QandO

May 21, 2004

Propaganda and the Internet
Posted by McQ

I'm a sucker for the military "techno-thriller" genre of novels. Tom Clancy, Stephen Coonts, Dale Brown, etc.

One of my favorites is Harold Coyle. Coyle is an ex-Army officer who knows his craft and writes what I would consider to be fairly realistic novels which reflect the realities of today's warfare a little better than say the over optomistic Clancy. That and the fact he usually writes about grunts makes him a must read for me.

All that to say I'm about to finish his latest "More Than Courage". The novel is set in Syria as a part of the War on Terror and involves a Special Forces A team on a recon mission who's been left there too long (morale and efficiency problems set in) and ends up getting captured by the Syrians. The rest I'll let you read

But I was struck by a pretty telling analysis in the book. Coyle steps back for a second and talks about the value and use of propaganda, especially by our enemies ... and how effective they've been. Substitute any recent enemy country for Syria and you'll see my point [all emphasis added]:

"In the face of the sophisticated and far-reaching military might of the United States, nations like Syria have found themselves forced to practice warfare by other means, sometimes known as asymmetrical warfare. Ordinarily this means terrorism or guerrilla warfare carried out using conventional weaponry, suicide bombers, or even weapons of mass destruction. An important adjunct to these activities is information warfare, a subset of the second-oldest profession that can include anything from the disruption of critical computer systems to the use of propaganda. Within this realm of warfare the media has become an unwitting conduit. By manipulating the flow of information, a well-disciplined foe can strike at the nation's ability to control the course of events as well as the will of its populace.

Over the years, the ease with which the American public could be turned against its own government through the manipulation of the press has not been lost to nations opposed to the United States. The American phase of the war in Vietnam has been something of a primer for those seeking to learn how to wage effective information warfare. The leadership of North Vietnam did not have to send a single soldier across the Pacific Ocean in order to derail the Johnson administration or bring the United States to the brink of insurrection. College professors, ambitious politicians, Hollywood glitterati and rising media stars created an army of insurgents for Uncle Ho drawn from the ranks of privileged youth of his foe, an army that won the war for him in the streets and voting booths of the United States. The debacle in Somalia in 1993 was an even more stunning victory of imagery over reality. While it was costly to the units involved and tragic to the individual American families who lost their loved ones in that engagement, the fight in the streets of Mogadishu in October of 1993 succeeded in bringing the warlords to their knees. Unfortunately for the people of the region, the video clips viewed by the American Commander in Chief convinced him that the conflict there was both unwinnable and politically unsound. The precipitous withdrawl of American forces from Somalia left that nation in a state of chaos from which it has yet to recover. These lessons and countless others have not been lost on those who cannot match the United States on an open field of battle. Rather than a bane to dictators and mass murderers, the TV news crew has become the weapon of choice when those dictators, terrorists and mass murderers wish to target the American public."

1)I think Coyle nails it. We are forced to view any conflict through the "soda straw" of the media's choosing. In most cases that focus is inherently on bad news ... bad news for the US. Whether by choice or by chance, that is the normal focus. And our enemies are hip to this. So the timing of events, attacks, statements, etc. are done carefully to keep the flow of bad news constant and to warp the public's perspective of the war. They feel if they can in anyway duplicate what North Vietnam was able to do they have the opportunity of swaying US public opinion, if not to their side, at least away from the side of their government. And, as usual, the same 'useful idiots' as those who "starred" in the VN anti-war movement are again at it (although slightly more subtly at the moment).

2)Coyle describes, quite nicely, what's happening now in the US. We see it every day with the talking heads, op/ed pieces, the Hollywood left (Moore, et al), the college campuses and politicians like Pelosi. The same types doing the same thing ... again. The difference is we should understand that and know better by now. And that is why I feel the internet in general and blogs in particular are so important. Its a new means of getting the other side out there. When the media is dominated by 'if it bleeds it leads', college professors are speaking to captive audiences, Hollywood is using its star power to get its moment in the sun and opportunistic politicians getting the play they want in the press, its critical to have an outlet which tells the OTHER side of the story.

This was lacking in Vietnam. Its not now. And for those of us who believe in what we're doing in Iraq, its important that we do everything in our power to ensure the other side of the story is told.

TrackBack