Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Few Hearts or Minds for Bush Strategy

The George W. Bush administration is badly losing the so-called "war of ideas" in the Middle East, suggested a group of...

Print Friendly

The George W. Bush administration is badly losing the so-called "war of ideas" in the Middle East, suggested a group of foreign policy experts in Washington last Wednesday, by failing to grasp that persuasion is just as important as the more heavy-handed tactics of its "war on terror."

At the Brookings Institution event, "Opportunity ’08: The Long War on Terrorism and Struggle Against Extremism," a panel of speakers representing the views of three U.S. presidential candidates and four of the institute’s fellows laid out their thoughts on how to best address the long-term goals of the "war on terror."

"In this battle scholarships can be as important as smart bombs," said Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy aide to Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and a board member of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, who argued that this was a struggle for the soul of Islam.

The focus of the war of ideas, or fighting for the hearts and minds of Arab and Muslim nations and their citizens, aims to curtail the recruitment abilities of extremist organizations by reducing hostility toward the United States.

In the six years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the current administration has shown a marked inability to make any significant headway in this area; according to a Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 80% of citizens of Muslim countries hold negative views of the United States.

"That we are on the losing side of a PR campaign against a mass murderer is astonishing," said Anthony Blinken, an adviser to 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and staff director of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, citing a poll in Pakistan that showed greater support for the reported al-Qaida founder and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden than for Bush.

"Getting our message out to people is fundamentally different from state diplomacy," said Scheunemann, referring to an important part of McCain’s approach to filling the gap in understanding between Muslim nations and the United States—the creation of something similar to the U.S. Information Agency, defunct since 1999, which was responsible for public diplomacy and charged with handling foreign broadcasts as well as cultural and educational exchanges such as the Fulbright Scholarship Program.

The broadcasts, which continue under the independent authority of the Broadcast Board of Governors and now include the Arabic-language television station Al Hurra and the Farsi Radio Farda, are a potent marker of the Bush administration’s continuing failures.

"No credible study has found them to be influential among the populace," wrote Brookings fellows Hady Amr and P.W. Singer in their paper "Engaging the Muslim World: A Communication Strategy to Win the War of Ideas."

The low audience numbers are made up mostly of people already sympathetic to the United States, and all but the fringes of that group are likely to be further alienated by the more ideologically rigid programming coming over the airwaves. Meanwhile, neoconservatives have been working to co-opt the already-fledgling public diplomacy apparatus, forcing out an experienced producer working toward a broader audience share, Larry Register.

Amr suggests abandoning the idea of better communications through these information resources and that what the people of the region really want is a dialogue with the United States. Despite widespread agreement about the importance of the war of ideas, there continues to be disagreement as to how this should be carried out in terms of engaging Middle Eastern and Muslim citizenries.

The largest rifts come in the Iraq discussion. Blinken, for example, argues that in order to restore global faith in the United States, Washington must "end the war in Iraq responsibly," while Scheunemann warns that if the United States were to "choose" defeat in Iraq, "there will be another surge—a surge in al-Qaida."

Tamara Cofman Wittes, another Brookings fellow, bolsters the Biden and Blinken view by suggesting that the negative effect of the ongoing Iraq conflict goes beyond diminishing U.S. influence into actively helping the rise of Iranian influence. This raises another major gap in the various strategies to gain the trust of Muslim countries—how to deal with Iran.

The major theme with Iran is containment of Tehran’s influence in the region. Wittes suggests that the United States use the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as an opportunity to build a coalition to counter Iranian clout that would include Israel and moderate Arab states allied or friendly with the United States. The current administration’s bumbling efforts to hastily set up a meeting for mid-November between Israel and some Arab states is already mired in doubt about what specific progress will be made, dimming hopes for a lasting and effective coalition.

"There is no better way to alienate people than by not inviting them to the dialogue," Amr notes, and as a result the United States may need to evaluate its tough standards for partnerships in the region; perhaps it is time to engage some of the more conservative elements.

"If our goals are democratic processes," says Amr, "then we need to encourage those processes. We need to encourage and engage groups no matter how conservative they are—if they are willing to play by the rules in a war of ideas, not a war of arms."

However, a focus on beefing up relations with countries that are already allied to Washington—some of which, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are autocracies—may stifle growth of the democratic process in the region. Wittes insists that there is still value in the "freedom agenda" and that coalitions can be built while simultaneously meeting the needs of the "domestic radical opposition in these countries with some governance reforms."

Scheunemann referenced the lack of commitment to the war of ideas by noting that only three U.S. institutions were involved in the "long war" on terror—the Defense Department, the State Department, and limited involvement by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). He called for the further involvement of the Department of Commerce, Department of Education, and other agencies.

This increased and more varied involvement, contended Blinken, can benefit predominantly Muslim nations, by "building up democratic institutions, not just holding elections." Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan said that an important part of reaching citizens in the target countries was to stress that "in nation-building the key ingredient is local involvement."

Naturally, the Bush administration appears to be falling short of these standards as well—Brookings senior fellow Phillip H. Gordon noted that of all U.S. substantial foreign assistance to Pakistan since 9/11, only 10% has made it to civilian hands.

Also notably, the budget of USAID—a potentially useful entity with ground-level implementation experience—has been slashed by 27% for foreign aid and a staggering 15% of its operational budget.

"If we don’t dedicate significantly higher resources to this hearts and minds thing, we’re going to fail," Amr concluded.

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Ali Gharib, "Few Hearts or Minds for Bush Strategy," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, September 28, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share