Because, you see, after billions to Pakistan, billions to Egypt, billions here and there and everywhere, we haven't been doing enough to show Muslim countries that we are their friends.
"Military chief seeks new plan to woo Muslims," by Thom Shanker for the New York Times (via MSNBC), August 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written a searing critique of government efforts at “strategic communication” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting.
The problem here, however, is that when it comes to Islamic jihadists, virtually anything short of full capitulation is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. Any resistance to the jihad agenda is immediately cast as a grievous insult that must be redressed.
The critique by the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, comes as the United States is widely believed to be losing ground in the war of ideas against extremist Islamist ideology. The issue is particularly relevant as the Obama administration orders fresh efforts to counter militant propaganda, part of its broader strategy to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.“To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,” Admiral Mullen wrote in the critique, an essay to be published Friday by Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal.
“I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all,” he wrote. “They are policy and execution problems. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don’t follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are.”...
Maybe. But unfortunately the Admiral, like virtually everyone else in Washington on both sides of the aisle, assumes that the jihadists are merely reacting to actions by the United States. The possibility that they may hate us for reasons of their own that have nothing to do with what we have done or can do doesn't seem to enter anyone's mind. Yet it is precisely that possibility that is suggested again and again by a close examination of the belief system of the jihadists themselves. They believe that they are commanded to fight against us because we are Infidels. If we are arrogant or inconsistent in living up to our own values, that makes for good grievance propaganad fodder, but it is not the root cause of the conflict itself.
He also challenged a popular perception that Al Qaeda operates from primitive hide-outs and still wins the propaganda war against the United States. “The problem isn’t that we are bad at communicating or being outdone by men in caves,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “Most of them aren’t even in caves. The Taliban and Al Qaeda live largely among the people. They intimidate and control and communicate from within, not from the sidelines.”Soldiers are fighting to suppress the Taliban and win over the Afghan people as President Barack Obama deepens American involvement in Afghanistan.
American messages to counter extremist information campaigns “lack credibility, because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises,” he wrote.
And because the Qur'an teaches Muslims to distrust Infidels, as they are the "most vile of created beings" (98:6) and will never be satisfied until the Muslims discard Islam (2:120). One is not take them as friends or protectors (3:28; 5:51).
As a guide, Admiral Mullen cited American efforts at rebuilding Europe after World War II and then containing communism as examples of successes that did not depend on opinion polls or strategic communication plans. He cited more recent military relief missions after natural disasters as continuing that style of successful American efforts overseas.“That’s the essence of good communication: having the right intent up front and letting our actions speak for themselves,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “We shouldn’t care if people don’t like us. That isn’t the goal. The goal is credibility. And we earn that over time.”...
Yet we have spent billions on Marshall-Plan-like projects in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they still don't like us. The South African mufti Ebrahim Desai put paid to any good that hearts-and-minds efforts might do a few years ago when he said: "In simple the Kuffaar [unbelievers] can never be trusted for any possible good they do. They have their own interest at heart.”
Mullen says we have to become "better listeners," but I'll bet he isn't listening to that, or taking it into account in any way.
Admiral Mullen did not single out specific government communications programs for criticism, but wrote that “there has been a certain arrogance to our ‘strat comm’ efforts.” He wrote that “good communications runs both ways.”“It’s not about telling our story,” he stated. “We must also be better listeners.”
The Muslim community “is a subtle world we don’t fully — and don’t always attempt to — understand,” he wrote. “Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist narrative.”...
I'm all for efforts to understand. But I wonder if he will follow through with them even if they begin to take him to places he doesn't want to go.
Yes it is always wise to train and arm people you don't understand.
Think of islam as a boa constrictor: once they get wrapped around you, you're dead.
It's only a question of how many breaths they let you take......
hmmm.... why do these military men fall into the slobbering political posturing so easily?
It was explained to Thomas Jefferson, clearly and succinctly in 1789....'Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
The source is and will always be that: 'that it was founded on the laws of 'the prophet, that it was written in thei koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were
sinners, that it was **their right, and duty, to make war upon them ***wherever they they could be found***, and to make ****slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and every musselman who died in battle was surely to go to paradise**"
Now... if these military geniuses, and the political geniuses would stop begging to be loved and liked- since that is ***IMPOSSIBLE**** and merely state the above again and again until the muslim screech and scream and howl at the reflection of themselves in the mirror of public opinion, then, we might get somewhere.
Admiral Mullen sends a confusing message in his attempt to clarify communication techniques that work.
He states that we don't need to care if people don't like us, "that's not the goal" -- but then says that we "haven't invested enough in building trust and relationships." A trusting relationship must include an element of "liking" -- don't trust and liking go hand-in-hand?
Admiral Mullen's choice of phrase shows a similarity to current academic fashion in that everyone has a "story" -- "It's not about telling our story" and that a people's experience becomes a "narrative" -- "to supplant the extremist narrative."
He states that "good communication runs both ways" yet gives no indication of how he sees the "Muslim world" as contributing to this.
"The problem here, however, is that when it comes to Islamic jihadists, virtually anything short of full capitulation is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting"
This not only applies to Islamic Jihadists but to
the left as well,in some measure.
Why is it America's responsibility to try and win the so-called propaganda war? If the actions of the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda are so foreign to Islamic values then why aren't the people of Pakistan,Afghanistan,and any and all other Muslim countries conducting a strong propaganda war against these radicals themselves?
Why has Pakistan decided to not continue the war against the Taliban all of a sudden? Our biggest concern in the area is the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan; could it fall into Al-Qaeda or Taliban hands? Will Iraq preserve their independence from an evergrowing Iranian intrusion that leaves American play along now countries such as the UAE,Kuwaite,Qatar,Dubai and Saudia Arabia more and more vulnerable?
"The problem here, however, is that when it comes to Islamic jihadists, virtually anything short of full capitulation is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. Any resistance to the jihad agenda is immediately cast as a grievous insult that must be redressed"
You are partially right, but the mistake you keep making is that these outreach efforts are targeted at Jihadists. They're not, they're targeted at the Muslim world where America's reputation has taken a hit following such stupidity as destroying a secular state (Iraq) which acted as a buffer against religious extrmemism.
"And because the Qur'an teaches Muslims to distrust Infidels, as they are the "most vile of created beings" (98:6) and will never be satisfied until the Muslims discard Islam (2:120). One is not take them as friends or protectors (3:28; 5:51)."
Here, your reductionist approach, while convenient for the average jwatcher is off the mark. Look first at Afghan perceptions of America which were quite good following the invasion, these started to dip in 2005 when much that was promised to Afghanistan did not materialize (in part because many ressources were diverted to Iraq). Second, the situaiton in the north is different then in the south. This is because the south is Pashtun while the North is a mix of Pasthuns, Tajiks, uzbeks etc.. perceptions of America are different depending on whether you're a pashtun or not. These people have read the same Koran but react differently to Americans because they are not the same as AQ. Third, much of the money sent to Afghanistan has been paying the hugely inflated salaries of private security companies, international org employees and comparing Afghanistan to say Albania, Afghanistan has received less. You should remember that Muslim Afghans interact and train with American and other Western nations on a daily basis and are not the same as AQ which you really really try to conflate them with.
The average Afghan does not see the world as you see it Mr. Spencer. I strongly suggest you listen to the words of people who have been based in Afghanistan. Better yet, actually travel to Afghanistan and meet and talk to Afghans, not the caricature of Muslims you have created.
Best,
mp11:
"These people have read the same Koran but react differently to Americans because they are not the same as AQ."
So based on the differing reaction, or lack of one, you assert that you can speak conclusively about the inner feelings of Muslims and differentiate between the AQ types that you so desperately try to differentiate from all other Muslims?
mp11:
"You should remember that Muslim Afghans interact and train with American and other Western nations on a daily basis and are not the same as AQ which you really really try to conflate them with."
Who's conflating? You admitted yourself in your comment that regular old, American-loving, Afghani Muslims read the same Koran as AQ members. This is a thinly veiled attempt on your part to remove the Islamic principle inherent in AQ's words and deeds. Why shouldn't we take AQ at their word that they are following the dictates of their Islamic doctrine? The words are there.
Pointing out that all Muslims, (which is obvious), are not acting in a monolithic way does nothing to blunt the reality of the mandates contained in Islamic texts which ARE ACTED UPON by an untold number of Muslims worldwide with regularity.
What is so reductionist about Spencer accurately identifying the source...Islam, of the impetus for AQ and other Muslims inclined to follow in a similar suit? This is merely deflection by you as an apologist for and to protect Islam and the truth about it.
Similarly, upon visual inspection, how can you or anyone else differentiate between the AQ Muslim and the "regular" peaceful Muslim? You can't and you already acknowledged that they both read the same book. In that light, pointing out that not all Muslims are AQ types is essentially valueless, as is most of your argument.
Fine retort, awake, to mp11's obfuscations masqerading as explanations. A common theme of those who try and defend Islam from those like Robert Spencer who point out that the real problem goes to Islamic theology itself is the canard that just because some Muslims are violent doesn't mean you should paint all Muslims with a broad brush. Aside form the fact that Spencer doesn't do this, though he does call upon so-called moderate Muslims to stand up to the radicals (as he and others should, though the intrepid moderates prove their worthlessness and gutlessness again and again), trying to defend an ideology by indicating that most of its adherents are peaceful in their daily life is itself a deception.
During the Cold War one would have found most Communist Party members in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, the USSR, East Germany and so on peaceful in their day to day life, good with family and friends and even welcoming to guests, even to strangers from outside the Communist Bloc. Hell, many of them would have split their last bottle of vodka with a new acquaintance. But so what? This didn't make Marxism OK. And so it is with Islam. When the theory is rotten, the demeanor of most of the believers in that theory is largely irrelevant.
We seem to have stopped killing the Enemy and we wonder why we have problems?
In the beginning, we made it quite clear people were going to die. We went with a light footprint with an ugly disposition and kicked their Butts right out of the Country.
Now we have a heavy footprint, without the heavy Weapons. while having our own hans tied, blanks for Ammo and Hankies to dry our enemy's eyes.
On the other hand, we have a Navy Man running a land war. Could it possibly be that he doesn't know how to apply force when it is not based on a Ship?
It seems to me that Native Americans were by and large as unwilling to accept the "White Mans ways" anymore than Muslims are willing to accept"Western" ways. We should dust off what worked back then and give it an updated try today.
Winning hearts and minds didn't pan out all that well back then and is unlikely to work all that well today.
Pretty Words and fancy slogans seldom, if ever, make the Enemy give up.
1) We know what the usual consummation of a successful round of wooing and courtship.
2) I think we know who's going to be on top.
Money don't buy love.
And when it's kafir trying to buy Muslim love with money...won't work.
They'll take everything you pay...and throw tantrums and screech and howl and threaten and demand MORE, MORE, MORE.
No dhimmi community ever got any real safety. They could *never* be downtrodden enough, flattering enough, crawl low enough, or pay up enough, to satisfy the insatiable Muslim desire to Dominate.
Huge sections of the non-Muslim world have gotten sucked into the same trap as a woman in a severely abusive relationship. She blames herself for the abuse, keeps asking herself what she did wrong *this* time, flatters and placates and cooks his favourite dinner...and he keeps right on tormenting, berating, and bashing her.
Time to hit the b*st*rd over the head with the frying pan and end the 'relationship'.
Flowerknife, Dumbles, you recommend the same thing, in different ways – and are right on target as usual.
But Rasulalahaha and his ilk have a much different strategy – it’s going to be a very, very long 3 ½ years.
"In simple the Kuffaar [unbelievers] can never be trusted for any possible good they do. They have their own interest at heart.”
Besides, good deeds are worthless without belief in Islam:
"The parable of those who reject their Allah is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows furiously on a tempestuous day: No power have they over aught that they have earned "(14:18)
Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works? They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight. That is their reward, Hell, because they rejected Islam, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest. (18:103-106).
IMO any "religion" that discredits good works this way is really just a cult of the flimflam guy trying to make you obey him.
Muslims, you are such fools & dupes!
The billions and billions that are spent on islamic states is actually a strategy that has worked well so far in most cases. The money has served to keep islamic parties under US control (as much as it is possible) and their leaders in jail thus keeping them from gaining power in these countries through elections. The only place where they have failed are Iran and Iraq. In Iran we have had 'free' elections and look how that went; we have a bunch of mad mullahs in power. in Iraq, we should have supported Saddam or another dictator and kept him in power. Instead, GWB had to impose elections there and there is danger that islamists with the help of iran will take over within a decade.
The billions and billions that are spent on islamic states is actually a strategy that has worked well so far in most cases. The money has served to keep islamic parties under US control (as much as it is possible) and their leaders in jail thus keeping them from gaining power in these countries through elections. The only place where they have failed are Iran and Iraq. In Iran we have had 'free' elections and look how that went; we have a bunch of mad mullahs in power. in Iraq, we should have supported Saddam or another dictator and kept him in power. Instead, GWB had to impose elections there and there is danger that islamists with the help of iran will take over within a decade.