If Only We'd Consulted Madison Avenue Sooner

According to yesterday’s Post, the U.S. Joint Forces Command paid Rand Corp. $400,000 to study the “brand failure” of the U.S. presence in Iraq. The study was titled “Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation,” and its gist, as the Post sums it up, is that the “key to boosting the image and effectiveness of U.S. military operations around the world involves ‘shaping’ both the product and the marketplace, and then establishing a brand identity that places what you are selling in a positive light.”

The rest of the study is chock-full of helpful, cutting-edge military-marketing research.

For instance:

Helmus and his co-authors concluded that the “force” brand, which the United States peddled for the first few years of the occupation, was doomed from the start and lost ground to enemies' competing brands. While not abandoning the more aggressive elements of warfare, the report suggested, a more attractive brand for the Iraqi people might have been “We will help you.” That is what President Bush's new Iraq strategy is striving for as it focuses on establishing a protective U.S. troop presence in Baghdad neighborhoods, training Iraq's security forces, and encouraging the central and local governments to take the lead in making things better.

Also:

In an urban insurgency, for example, civilians can help identify enemy infiltrators and otherwise assist U.S. forces. They are less likely to help, the study says, when they become “collateral damage” in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English. Cultural connections -- seeking out the local head man when entering a neighborhood, looking someone in the eye when offering a friendly wave -- are key.

Furthermore:

Wal-Mart's desired identity as a friendly shop where working-class customers can feel comfortable and find good value, for example, would be undercut if telephone operators and sales personnel had rude attitudes, or if the stores offered too much high-end merchandise. For the U.S. military and U.S. officials, understanding the target customer culture is equally critical.

Wait – this is a lot of information to process, so I want to make sure I’m receiving it correctly. This study is telling us that, when the U.S. occupies a foreign country, it would be more helpful to project a helpful image than a threatening one? And that killing civilians will make other civilians less likely to help our forces?

Jesus. I’ve been thinking about this all wrong.

If your blood pressure doubled while reading these excerpts, I don’t blame you. It’s truly infuriating to think that, as 20-year-olds are getting blown up daily in Iraq, this is the level of sophistication at which their superiors are operating.

Also posted at Campus Progress.

Maliki Knocks Down Walls (Not Physically)

The AP is reporting that Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki's reaction to the planned wall around Adhamiya (or Azamiya; it appears there are two spellings) is, well, just like everyone else's:

"I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop," al-Maliki said during a joint news conference with the secretary-general of the Arab League. "There are other methods to protect neighborhoods, but I should point out that the goal was not to separate, but to protect."

He also noted that "this wall reminds us of other walls that we reject." Of course it does. It's the same concept.

Horrific Sectarian Violence And 12-Foot Walls: A Recipe For Peace?

The BBC and others are reporting that U.S. troops in Baghdad are in the process of building a wall around Adhamiya, a troublesome Sunni district:

Adhamiya lies on the mainly Shia Muslim east bank of the Tigris river and violence regularly flares between the enclave and nearby Shia areas.

Construction of the 5km (three-mile) concrete wall began on 10 April and the US military says it hopes to complete the project by the end of the month.

US troops, protected by heavily-armed vehicles, have been working at night to build the 3.6m (12 ft) wall.

When it is finished, people will enter and leave Adhamiya through a small number of checkpoints guarded by US and Iraqi forces.

Mustafa, a resident of Adhamiya, told the BBC, "I resent the barrier. It will make Adhamiya a big prison."

Mustafa obviously won't be the only unhappy one. The average Arab -- and this really must be a cultural thing, because I don't understand it at all -- doesn't like having to go through checkpoints run by an occuppying power to leave his or her neighborhood. People are so strange in that part of the world.

The article also notes that "[t]he US military says the barrier is the centrepiece of its strategy to end sectarian violence in the area but insists there are no plans to divide up the whole city into gated communities."

My question is this: Where to go from here? Because the plan, if I'm reading it right, goes as follows:

1. Build walls to separate two ethnic groups that are slaughtering one another.
2. ???
3. The warring ethnic groups war no more.

Number 3 would be a lovely conclusion to the war and also rhymes nicely, so I've been wracking my brain in an attempt to fill in the middle step. Unfortunately, I'm coming up completely empty. Any ideas?

Hopefully the tacticians in the Pentagon and Baghdad are smarter than I.

The "War On Terror": Rickety And Useless

On Monday, British international development secretary Hillary Benn [CORRECTION: see below] gave a speech in New York in which he made a convincing argument against the phrase "war on terror":

In the UK, we do not use the phrase "war on terror" because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.

It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.

What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others, without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength.

Benn is right: The war on terror formulation serves the PR purposes of a thousand different militant groups and is a strategic blunder of epic proportions. Reading Benn's comments, I was reminded of what happened when I called in to an awful right-wing talk show somewhere in central New Jersey. The guest was promoting some DVD and book about the global jihadist conspiracy and the danger it posed to us civilized Westerners. The phrase "Islamofascism" came up, and I couldn't help myself. I dialed the number, told the producer what I wanted to talk about, and waited. I got on relatively quickly, and the conversation went something like this:

HOST: "Jesse, welcome to the show."

ME: "Thanks. I just wanted to disagree with your use of the term 'Islamofascism.' I feel like it's a mistake to lump all these groups together. When you look at Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah -- they all have different goals and were formed for different reasons. Many of them aren't really about fundamentalist Islam, and it makes things more difficult when we sweep them all into the same category."

HOST: "Whoa. Jesse, Jesse. You do realize they are trying to kill you, right?"

That was it. Since I disagreed with the manner in which terrorism was being debated, I clearly didn't understand that there existed, somewhere, people who wanted to kill me. I've seen this happen a thousand times on a thousand different shows -- anyone who doesn't toe the absolutist line is told they are either naive or a traitor. If you don't admit that we are in a battle for our very existence, that our enemy is absolutely evil and we are almost absolutely good, and that the enemy hates us because of our way of life (an intentionally loose term that can be filled in on the fly -- they hate us because we vote, they hate us because we let our women wear bikinis), then you are part of the problem.

The war on terror is an intellectual framework that, thanks to its broadness, answers several tough questions in advance: Who are we fighting? Whomever terrorizes us. Whose fault is terrorism? Theirs, obviously; we're the ones fighting terrorism. When have we won? When there are no longer groups committing terrorist acts. It's unfortunate that these questions were neutered so shortly after 9/11. It would be nice to, you know, debate them.

It would also help us focus our efforts. It's tactically insane to treat Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iranian government as parts of the same undifferentiated mass. This lack of precision, this inability to comprehend nuance, comes from the war on terror model, which postulates that the cause of terrorism is evil itself. Evil, of course, isn't reductive and can't be bargained with, so it's not worth sitting down with any of these groups.

The most tragic result of the war on terror's rickety facade has been Iraq. Imagine if, after 9/11, the administration had described the conflict in more accurate terms. Imagine if all of the cable news networks that ceaselessly flashed idiotic electrified logos touting THE WAR ON TERROR as the fall's hottest new product had instead had the temerity to question the formulation the American government presented its people. Would the Iraq war have happened if we were fighting something less vague than "terror" itself? If the proper people had questioned President Bush, had asked him, "How can you possibly link a nationalist, secular tyrant leader like Saddam Hussein to a radical pan-Islamist like Bin Laden?"? But it wasn't important enough. Terms like "Sunni" and "Shiite" and "pan-Islamist" weren't yet en vogue, because we weren't fighting anything that specific; we were fighting terror.

"Neoconservative" is used far too often, too loosely, and in too conspiratorial a manner, but the fact of the matter is that the neoconservatives -- Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, just to name a few -- were and are largely responsible for the war on terror and its stark, epic imagery. The BBC ran an excellent critique of the neoconservatives' role in designing the war on terror in "The Power of Nightmares," a three-part documentary that aired a few years ago and which can be watched on Google Video. It's very effective at explaining the neoconservative infatuation with big, evil, Enemies to End All Enemies. For a while, the Soviets served this role, then no one, then, after 9/11, the Islamofascists. The people who have been most influential in leading us to war in Iraq see America's destiny as nothing less (or more complicated) than fighting evil, and have never let the nuances of reality interfere with this messianic vision.

It's 2007 and we are still unable to have a mature, intelligent discussion about terrorism. I hope an American politician or two will take a cue from Hillary Benn and start to deconstruct the war on terror, which has gotten us nowhere.

(Almost forgot: I would be remiss if I failed to mention James Fallows's excellent Atlantic piece from last fall, "Declaring Victory," which expertly explains what's wrong with the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism.)

[CORRECTION: I originally had the international development secretary's last name as Bunn, not Benn, throughout the post.]

Why I'm Looking Forward To The Freak Show

It's been covered heavily but is worth a brief recap: Last month, John McCain, sitting with reporters on the "Straight Talk Express" and already wrangling with the oh-so-difficult issue of whether U.S. taxpayer money should fund contraception efforts to combat AIDS in Africa, was broadsided with a nasty trick question that would leave even the most intelligent, quick-on-his-feet politician reeling.

Well, not really:

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Yes, it's 2007, and yes, a presidential candidate was asked that. McCain's awkward, waffling response became one of the early highlights of the '08 race:

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."
Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."

John McCain has been a senator for 20 years and has never come across the issue of AIDS prevention. Interesting. This bizarre exchange, in which McCain had to tread very carefully so as not to fully acknowledge reality, is precisely why I am so excited for the GOP primaries.

Likely GOP primary voters are a hardened bunch by now. They've witnessed a term and a half of one of the most incompetent, poorly run administrations in history and have decided they want more. Republicans love to trot out the term "mainstream America" and juxtapose it with Democrats. So you can understand how thrilled I am that the Republican presidential candidates must now rely on a voting bloc that is, well, out of touch with mainstream America. As the Times puts it in an article explaining why McCain has little choice but to continue vehemently defending the war:

Republican primary voters, unlike the rest of the nation, appear to remain supportive of the president and the war, and the generals on the ground are asking for public patience in pursuing the new policy of pouring more troops into Iraq. Backing away from the White House and the war now could prove problematic for any candidate seeking the Republican nomination even if it could prove helpful in the general election.

So anyone who wants to come out of the weak GOP field has to appeal to voters whose views are markedly different from those of the general population. McCain is the most interesting candidate to watch because he has the most to prove to the core faithful. He has had the "moderate" label clinging to him for years, which has helped his career, but now it's an albatross and he doesn't have much time to shed it. (Romney and Giuliani have some similar problems regarding their stances on social issues, of course, but neither has been a longtime enemy of the right wing of the Republican party, as McCain has.)

The entertainment will come from watching McCain and co. walk the tightrope. On the one hand, they need to reach out to people who for the most part don't believe in the effectiveness of condoms, the truth of evolution, or that Iraq was an ill-conceived or poorly executed war; on the other hand, they can't say anything so abjectly stupid that the country as a whole takes note.

As for the candidate who's able to successfully traverse the primaries and get the nod, he could be in trouble. It's going to be very hard to attract enough of the GOP base to win the primary without a message that will cause most of the country to blanch. That's why Giuliani is in the best shape. The fact that he's held up as a "homeland security candidate" is baffling given that his incompetence made 9/11 worse, but this gives him almost infinite leeway on issues that could trip up McCain or Romney.

Likely GOP primary voters are steadfast in their convictions. Giuliani, they (and the remarkably lazy mainstream media) have decided, is a hero, the father figure best able to protect us from Evil in a post-Bush world. Unless Romney can convince evangelicals that he is one of them despite his Mormonism, the religious right will be looking at a race devoid of an outwardly devout, Bush-like candidate with a chance at succeeding. So, given the hard-right obsession with terrorism, with apocalyptic battles and American pride, why not Rudy?

Giuliani would have far and away the best shot of any Republican in the general election, so hopefully I'm wrong. But regardless of who gets the nod, I look forward to the freak show.

Richard Perle Still Doesn't Get It

In Foreign Policy's latest Seven Questions, the magazine interviews neoconservative mastermind Richard Perle. Perle, of course, takes what is now a very common position amongst those who pushed hardest for war -- good war, bad execution. Neither a convincing opinion nor a surprising one. Where his logic really starts to eat itself is in his contention that, if Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as a terror magnet, this is a good thing:

FP: Francis Fukuyama wrote in the New York Times last year that "Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists." Do you agree?

RP: I'm not sure whether that's true or not, but it's an improvement if it is. Let me explain: Afghanistan was certainly a magnet, and jihadists traveled there from wherever they originated. They were welcomed there, they were trained there, and they worked under very favorable circumstances, with lines of communication and the ability to plan and organize. Now, the jihadists who have flocked to Iraq are themselves in constant danger, large numbers of them are killed, and they're certainly not in a position to plan operations against American territory. So if you ask me whether we are safer with jihadists converging on Baghdad or jihadists converging on camps in Afghanistan and planning events like 9/11, there's no doubt that we're a lot safer because they're converging on Baghdad.

Now, it's important to remember that he's responding to a hypothetical, and one he isn't sure he agrees with. Nonetheless, the content of his answer is very telling and reflects some of the biggest misconceptions about Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Since Perle's reasoning is faulty on almost every level, I'll just focus on the three facts that most undermine it.

1) The Iraq war made -- and is making -- more terrorists. Perle seems to be implying that there is a set number of terrorists. So, since we've been able to divert some of them from Afghanistan, a welcoming environment, to Iraq, where much of the population dislikes foreign fighters, we're winning. Things don't work this way. The Iraq war, as the U.S. government's own intelligence reports have shown, has radicalized much of the Muslim world, and has drawn in many young men who would otherwise have had little interest in jihadism. So it's not a choice, as Perle is arguing, between having terrorists in Iraq or having terrorists in Afghanistan. We have both, and thanks to the war jihadism is spreading far faster than it would have otherwise.

2) Afghanistan does provide a more welcoming operational environment for Al Qaeda, but we're losing there as well. Things have gotten so bad in Afghanistan and Waziristan, Pakistan's lawless northwest frontier, that even the mainstream media have picked up on it. In recent months, both Newsweek and Time have run stories about the failure of the U.S. and NATO to make permanent progress against Al Qaeda and the Taliban there. Al Qaeda's command hierarchy was largely smashed after the Taliban was ousted, but, now that the organization is starting to rebuild with little interference from the West, it's likely that the next large-scale attack will be hatched in Afghanistan or Waziristan. Of course, one of the reasons we've been unable to lock things down on this front (apart from the region's massive, treacherous geography, our inability to understand the culture there, and the difficulty in rooting out an enemy that can bleed into local populations) is -- you guessed it -- that we're devoting far more resources to Iraq. And, as everybody now knows, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

3) There aren't that many foreign jihadists in Iraq. For Bush, Perle, and the others who have framed this war as part of an existential struggle against Terror or Islamofascism (one of the most ill-conceived buzzwords in recent memory, and worth its own post), nothing is more important than pushing the idea that the carnage in Iraq is the result of meddlesome foreign influences and wave after wave of Al Qaeda members sweeping in to set up shop and launch a series of massive, devastating attacks against the U.S. If, instead, it's mostly just Iraqis killing Iraqis and Iraqis killing U.S. troops and vice-versa, then a) this really can't be logically tied to the war on terror, since none of the parties involved attacked us prior to March 2003, and b) there's a strong argument to be made that the war was unwinnable, that the forces unleashed by the post-Saddam power vacuum were too powerful to be contained by a U.S. effort of a politically or economically feasible scale. So it's unfortunate for Bush and Perle's rhetoric that such a small fraction of Iraq's violence comes from outside Iraq. The Brookings Institution estimates (PDF, see page 22) that as of last November there were a grand total of between 800 and 2,000 foreign fighters in Iraq -- an almost negligible fraction of the insurgency. The majority of the fighting in Iraq is either between Iraqis or between Iraqis and U.S. troops. Foreign fighters simply don't have the support of most native Iraqis, would be hard-pressed to establish any kind of permanent presence in the country, and have not stormed Iraq's borders on a scale that would support Perle's reasoning. It's a very convenient fiction, however.

So why is Perle making these claims? Did he not do his homework, or is he being disingenuous and trying like so many other pro-war types to salvage whatever he can from a huge, smoking pile of rubble? I'm really not sure. But his comments are yet another reminder that the people at the helm in the post-9/11 world either don't understand the way terrorism works, or don't care enough to learn.