and many others are throwing away BILLIONS of dollars, or they “get” something the administration does not.
Get with it, people.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:24 am
This is currently prohibited by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. The act, created in the aftermath of WWII and the recognition of the perniciousness of the Goebbels’ domestic propaganda machine, led Congress to specifically prohibit the domestic dissemination of “propaganda” by the government.
I worked for 25 years under the limits of Smith-Mundt while running information programs for the US gov’t. Until the Internet made it moot, you couldn’t even get VOA transcripts in the US, except by acts of Congress.
No matter which party is in power, you can bet dollars to donuts that the party out of power will cry foul at any attempt to establish such a domestic propaganda program.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:56 am
If the administration wants to label Sen. Chuck Hagel a liar, it doesn’t need a vast propaganda machine to do it.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:13 am
Read this NY Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/business/media/15apee.html?ei=5090&en=4a4f32424faa6ab5&ex=1281758400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Editors Ponder How to Present a Broad Picture of Iraq
“Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, has received the same e-mail message a dozen times over the last year.
“Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?” the anonymous polemic asks, in part. “Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated?”
“Of course we didn’t know!” the message concludes. “Our media doesn’t tell us!”
THIS is what WE need to do, on a broader scale. Newpapers are businesses, if they are made to be aware of a market for accurate news, they’ll start supplying it to get that market. There are laws preventing the government from propagating information, so it’s not just that Bush is lame at it, they’re also hamstrung. The key is to use the power of the customer complaint to shame specific media companies into alterning their policies. A few dozen letters a month got the NY Times and AP to hold a meeting about the issue, tens of thousands of letters will get them to act on it, because that means it’s money involved, and attracting readership speaks louder than politics.
The blogs need to organise, and flood major newspapers with complaints. Make THAT a news story.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:28 am
No, but to label Sen. Hagel a liar, and have an accurate reading of the charges against him would take at least a non-”anti-Bush” media.
To me it sounds like some critics want to know to much.
Why are we fighting in Iraq?
To establish a government of self-rule, and the security forces capable of protecting its sovereignty.
Who are we fighting in Iraq? I think the admin has made it very clear.
ex-Baathist and Sunni thugs, foreign terrorists, and criminal gangs.
What is the plan in Iraq?
To encourage the broadest possible participation in the political process, rebuild the infrastructure to build goodwill and provide jobs to locals, train Iraqi security forces to handle their fledging nations needs, and in partnership find, engage and destroy those that oppose us.
Why is Iraq connected to the overall War on Terror?
Because terrorists, al Queda included, have choosen to oppose us there.
This page gives you some of the press releases comming out of Iraq. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/releases.htm
This page allows you to sign-up to recieve a weekly bulletin of some of the good things happening in Iraq and elsewhere in CENTCOMS AO. http://www.centcom.mil/newsletter/newsletter-signup.asp
Here you will notice that they’ve started to compile the good news into dispatches. http://www.centcom.mil/
SUCCESSES THIS WEEK IN IRAQ (5-11 AUG)
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20050819.txt
SUCCESSES THIS WEEK IN IRAQ (12-18 AUGUST 2005)
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20050821.txt
Now, what probably could be done is having a consolidated newspage for the whole war effort. And advertising that in the broader market.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:52 am
Then again, its hard to market a faulty product.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:57 am
John, according to the VOA web site and other goggled sites, the Smith-Mundt Act is pretty specific:
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:35 pm
A Perscription For What Ails
I think Donald Sensing makes an excellent suggestion: form a joint information office to distribute information from the executive branch withou the filter of the media. On a similar note, I can’t help but think that a lot of anti-americanism…
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:06 pm
I don’t think the answer is a new government department, rather we need to fight both our enemies in the current conflict. Tactically and strategically, we’re destroying the terrorist on the field of battle. The terrorist, however, are only one of our enemies. The MSM is the other. Everyone knows that the MSM is no longer simply an ‘ojective observer’ but has now become an active participant in events. Yet this administration pretends otherwise. It is time to confront reality and speak openly about the MSM agenda and the fact that they intentionally only tell a part of the story. Imagine if George Bush personally and publicly questioned the motives and patriotism of the media.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:15 pm
….Wartime presidents must lead their people
Then why is Bush taking a month long vacation
….—remind the American people “why we fight.”
Saddam, ties to Al Qaeda, WMD, elections, and democracy, the admin can’t make up its mind
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:35 pm
torki, check the news, Bush is out right now leading and reminding us why we fight.
Regarding your comments about ‘the admin can’t make up its mind’, I have a question for you.
Is it your belief that one can fight a war for only one reason? Or could it be, perhaps, that a war may be fought for all of those reasons?
Why is that you desire that we lose this fight?
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:29 pm
I don’t think “organizing” is the answer. MSM deception is possible because the MSM is a highly centralized information industry. There is competition within it, of course, but for each MSM organization, the competition is from a few other organizations very similar to itself. FoxNews made ripples because it was not “establishment” and needed to offer a different pov in order to compete, whereas the establishment MSM organizations were all trying to do pretty much the same thing for the same audience. These establishment organizations are run by people who cut their teeth during the Vietnam/Watergate era, and their anti-American, and particularly anti-Republican bias (as if Kennedy and LBJ weren’t Democrats) is especially evident when our country uses force to defend its interests or those of our allies. Every conflict is portrayed as yet another Vietnam, complete with reminiscences of anti-war protests viewed through a image-softening cloud aromatic second-hand smoke — see the reporting of the Mother Moonbat summer camp in Crawford, TX, complete with an appearance by Joan Baez. A better solution than organizing is decentralization on the one hand, coupled on the other with the Rather treatment for those 60s relics still trying to “make a difference” instead of just reporting the news.
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:40 pm
A vacation is when you don’t have to show up to work. Bush never has a vacation, nor does any president.
Bush does have to directly confront people who are actively working to give the enemy a win. The next idiot who says “How dare you question my patriotism!” should get an explanation of just how - by telling him that anyone who is willing to work to defeat our war effort just to get back in power is no patriot except to his own ego.
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:44 pm
BushTV
Donald Sensing has a suggestion on how the Bush administration can keep the pubic informed while garnering more support for the war in Iraq. Every business executive knows that consumers must always be reminded of the business’s products or services….
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:11 pm
[…] oing so. Comments on. Update: John Burgess, whose work and resume I respect, says in a comment, This [proposal] is currently prohib […]
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Rev. Sensing, You have to keep reading onward. USC Title 22, 1461 Sub-Section b continues:
See also a generally informative “wiki” at http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php/Smith_Mundt_Act
Please note that there is a 12-year waiting period before these materials become available to the public. Also, while it is not in the legislation, the rules concerning public access before the 12-year period, strongly suggest Congressional concern about domestic distribtion. To wit: no copies can be made, only notes about the content. No papers can be removed. No further distribution of the material can be made without an explicit Act of Congress (which has been done several times, notably for the 1966 documentary “Years of Lightning, Days of Drums,” about the Kennedy Administration.
The Smith-Mundt Act has been broadened several times, most recently via the Zorinsky Amendment of 1985.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Great post, Mr. Sensing. The President has not taken advantage of the media that he, and he alone, can generate. He has come up short in the PR battle and as a result, public opinion with respect to this war has slipped. I agree with your assessment that an information blitz is due, actually overdue, but I don’t think it has to come in the form of paid advertisement.
President Bush is a walking billboard. When he makes a public appearance, it is covered by a sea of media outlets. If he chose to speak more about our mission and successes in Iraq, he would generate instant publicity. Sadly, he has opted not to do this. Yes, he often speaks of the War on Terror, but he he could do more, much more.
The MSM is all too eager to fill the enormous void left by this adminstration with respect to information. Allowing the MSM to create their own news means that the truth gets “lost in translation”. But if it’s the only translation one hears, it’s what many tend to believe.
Jeb Babbin is right, when a nation is at war the President must lead his people. As it stands now, President Bush finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to make up for lost ground. Ironic, I suppose, for a man who has shown time and again his preference for offense over defense.
I can’t help but wonder where we would be right now without blogs and other alternative media. Even with them, the Bush administration needs help. Your quote from Eisenhower was appropriate.
“In wartime,” said Dwight D. Eisenhower, “public opinion is everything.”
Let’s hope the Bush administration realizes this before public opinion crystallizes so much so that it cannot be reversed.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:28 pm
The Bush administration has failed, miserably, in its attempts to make the quite legitimate and deserving case for this war. Reagan and Deaver would have done much better. They would have not needed to torture the Smith-Mundt as you suggest. Instead Reagan would have sold his message as he did so long for GE and Star Wars. And Deaver would have had the message of the day.
This president does not sell his message effectively, in large measure, because the MSM wills to thwart him at every opportunity. Has it reacted creatively? Has it used the internet to spread it message? Is it making the effort of more Michael Yons easier? Has it used talk radio as an outlet to allow its spoksespeople to buck up its supporters? No to all.
This administration is in a tighter bunker than LBJ with no reason as far as I can tell. The President should not be diminished by over-exposure to the market. But his minions should be out there, in your face, 24/7/365. And they are absent. Instead we get ignoramuses like Hagel.
Give this guy an Unsat in Management Communications. He’s hit the screen.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:30 pm
In editing I lost the antecedent to it in the second paragraph. If there is any doubt, the antecedent is the administration. That explains my Low Pass in Management Communications.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:17 pm
I’d like to see an objective scorecard for the effort in Iraq. Compile a list of statistics that covers everything either the Right or the Left would like to see. Then provide the best known values for those statistics, updated weekly, so we can see the trends, both up and down.
Let’s see casualty figures: American, Iraqi, and external. Let’s see number of schools open and children attending. Number of functioning hospitals and other municipal services. Population effectively served by water, sewer, electricity. Number of municipalities with locally elected governments. Number of local police, crime rates, arrest rates, etc, not just nationwide, but by municipality. And on and on.
I would expect to see certain levels during Saddam’s regime, then a steep drop (in the good things; a rise in the bad), then a gradual rise, with sudden drops at various points when the insurgents make progress, and rises when they are being set back. If I all I see is a nice graph, moving in one direction, I start to suspect I’m being lied to.
Get this information collected and publicized by someone who doesn’t have an obvious axe to grind on either side. There are resource constraints, of course, but the bias should be toward collecting more different statistics rather than fewer, to give a fuller picture of what is going on.
This may be out there already. If so, support it and get it publicized.
But don’t complain about one source always giving bad news, and demand another source to give just good news. That’s just doubling the number of axe-grinding publicists, all trying to push their own agenda. Furthermore, when my house really is on fire, I don’t want someone telling me that the only important thing is to be happy how green the lawn is.
Find someone whose allegiance is to the truth (remember truth?), and who is willing to put the effort in to collecting and maintaining the data. Then support that person or group, whether you are happy with how the data comes out, or not.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:10 pm
I wrote almost a year ago that this administration jumps on its horse and rides off in all directions: Is there any organizing principle to the Bush administration?
Nope.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:23 pm
John B: Conceding all that you have written is factual as you relate it, my answer, really, is “So what?”
First, nothing I have proposed crosses into even an “emanation of the penumbra” of the Smith-Mundt Act, which is solely concerned with State Dept. information programs aimed at foreign audiences. The Zorinsky Amendment of 1985 likewise is narrowly focused on State Dept. programs aimed at domestic audiences. I have proposed neither. The JIO would not fall under State or any sub-agency of it.
If the Smith-Mundt Act is a universally-governing law for all executive-branch information programs, not just State’s overseas programs, how can any executive department, State included, even have a directorate of public affairs? Why don’t State, Defense, DHS or even White House news releases - published every day in their dozens - fall under Smith-Mundt’s provisions?
The reason is that the Congress believed it was authorizing State to conduct actual pro-American propaganda in its foreign-audience programs and distinguished between those programs and other executive information programs intended to release factual and explanatory information to the American public.
Second, even if Smith-Mundt does govern - which I do not admit to - Congress giveth and Congress taketh away. Legislation founding a JIO could easily exempt it from Smith-Mundt. But that wouldn’t be necessary.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Rev. Sensing,
Smith-Mundt is, as you state, principally limited to foreign affairs agencies because Congress has had an extreme allergy to domestic propaganda. Propaganda from a domestic agencies has never been considered acceptable. (See what happened with Armstrong Williams. See also S. 266. A bill to stop taxpayer funded Government propaganda.
Actually, Executive Branch agencies and departments are also prohibited from lobbying Congress. But they all have a “congressional liaison” office that tries to do just that. Further, many agencies of the USG are now “foreign affairs agencies,” including Agriculture and Commerce-de jure-and Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security, and others de facto. Congress gets twitchy about how and where they disseminate information.
I’m not saying that the President can’t do anything. I think very much that he can. But I think the action needs to come from the White House itself. The President, himself, needs to be out there, as well as senior members of the WH staff and Cabinet Officers. And, in fact, this President is very good about talking to publics in person, even while “on vacation” in Crawford.
But it still comes down to that problem of leading horses to water. If the media complain about the WH “usurping” programming time to address the nation, how is the President-no matter which party-able to get to wide publics?
There are WH webpages; there’s a weekly Presidential radio address; there’s a daily WH briefing televised by CSPAN, with full transcripts available within a few hours. The WH even considered “pushing the message” (i.e., spamming) until it was warned not to do that. About the only thing not being used is a “W Blog” run by the President, and maybe some games for X-Box and Atari.
Lots of things are happening, but they’re not getting traction because MSM doesn’t pick them up much, even media like FOX and Washington Times.
“Did the President give a speech if it went unreported?” The answer, unfortunately, is “No.”
To “flood the zone,” you have to remove what’s competing for people’s attention. You and I can agree that TV has devolved into meaningless races for ratings, but TV is actually providing what people want to see. They don’t want to see complicated stories very much.
What can be accomplished can only be accomplished on the margins without the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda that controls what media reports. I think we can agree that this isn’t going to happen.
(BTW, State wasn’t the initial “recipient” of Smith-Mundt. It was initially directed at the OIE-Office of Information and Exchanges-which became the US Information Agency (USIA) in 1953. It was after the State reorganization in 1998 (a hostile takeover), that USIA bureaus became elements of State and State inherited Smith-Mundt restrictions. I had to teach my new masters at State what that meant.
Also BTW, State has probably the worst congressional liaison office in the federal government; DOD has the best.)
August 24th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
So how much of this speech is going to make into front page news and editorials.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050824.html
Since September the 11th, we’ve followed a clear strategy to defeat the terrorists and protect our people. First, we are defending the homeland. We’ve strengthened our intelligence capabilities; we’ve trained more than 800,000 first responders; we have taken critical steps to protect or cities and borders and infrastructure. We have taken the fight to the enemy in our midst. We’ve disrupted terrorist cells and financing networks in California and Oregon and Illinois and New Jersey and Virginia, and other states. (Applause.)
This is a different kind of war. Today’s enemies do not mass armies on borders, or navies on high seas. They blend in with the civilian population. They emerge to strike, and then they retreat back into the shadows. And that’s why there are thousands of our fellow citizens running down every single piece of intelligence we can find, doing everything we can to disrupt folks that might be here in America trying to hurt you.
The second part of our strategy is this — and it’s based upon this fact: In an open society like ours — and we will keep it open and we will keep it free — it is impossible to protect against every threat. That’s a fact we have to deal with. In a free society it is impossible to protect against every possible threat. And so the only way to defend our citizens where we live is to go after the terrorists where they live. (Applause.)
When the terrorists spend their days and nights struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training and plotting new attacks on America and the rest of the civilized world. So we’re after the enemy across the globe. And we’re determined, and we’re relentless, and we will stay on the hunt until the terrorists have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. (Applause.)
And the third part of our strategy is this: We’re spreading the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. In the long run, the only way to defeat the terrorists is by offering an alternative to their ideology of hatred and fear. So a key component of our strategy is to spread freedom. History has proven that free nations are peaceful nations, that democracies do not fight their neighbors. (Applause.) And so, by advancing the cause of liberty and freedom in the Middle East, we’re bringing hope to millions, and security to our own citizens. By bringing freedom and hope to parts of the world that have lived in despair, we’re laying the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren. (Applause.)
We’re using all elements of our national power to achieve our objectives — military power, diplomatic power, financial, intelligence and law enforcement. We’re fighting the enemy on many fronts — from the streets of the Western capitals to the mountains of Afghanistan, to the tribal regions of Pakistan, to the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa. You see, this new kind of war, the first war of the 21st century, is a war on a global scale. And to protect our people, we’ve got to prevail in every theater. And that’s why it’s important for us to call upon allies and friends to join with us — and they are.
One of the most important battlefronts in this war on terror is Iraq. Terrorists have converged on Iraq. See, they’re coming into Iraq because they fear the march of freedom. Their most prominent leader is a Jordanian named Zarqawi, who has declared his allegiance with Osama bin Laden. The ranks of these folks are filled with foreign fighters who come from places like Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran and Egypt and Sudan and Yemen and Libya. They lack popular support so they’re targeting innocent Iraqis with car bombs and suicide attacks. They know the only way they can prevail is to break our will and the will of the Iraqi people before democracy takes hold. They are going to fail. (Applause.)
The stakes in Iraq could not be higher. The brutal violence in Iraq today is a clear sign of the terrorists’ determination to stop democracy from taking root in the Middle East. They know that the success of a free Iraq, who can be a key ally in the war on terror and a symbol of success for others, will be a crushing blow to their strategy to dominate the region, and threaten America and the free world. They know that when their hateful ideology is defeated in Iraq, the Middle East will have a clear example of freedom and prosperity and hope. And the terrorists will begin to lose their sponsors and lose their recruits and lose the sanctuaries they need to plan new attacks.
And so they’re fighting these efforts in Iraq with all the brutality they can muster. Yet, despite the violence we see every day, we’re achieving our strategic objectives in Iraq. The Iraqi people are determined to build a free nation, and we have a plan to help them succeed. America and Iraqi forces are on the hunt, side-by-side, to defeat the terrorists. And as we hunt down our common enemies, we will continue to train more Iraqi security forces.
Like free people everywhere, Iraqis desire to defend their own country. That’s what they want to do. They want to be in a position to defend their own freedom and their own democracy. And we’re helping to achieve that goal. Our approach can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when the Iraqi forces can defend their freedom by taking more and more of the fight to the enemy, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)
At the same time, we’re helping the Iraqi people establish a secure democracy. The people of Iraq have made a choice. In spite of the threats and assassinations, eight and a half million Iraqis went to the polls in January. (Applause.) By casting their ballots in defiance of the terrorists, they sent a clear and unmistakable message to the world: It doesn’t matter where you’re born; it doesn’t matter what faith you follow, embedded in every soul is the deep desire to live in freedom. (Applause.) I understand freedom is not America’s gift to the world; freedom is an Almighty God’s gift to each man and woman in this world. (Applause.)
The Iraqi people want to live in freedom. Part of securing America for our children and grandchildren is to help then secure their freedom.
August 24th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Keith, a good question, but another good question is why is the administration content with this kind of information just being ignored by the media? They can’t make the media use it, so it gets released then just dies. Why isn’t the administration more creative and energetic in getting the word out?
August 24th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
American Film Institute 100 best movie lines.
No.11 What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
COOL HAND LUKE
1967
August 24th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Donald - That’s a good question, and is why you started this thread. One which I have few answers to.
I don’t know what the administration can do that it hasn’t tried before (on other topics) with very limited success, and without the anti-Bush crowd screaming “scandal” even when it’s not appropriate.
But it isn’t entirely up to the administration to see that the message gets out.
Part of supporting the troops, and supporting any effort is publically speaking your support of the effort, and your disgust at the mischaracterization that is going on in the MSM. Not just you, not just me, but everyone who supports the war, and our troops.
I know in my heart that if it were a Democratic President the MSM would be lauding the progress made, and excusing the blunders as inevitable in the fog of war.
How do you get your message out when the MSM is at the same time against you, and not in favor of the message you bring. They don’t just want to shoot the messanger, they want to bury the message.
How do you by-pass the gatekeepers, while still remaining within the law, and not appearing to propogandize the message.
I think a Why We Fight tour of Iraqi veterans is about the only way to personalize the war, and take the message directly to the people. The coverage in local media outlets should be much more fair then the national outlets.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:27 am
This was discussed recently on Roger Simons blog… Here are a couple of threads…
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/08/clive_mourns_mr.php
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/08/the_media_and_i.php
This last one is very interesting as Gen McCaffrey has some ideas.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/08/gen_mccaffrey_r.php
6. Coalition Public Diplomacy Policy is a disaster:
1st - The US media is putting the second team in Iraq with some exceptions. Unfortunately, the situation is extremely dangerous for journalists. The working conditions for a reporter are terrible. They cannot travel independently of US military forces without risking abduction or death. In some cases, the press has degraded to reporting based on secondary sources, press briefings which they do not believe, and alarmist video of the aftermath of suicide bombings obtained from Iraqi employees of unknown reliability.
2nd - Our unbelievably competent, articulate, objective, and courageous Battalion, Brigade, and Division Commanders are no t on TV. These commanders represent an Army-Marine Corps which is rated as the most trusted institution in America by every poll.
3rd - We are not aggressively providing support (transportation, security, food, return of film to an upload site, etc) to reporters to allow them to follow the course of the war.
4th - Military leaders on the ground are talking to people they trust instead of talking to all reporters who command the attention of the American people. (We need to educate and support AP, Reuters, Gannet, Hearst, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc.)
August 25th, 2005 at 11:09 am
A small discussion sprang up at my site when I quoted and linked to this essay. A brief outtake and my response :
“as one of my readers notes in the comments: “Another problem is that for whatever reason there seems to be no one in the administration capable of creating a compelling press release.”
The reason may be as simple as the fact that nobody in the administration is the kind of person comfortable with “creative” types anywhere outside of a wine and brie art opening. Perhaps they believe that the “good” writers are all on the left and, I’ll grant you that most of the writers in the Iowa school, are there. But not all. Seems to be they could draft three dozen just from spending a week scanning the blogs. Alas, that too seems to be out of their ken.”
In short, they don’t need BETTER arguments, they need to find BETTER writers.
Hello, Blogsphere!
August 25th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Here’s a thought. Some might recall the pick-up and wide promulgation of a series of photographs of the President and his days right after the 11th. In addition, there was I seem to recall, a series of television programs which essentially followed the President around through his days.
What if there were a Presidential blogger who had clearance for fly-on-the-wall access in the White House, within limits, but generally free to talk to and wander about and pickup information and impressions of what is going on. I realize that this sort of thing runs the very high risk of running into government walls at every turn, but really, so what?
Even if it was just blogging the public aspects of the day with an occasional chat with aides and with visitors it would still be fascinating to millions. My guess is that the hit count would soon dwarf Glenn, Kos and the next two hundred combined.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:37 am
“West Wing Dot Gov:” The White House Blogger
ONCE AGAIN I COMMEND TO YOUR ATTENTION, the item by Donald Sensing @ One Hand Clapping — “Bush failing to keep the public in the loop.” Read the item and the ensuing discussion as to why the administration could do a much better job of presenting th…
August 25th, 2005 at 11:40 am
One response = one item. The above link expands a bit on the comment above. And now I’ll move out of the thread for a bit.
August 25th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
I think the point is missed, even with better writers, if the providers of information in America don’t choose to provide the better writting to the public, then isn’t going to be effective.
When an antagonistic press is playing gatekeeper to the information, and basically sensoring anything that isn’t in their agenda, then no amount of positive spin, or better writting is going to help the President.
I am glad to see that this is getting the attention of many in the blogsphere. Or at least many of the “right” people, Donald Sensing included.
Here’s another thread I’ve found on this subject…
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/08/19/ab_rlfwd.html