Bush Administration Only Understands Its Own Propaganda

By DHinMI

Apparently the Bush administration only understands their own domestic propaganda:

President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser said on Sunday al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is "virtually impotent" and can do little more than send videotaped messages.

Top White House aide Fran Townsend said U.S. officials were studying bin Laden's new video tape for clues to his health or whereabouts, and whether there were any hidden meanings or messages.

But she said there was no sign of an imminent attack.

"This is a man on the run in a cave who is virtually impotent other than his ability to get these messages out," Townsend said on CNN's "Late Edition." "It is propaganda.

"Based on our experience, we have never seen bin Laden use a tape to trigger any operational activity."

Then why did Condi tell the networks not to air his tapes?:

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, this morning called a group of network executives to raise their awareness about national security concerns of airing pre-recorded, pre-taped messages from Osama bin Laden that could be a signal to terrorists to incite attacks.

It was a very collegial conversation. At best, Osama bin Laden's message is propaganda, calling on people to kill Americans. At worst, he could be issuing orders to his followers to initiate such attacks.

Townsend in right in one important respect: Bin Laden’s communiqués are propaganda.  But they’re propaganda that needs to be taken seriously, and our actions and our own efforts at shaping public opinion in the rest of the world need to be improved.  The terrorist’s credo of the propoganda of the deed is about sending a message.  The more dramatic the message AND the delivery, the more effective the terrorist will be.  As terrorism expert Brian Jenkins succinctly put it, "terrorism is theater."  Al Qaeda obviously understands this, and is adapting this dictum to the information age:

Just before the 2004 American elections, (insurgency expert David) Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden’s public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. "I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?" he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that "this wasn’t a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy." Ron Suskind, in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reëlection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush’s strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance. Indeed, in the years after September 11th Al Qaeda’s core leadership had become a propaganda hub. "If bin Laden didn’t have access to global media, satellite communications, and the Internet, he’d just be a cranky guy in a cave," Kilcullen said.

Bin Laden’s understanding of the United States isn’t any better than that of the godfather of modern Jihadist throught, Sayyid Qutb. Qutb lived in the US from 1948 to 1950.  He apparently was familiar with the Kinsey report, but his own letters show him to have been so overwhelmed by sexuality that he comes off as a Muslim caricature of William Bennett, railing on about Americans’ bestial impulses as evidenced by such horrors as the woman who "wears bright colors that awaken the primitive sexual instincts, hiding nothing, but adding to that the thrilling laugh and the bold look."  He was appalled by jazz, and incensed that the foot was barely used in American football.  But America played a big role in his thinking, even though he didn’t really understand it.  Same with Bin Laden, whose most recent video tape (transcript here) has him railing on about the US, citing Noam Chomsky but also making low-tax arguments that make him sound like a governor offering tax breaks to lure a manufacturing to his state.   It’s not the kind of message that would find much appeal to Americans, even if they didn’t realize it was from the world’s most wanted man. 

But it’s still compelling theater.  Bin Laden has been able to elude capture since he declared war on the United States over a decade ago. As a messenger, as the face of Al Qaeda, he’s a charismatic figure, one that those sympathetic to his message might even find heroic (subscription only):

It is this mystique, as much as bin Laden's words, and certainly more than the fact that he is responsible for the death of perhaps five thousand innocents, that continues to attract admirers. Indeed, the plot line of his life story fits rather neatly into traditional constructs of the hero—from Horus to Odysseus, Jesus or Siegfried, let alone such Arab models as the Prophet himself, or the folktale warriors Antar and Abu Zeid:

—a princely birth (his father was a billionaire, who died in a plane crash after claiming to be the only Muslim ever to have prayed at Jerusalem, Medina, and Mecca on the same day);
—physical prowess (he is well over six feet tall);
—courage and cunning (he is still alive);
—sacrifice (of a large personal fortune for the cause of jihad);
—closeness to animals, and a taste for life in the wilderness (bin Laden is a great horseman, with a proclivity for caves);
—rise to a higher calling (jihad for the salvation of Islam);
—closeness to God (he is pious, and he is still alive);
—respect for ancestors (his puritan version of Islam draws sole inspiration from the semi-mythical first three generations of Muslims);
—experience of exile, and rejection by his own tribe (bin Laden was stripped of Saudi citizenship in 1994, has been disowned by his family, and has spent most of his life abroad, often as a fugitive);
—escape from great perils (Tora Bora);
—striking a blow to the eye, or Achilles' heel, of his enemy (September 11);
—concluding, perhaps, with a lonely death on a distant mountain peak.

What lends this construction further strength is the fact that it arises in a Muslim landscape that is, in the modern world, singularly barren of heroes. It is hard, for example, to think of a modern Arab political figure with the stature of, say, Kemal Attaturk, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, or even Ariel Sharon. There have been no recent parallels even to such flawed Muslim statesmen as Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, or Egypt's Pan-Arabist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Since the deaths of Ayatollah Khomeini and Yasser Arafat, probably the only rival to bin Laden today, in heroic allure, is Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.

Compelling theater indeed.

The leaders in the Bush administration—in fact, most of the foreign and defense policy establishment, for that matter—still haven’t figured out that fighting Al Qaeda requires the US to adapt to an information war.  We lack a compelling message, backed up with compatible actions, that would change minds in Muslim societies about the US and the West, and about jihadi terrorism.  Townsend’s dismissal of Bin Laden’s message as mere propaganda show they don’t know that much of the struggle against Al Qaeda IS a propaganda struggle, utilizing effective branding and message discipline as well as new technologies and media.  It’s also likely they don’t understand Bin Laden’s value to Al Qaeda or, as terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman argues in today’s WaPo, that he’s not Al Qaeda's strategist and operational leader:

[...]Bin Laden's days as the movement's guiding star are over. The United States' most formidable nemesis now is not the Saudi terrorist leader but his nominal deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Part impresario, part visionary, bin Laden made himself and the terrorist organization he co-founded into household words. Today they are paired global "brands" as recognizable and interchangeable as any leading corporation and its high-visibility CEO. But mounting evidence suggests that his time of active involvement in al-Qaeda operations is behind him. Forced into hiding, he has ceased to be a major force in al-Qaeda planning and decision-making and, even more astonishing, in its public relations activities...

Zawahiri has also overseen a quadrupling of al-Qaeda video releases in the same period...all as part of a PR campaign to keep al-Qaeda in the news and to ensure the continued resonance of its message.

He may lack bin Laden's charisma, but Zawahiri is the superior strategist. It was he who, more than a decade ago, defined al-Qaeda's strategy in terms of "far" and "near" enemies. The United States is the "far enemy" whose defeat, he argued, was an essential prerequisite to the elimination of the "near enemy" -- the corrupt and authoritarian anti-Islamic regimes in the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia that could not remain in power without U.S. support. Zawahiri's strategic vision set off the chain of events that led to 9/11...

His treatise...painted a picture of Islam under siege by a predatory, Western-dominated world in which "there is no solution without jihad." He argued for:

1. The need to inflict maximum casualties on the opponent, no matter how much time and effort such operations take, for this is the language understood by the West.

2. The need to concentrate on martyrdom operations as the most successful way to inflict damage and the least costly in casualties to the mujaheddin.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq presented al-Qaeda with the opportunity to put his arguments into practice. As long ago as the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Zawahiri had explained al-Qaeda's strategy in response to what he was already decrying as a repressive U.S.-led occupation. "We thank God," he declared in September 2003, "for appeasing us with the dilemmas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw, they will lose everything, and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."...

Iraq has also figured prominently in Zawahiri's plans to reinvigorate the jihadist cause and recapture its momentum. By portraying U.S. efforts in Iraq as an oppressive occupation, he and al-Qaeda's hyperactive media arm, al-Sahab ("the clouds" in Arabic), have been able to propagate an image of Islam as perpetually on the defensive, with no alternative but to take up arms against U.S. aggression...

The Bush administration hasn’t shown any evidence that they’ve ever understood Al Qaeda.  Rather, they continue to play right in to the hands of the deranged by shrewd Zawahiri and act in ways that make Zawahiri’s tasks easier.  They got us involved in a stupid and unnecessary war in Iraq, largely through exploiting fears from 9-11. And what’s it given us?  A situation where it’s quite possible that Bush is again ignoring Presidential Daily Briefing, this time titled "Zawahiri Determined to Strike in U.S."

Comments

[P J Evans]

Funny how these tapes only show up when Bush/Cheney is in trouble somehow. You'd almost think they were being put out by our maladministration for its own propaganda purposes.

[Mimikatz]

Well, I have to say that the Dem leadership hasn't done much better, and is about to capitulate to Bush on continuing our misbegotten and mismanaged war in Iraq, continuing to hand bin Laden his best recruiting tool, continuing to bleed us dry, and continuing to lower our standing in the eyes of the world.

There was a famous poster of Ronald Reagan shortly after he was elected Governor of California. It showed him from one of his cowboy roles with six shooters and the caption was "Thanks for the votes, suckers."

That's about how I feel now, after reading Glenn Greenwald.

If you have any access to those craven DC dopes, please convey how really incredibly angry and frustrated we are with them out here in the net/grass roots. I can barely stomach them today and have no intention of contributing to the party campaign committees or, indeeed, to any incumbent who is not unequivocally against the war. I feel really betrayed by these people.

[Eugene]

New Osama video seems yet another forgery. Everyone needs Osama alive:
terrorists as symbolic leader and the US Administration - to avoid
scaling down the war on terror.
Obadiah Shoher rightly notes (
http://www.samsonblinded.org/news/osama-commemorates-911-1114 ) that
new Osama talks like a leftist university professor. I like Shoher's
analysis. No way a terrorist leader like Osama would use a speechwriter. Osama is famous
for his rhetoric.
Also, in the tape Osama both threatens America with attack (by
"proving" Americans polytheists) and offers (yet another time)
long-term coaching in Islam.
But his dyed beard makes me cautious. Islam's mujahedeen dye their
beards before battle.

[Mary]

"It is propaganda" Unlike, I guess, the Bush/Libby cherrypicks planted via Judy Miller.

Townsend in that very same interview, after saying Bin Laden is impotent in a cave, then goes on to say that he is really calling the shots in Iraq, that he "tasks" al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda in Iraq to undertake operations, that he is using the Iraq war for recruitment and that we have to stay in Iraq solely so Bin Laden won't feel he's won.

So which is it, an impotent cave man (who has murdered thousands of Americans) or a man so potent and powerful that America must destroy herself instead of allowing him to "think" that he "won" the prize of Iraq. An Iraq that will squish his al-Qaeda outsiders like bugs and like it has before, once we are gone.

I actually think Townsend does understand the propaganda issue - as a Rove context loyal Bushie would. But her concern is propagandizing the US,not the ME. To sell a Muslim based propaganda message, they have to de-demonize Muslims and also find some way to counter the last few decades spent having no substance in the ME to support American contentions of freedom. If they put out propaganda that build bridges with the Muslim communities, they appear for what they are - calculating liars who have used and abused THIS nation for solely and wholely political purposes. So they can't. They have to keep selling the same bridge to nowhere, over and over.

We support despots. No one cared about beheadings when it was just something our friends the Saudis did in public arenas. We don't make any baseline attempt to have governments that we have shored up in the ME provide education and resources for their people - instead using a Free Market + Beheadings to support a system of obscenely wealthy (excpet by US CEO standards) "ruling" families.

No matter how good your propaganda, you can't overcome years of never providing any support for the people in the ME nations to get infrastructure, education, etc. and for instead supporting massive conversions of national resource into a wealth enhancement for the few in those countries. We have such bad history, that even with good propaganda, we'd be in bad shape now. And instead of good propaganda, we have Abu Ghraib and all the many things that the press here never really reports - we have the Mattis approach of commuting every sentence in sight as long as they only involved murder and abuse of Iraqi civilians.

Bushies have ahd to demonize to get the war they wanted. They have had to demonize to get troops psyched up for years and willing and EAGER to treat Afghans and Iraqis according to the Bush interrogation and engagement standards (imagine doing to a European city what was done to Fallujah - whatever the sales pitch for getting rid of criminals and "insurgents" and imagine a policing force in the US, Canada or Europe allowed to go throw grenades into homes and murder children in their beds in homes or call airstrikes down on homes because those homes were near a place that the policing force came under fire)

The ME isn't Crawford, TX and we don't have the hometown propaganda advantage. But more than that, they don't care about selling except to the US market. They have done some very blatantly illegal and immoral things on that front - the Abu Omar al-Baghdadi story comes to mind as being something expressly disallowed by US law (disinformation and knowingly false propaganda going into the US media). But while here there are no consequences for lies to the US public by the US military and Dept of Justice, in the real world conflict there are consequences to the lies. Lost crediblity is just one aspect. Eventually, everyone has a mother, brother, cousin, friend, etc. who is a walking testimony to our lies. At that point, positive propaganda is a hard thing to sell. When you still only have a corrupt and immoral leadership and chain of command behind that propaganda - it's impossible IMO. And it would require admission of lies and criminal behavior and consequences for those who perpetrated and recompense.

Do you see that happening anytime soon - with the Hillary's and Joe's harping on the Iraqis not "standing up" and doing their part?

Too long winded today but enjoyed your post. The Looming Tower (out in paperback now) is a very good start point IMO for some exploration of Zawahiri along the lines you (and Hoffman) have painted.

[MarkH]

If terrorism is only theater, then why is Al Qaeda in Iraq doing so much suicide bombing when they can easily see there is no televised audience? Who is being influenced outside of Iraq?

More likely there is no top-down control structure and it's simply Al Qaeda followers who are improvising the only way they know -- as they've seen Palestinians do in Israel. After all, aren't they geographically closer to the West Bank than to Pakistan? If they're in the Al Jazeera viewing area they would be well informed of any and everything happening near or in Israel.

I'd say there are many militant jihadists and we inspire more every day without very presence. It's time to let Iraqis settle their own civil war and for us to retreat from the war zone, either to our desert bases. From there we can settle our own political position and decide whether to stay or retreat further.

[MarkH]

"Townsend in that very same interview, after saying Bin Laden is impotent in a cave, then goes on to say that he is really calling the shots in Iraq, that he "tasks" al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda in Iraq to undertake operations, that he is using the Iraq war for recruitment and that we have to stay in Iraq solely so Bin Laden won't feel he's won."

Proof bin Laden tasks anything but goat milking?

[DHinMI]

PJ, you should subscribe to a newspaper or something, because if you think Bush and Cheney haven't had any troubles since Bin Laden's last tape 3 years ago, you've obviously missed out on a lot that's happened.

[DHinMI]

Mary: Indeed, The Looming Tower is on my table right next to my computer. I had read the sections on Zawahiri when they were originally published as articles in the New Yorker, as well as some stuff Paul Berman (who I used to like but who has gone off the deep end) wrote about Qutb for the Atlantic about four or five years ago, and everything I've read since has just filled in some gaps. But for one-stop shopping, absolutely, The Looming Tower is the place to go.

[DHinMI]

Mark: to assume nobody sees the results of the bombings, one would have to assume the Jihadis' audience doesn't have internet access. Obviously that's not the case, especially since most future Jihadis and terrorists are relatively well-educated, often with university degrees. Film of those bombings, along with film of civilian casualties and what are perceived as humiliations in Muslim societies, are the prime material for recruitment DVD and web sites.

[P J Evans]

Did I say there's a new tape every time?
I didn't think so.
But you have to admit that after the first couple of times, it's been very convenient timing for Shrub and Darth.

[DHinMI]

OBL hasn't done one of these tapes in 34 months. The idea that they come out because Bush is in trouble doesn't hold up.

[Seamus]

The tape that showed up so conveniently before the 2004 election didn't hurt Bush, that's for sure. Bush and bin Ladin need each other, and each has helped the other. Whether or not this has been by design is arguable. I do think bin Ladin intended for Bush to be re-elected, and that was the intent behind the timing of the 2004 release.

[Mimikatz]

So what's anybody going to do about anything? You didn't answer me, DH.

[DHinMI]

mimikatz: I think the problem is in the Senate. Time and again we've seen that we can get some halfway decent stuff through the House, and some of the members who had been holding out have moved a bit. I think there are two problems. First, you have the obvious problem of cloture in the Senate, with the Repubs blocking things. But you also have a cadre of weak-kneed Democrats who don't want to confront the President. Because it's hard or impossible to get something tough through the Senate, if Pelosi wants to get something through both chambers, she has to ratchet things down from what they center of the House caucus might want and cater to the right of the Senate Dem caucus. If they push something through the House that's tough, they have to whip the right side of the caucus to go along. Then it gets amended in the Senate, comes back to the House neutered, and then Pelosi et al have a pissed off left/center of the caucus, because they know what they passed and then have to back down from the confrontation, and the right of the caucus is pissed because they say and/or believe that they had to take a "tough vote" that didn't matter, because in the end it wasn't a tough bill that passed.

So I don't know what's going to change, unless the conciliators in the Senate wake up and become confrontational, or the House just says screw it, and they start pushing tough things in to the Senate and put the pressure on the Senate--Repubs AND Dems--to quit screwing around and put pressure on the president.

[DHinMI]

Seamus: I don't disagree with you. I think OBL/AQ see their strategic goals facilitated by Bush; in this most recent tape OBL as much as thanked Bush for his reaction in the Middle East. That's different from what others have suggested or insinuated, that these tapes come out when Bush wants or needs them, which is too neat. But is there a symbiotic relationship? Most definitely.

[Mimikatz]

Thanks, DH. I've been getting a little depressed of late. Our own weak-kneed and weak headed DiFi is a prime example of what you describe.

I wish the Dems understood the concept of the strategic loss.

[MarkH]

What I saw today on C-SPAN seems to indicate the House Dems actually ARE standing up (finally) and might be ready to stand together to call for a drawdown or outright exit.

Whether Senate Dems will do the same has yet to be seen.