|
02/23/2006
Communicating with the World
Note: While I’m not a fan of Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, the following presentation of his before the Council
on Foreign Relations, 2/17/06, is important. I offer this up
without comment.
---
New Realities in the Media Age
Donald Rumsfeld
We meet today in the sixth year in which our nation has been
engaged in what promises to be a long struggle against an enemy
that in many ways is unlike any our country has ever faced. And
in this war, some of the most critical battles may not be in the
mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Iraq, but in
newsrooms – in places like New York, London, Cairo, and
elsewhere.
Consider this statement:
“More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of
the media we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and
minds of [Muslims].”
The speaker was not some modern-day image consultant in a
public relations firm in New York City. It was Osama bin
Laden’s chief lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri.
I mention this because I want to talk today about something that
at first might seem obvious – but it isn’t. Our enemies have
skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for
the most part we – our country – has not – whether our
government, the media or our society generally.
Consider that the violent extremist have established “media
relations committees” – and have proven to be highly successful
at manipulating opinion elites. They plan and design their
headline-grabbing attacks using every means of communications
to intimidate and break the collective will of free people.
They know that communications transcend borders – and that a
single news story, handled skillfully, can be as damaging to our
cause and as helpful to theirs, as any other method of military
attack. And they are doing it.
They are able to act quickly with relatively few people, and with
modest resources compared to the vast – and expensive –
bureaucracies of western governments.
Our federal government is only beginning to adapt our operations
for the 21st Century. For the most part, the U.S. Government still
functions as a “five and dime” store in an eBay world.
Today we are engaged in the first war in history –
unconventional and irregular as it is – in an era of:
E-mail; Blogs; Blackberries; Instant messaging; Digital cameras;
A global Internet with no inhibitions; Cell phones; Handheld
video cameras; Talk radio; 24-hour news broadcasts; and
Satellite television.
I have just returned from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. In
Tunis, the largest newspaper has a circulation of roughly 50,000
– in a country of 10 million people. But even in the poorest
neighborhoods, you can see satellite dishes on nearly every
balcony or rooftop.
A few years ago in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, an Iraqi could
have his tongue cut out if he was found in possession of a
satellite dish or used the Internet without government approval.
Today, satellite dishes are ubiquitous in that country as well.
Regrettably, many of the news channels being watched through
these dishes are extremely hostile to the West.
The growing number of media outlets in many parts of the world
still have relatively immature standards and practices that too
often serve to inflame and distort – rather than to explain and
inform. And while al-Qaeda and extremist movements have
utilized this forum for many years, and have successfully further
poisoned the Muslim public’s view of the West, we have barely
even begun to compete in reaching their audiences.
In this environment the old adage that: “A lie can be half way
around the world before the truth has its boots on” becomes
doubly true with today’s technologies.
We saw this with the false allegations of the desecration of a
Koran last year. Once it was published in a weekly news
magazine, it was posted on websites, sent in e-mails, and
repeated on satellite television and radio stations for days, before
the facts could be discovered.
And, in those first days, the false story incited anti-American
riots in Pakistan and elsewhere, and human beings were killed in
the ensuing riots.
Once aware of the story, the U.S. Military, appropriately, and of
necessity, took the time needed to ensure that it had the facts
before responding – having to conduct interviews and pore
through countless documents, investigations and log books. It
was finally determined that the charge was false.
But in the meantime the lives had been lost and great damage
had been done.
What complicates the ability to respond quickly is that, unlike
our enemies, which propagate lies with impunity – with no
penalty whatsoever – our government does not have the luxury
of relying on other sources for information – anonymous or
otherwise. Our government has to be the source. And we tell the
truth.
These new realities have placed unprecedented challenges on
members of the press as well. Today’s correspondents are under
constant pressure in a hyper competitive media environment to
produce exclusives and breaking stories. Daily or weekly
deadlines have turned into updates by the hour or even the
minute – to feed a constant news crawl that now appears on most
cable channels. And the fact is that the federal government – at
the speed at which it operates – doesn’t always make their job
easier.
The standard U.S. government public affairs operation was
designed primarily to respond to individual requests for
information. It tends to be reactive, rather than proactive – and it
still operates for the most part on an eight hour, five-days-a-week
basis, while world events, and our enemies, are operating 24-7,
across every time zone. That is an unacceptably dangerous
deficiency.
Government is, however, beginning to adapt.
In Iraq, for example, the U.S. military command, working
closely with the Iraqi government and the United States
Embassy, has sought non-traditional means to provide accurate
information to the Iraqi people in the face of the aggressive
campaign of disinformation.
Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate – for example, the
allegations of “buying news” in Iraq. The resulting explosion of
critical press stories then causes everything – all activity, all
initiative – to stop.
Even worse, it leads to a “chilling effect” for those who are asked
to serve in the military public affairs field.
The conclusion is drawn that there is no tolerance for innovation,
much less any human error that could conceivably be seized
upon by a press that seems to demand perfection from the
government, but does not apply the same standard to the enemy
or even sometimes to themselves.
Consider for a moment the vast quantity of column inches and
hours of television devoted to the allegations of unauthorized
detainee mistreatment at Abu Ghraib. Compare that to the
volume of coverage and condemnation associated with things
like, for example, the discovery of Saddam Hussein’s mass
graves – which were filled with literally hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqis.
That is the reality of the world in which we must operate, and in
which our forces fight.
A number of changes are under consideration:
First, government at all levels will need to make communications
planning a central component of every aspect of this struggle.
Despite best efforts, for example, it took many months to put in
place an effective communications operation in post major
conflict Afghanistan and in Iraq.
In some cases, military public affairs officials have had little
communications training and little, if any, grounding in the
importance of timing, rapid response, and the realities of digital
and broadcast media. We have become somewhat more adept in
these areas, but progress is slow. And, importantly, public
affairs have not proven career enhancing for the military. We
must get a great deal better at:
Engaging experts from both within and outside of government to
help to communicate;
Rapidly deploying the best military communications capabilities
to new theaters of operation; and
Developing and executing multifaceted media campaigns – print,
radio, television and Internet.
Let there be no doubt – the longer it takes to put a strategic
communications framework into place, the more we can be
certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news
informers, that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture
of what is actually taking place.
There are some signs of modest progress. Within the past year
and a half, the U.S. military’s Joint Forces Command has
developed rapidly deployable military communications teams,
that are organized and focused on specific geographic areas of
the world.
Soon after the devastating earthquake in Pakistan, one of these
newly constituted teams deployed with our sizable military
forces into the disaster area.
Operating in conjunction with other federal agencies and the U.S.
Embassy, they worked directly with the U.S. commander of our
humanitarian relief effort, to help focus the attention of the media
on the U.S. government’s truly extraordinary commitment to
help the Pakistani people.
Public opinion surveys taken by private groups in Pakistan,
before and after the earthquake, suggest that public attitudes in
that country regarding the United States changed dramatically
because of this new awareness by the Pakistani public. Indeed, it
was not long before the new favorite toy in Pakistan was a small
replica of a Chinook helicopter, because of the many lives our
helicopters saved, and the mountains of relief supplies they
delivered.
Second, government public affairs and public diplomacy efforts
must reorient staffing, schedules and culture to engage the full
range of media that are having such an impact today.
Our U.S. Central Command, for example, has launched an online
communications effort that includes electronic news updates and
a links campaign, that has resulted in several hundred blogs
receiving and publishing CENTCOM content.
The U.S. government will have to develop the institutional
capability to anticipate and act within the same news cycle. That
will require instituting 24-hour press operation centers, elevating
Internet operations and other channels of communications to the
equal status of traditional 20th Century press relations. It will
result in much less reliance on the traditional print press, just as
the publics of the U.S. and the world are relying less on
newspapers as their principal source of information.
And it will require attracting more experts in these areas from the
private sector to government service.
This also will likely mean embracing new institutions to engage
people across the world. During the Cold War, institutions such
as the U.S. Information Agency and Radio Free Europe proved
to be valuable instruments for the United States of America.
We need to consider the possibility of new organizations and
programs that can serve a similarly valuable role in the War on
Terror in this new century.
What, for example, should a U.S. Information Agency, or a
Radio Free Europe for the 21st Century look like? These are
tough questions.
And I suggest that some humility is in order, because there is no
guide book – no roadmap – to tell our hard working folks what to
do to meet these new challenges.
Secretary of State Rice’s proposal to support the democratic
aspirations of the Iranian people through expanded broadcasting,
the Internet and student exchanges is a good start, and deserves
support. But because it is new, and different, it is receiving
opposition in the Congress.
For the past minutes, I have been commenting on the challenges
our country – not just our government – faces in fighting a war in
this new media age. And while the enemy is increasingly skillful
at manipulating the media and using the tools of communications
to their advantage, it should be noted that we have an advantage
as well: and that is, quite simply, that truth is on our side – and
that ultimately, truth wins out.
I believe with every bone in my body that free people, exposed to
sufficient information, will, over time, find their way to right
decisions.
Throughout the world, advances in technology are forcing a
massive information flow that dictatorships and extremists
ultimately will not be able to control. Blogs are rapidly
appearing even in countries where the press is still government-
controlled.
Pro-democracy forces are communicating and organizing by e-
mail, pagers and blackberries.
Today, in Iraq, an energetic media has emerged from the rubble
of Saddam’s police state, with nearly 300 newspapers, over 90
radio stations and more than 40 television stations. Iraqis are
now accessing the Web in their homes, as well as in Internet
cafes that have sprung up in towns and cities across their
country.
We are fighting a battle where the survival of our free way of life
is at stake. And the center of gravity of that struggle is not just
on the battlefield. It is a test of wills and it will be won or lost
with our public and the publics of free nations across the globe.
We will need to do all we can to attract supporters to our efforts,
to correct the lies being told which so damage our country, and
shatter the appeal of the enemy.
In the early years of the Cold War – another “long twilight
struggle” – President Eisenhower made a perceptive observation
– despite the differences between this war and the Cold War –
that has resonance even today.
He said:
“We face a hostile ideology – global in scope – ruthless in
purpose, and insidious in method to meet it successfully [we
must] carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the
burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the
stake.”
For nearly 50 years we did just that. We will need to show the
same perseverance in the long struggle we face today.
---
Source: cfr.org
Hott Spotts will return next week.
Brian Trumbore
|
