Rumsfeld sees the problem of the US government in the novel war against terror in the media competence of the enemies and calls for a massive call for strategic communication
US Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld demands a strong commitment in the media war and a consistent conceptualization and implementation of a comprehensive strategy of strategic communication. The victory in the "Long War" is ultimately from the success of strategic communication (even more money for "The Long"To). Although the new budget of the Pentagon has risen to the record of $ 440 billion and demanded the house for another 72 billion for the global war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, the spending by no means reflects the alleged importance of domination over the media room who has been successfully achieved after Rumsfeld by the terrorists. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, he reiterated that the most important battles "do not take place in the mountains of Afghanistan or in the Strahl Iraq, but in the news editors in New York, London, Cairo and elsewhere" (the first war in Real media age).
US Defense Minister Rumsfeld complains with the Council of Foreign Relations the defense of innovative methods of strategic communication of the Pentagon
Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Sawahiri had to be honored by the attention ranging from the head of the US government — and they can also score with this attention if they are certified that they are the US or even the entire "civilized world "Threaten the defeat. After the youngest exercises of Rumsfeld, Sawahiri is still one of the central figures on the side of the opponents, and he agreed with the world’s strongest and technically best equipped army of superpower, which still has a dozen intelligence services, in the more many billions lettily. Rumsfeld once again made the new character of the war clearly and quoted at the beginning of his speech as a proof of Dafur Sawahiri, who had said:
More than half of this struggle takes place on the battlefield of the media .. We are in a media war around the hearts and head of Muslims.
The connection of the 11.9. were not destructive because of the victims and destruction, they were indeed a first, vehement victory in the media war against the western world and for the appendine of Islamism. The US government interpreted the attack as a war recognition and answered him with conventional wars and many maws of the state of emergency. But it was a different kind of war recognition that does not answer with military beats, the tottung of the opponents and, above all, not with unfavorable injuries from the rule of law principles. On the contrary: a vorter right war, destruction, collateral damage, torture, mass detention, targeted totters and again the demonstration that proceeded to two MAB drove to losses in the media war, even if the military war is successful.
At least since the not under American and Western influence Arab Al-Jazira after the 11.9. In Afghanistan and again, videos with embassies of Bin Laden spread, piles sent from Afghanistan and staged controversial discussions and since the first video of the murder of the US journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan circulated on the internet, it was also clear to the woman’s house not just about an "ideological" fight, but about the struggle about who prevails in the medial attention and thus in the no longer nationally controllable global public. The "random" bombing of the editors of Al-Dschasira in Kabul, the massively provided criticism mainly at this station, which is in the scheme that who is not for us, against us was accused of accomplice with the terrorists, the repeated "random "Bombing of the editors in Baghdad and the thought games of US Prasident Bush to eliminate the transmitter right through a bomb to the headquarters in Qatar, occupy the helpless attempts to control the media (which, however, has succeeded in surprisingly well over long time).
Of course, Pentagon and Weibes House have already begun early to invest massively in strategic communications or propaganda and to sell their messages spin doctors who banned campaigns and installed new media. This is partly criticized, partly have the committed military and political mistakes and the attempts to directly swap the openness like particularly blatant in the case of Iraqi mass destruction weapons, these efforts are undermined. Now, Rumsfeld seems to make a job again and on the one hand the media and the supposedly skilled media strategists of the Islamists to blame the prisoner of the US government, and on the other hand relieve the militar from the fiasco.
Our enemies have cleverly adapted to war management in today’s media age, but we, our country, so both our government and the media or society as a whole, did not do it. The violent extremists have established committees for relations with media and shown that they were very successful in manipulating the opinion elites. They are planning and staging their headlines reaching attacks by using all the means of communication to pile fear and break the will of free people. You know that the communication can exceed limits and that a single, cleverly staged news of our thing is exactly harm and can help you like any other method of military attack. You can quickly operate relatively few people and modest resources compared to the huge and expensive bureaucria western governments.
Rumsfeld does not come to mind — at least not in the highly enchanted — that the "success" of the other side could be caused not only by the defective communication strategy and the immobility of its own side, but also through political and military mistakes that work towards the opponent. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are symptoms and symbols. In the new pictures of Abu Ghraib, the motto in the Pentagon was that these images that show "supposedly displacements", not unavaled, because they only make everything worse, especially since all occurrences have already been clarified and persecuted. And at Guantanamo, Rumsfeld continues to find because the prisoners were allegedly to return to terror when they lie free. He criticized the just published UN report (conclusion with Guantanamo) and claimed that any assertion of a maltreatment had been reviewed. Once Rumsfeld also comes to talking on Abu Ghraib, but he only places an overweight of the reporting on the torture in Abu Ghraib compared to that of the discovery of the mass grabs of Husseins. This imbalance, so rumfield is "the realitat of the world in which we work and in which our troops must face".
Problematic for the war carrying are actually all new means of communication, the rumfield also deposited individually: email, blogs, instant messaging, Blackberries. In addition, digital cameras and a "global interior net without restrictions" come. But also mass media, radio stations, 24-hour news and satellite transmitters, represent problems. While the media are under prere to make updates for 24 hours, press offices of government agencies have often been working only 5 days a week and eight hours a day — and that is a "unacceptable dangerous malfunction".
Rumsfeld occasionally tends to formulations that highest ambivalent and almost sound after regret, for example, if he says, for example, that the tongue had been cut out under Hussein, if they had used a satellite shot or the Internet without permission. Today, there were satellite firing as in the overall region, but the broadcasters are "extremely enemy the west". Unrestrained (or jealous?) Rumsfeld also pulls the contrast between the extremists who were involved and therefore easier, and their own side, which was always the truth and therefore the disadvantage is:
The possibility of reacting quickly to our government, in contrast to our enemies that spread shamelessly, which we do not have the luxury to be anonymous or otherwise to other sources of information. Our government must be the source. And we say the truth.
The center of politics must now be communicated. For the Pentagon bat this, says Rumsfeld that the press centers had to be tentig around the clock that stomps internet campaigns and operations and all other communication channels had to be used. The print media are of falling importance here.
Psyop leaflet 3010 distributed in Iraq. The new Iraqi soldiers who evaporate the terrorists are presented as heroes. The text: "The real Iraqi heroes
Rumsfeld explains that, however, you have already found innovative ways in Iraq — not to influence the public, but merely to "deliver the Iraqis correct information given the aggressive campaign of the disinformation". Thus he means the campaign, with funds of the Pentagon about the Private Lincoln Group and other agencies to launch articles in Iraqi newspapers (Happy Iraq). The order should have been endowed with $ 300 million. That was shown in the media "inappropriate" and done as if you have "bought messages". Due to the criticism in the media you have to adjust this campaign. For Rumsfeld, the campaign was correct, the rejection witness only from "none tolerance for innovation". Another example is the Pr-accompaniment of the help of the earthquake in Pakistan. Here, the newly created, fast-use communication teams had the attention of the media directed to the military help from the USA.
In this direction, you will want to dust strategic communication in the afterseth in the Pentagon. Is urgent, so rumfield, more experts to work, quickly use the military "communication options" in new operations and multi-shaped media campaigns for print media, broadcasting, television and internet. In addition, you had to have new institutions as in the Cold War the U.S. Create information Agency or Radio Free Europe and manage people around the world. And all this is very urgent, because the enemy, to which Journalists seem to pay, produce the pentagon against critical news, mercilessly any weak utilization:
Without a doubt, we have to ame that each longer we need for the establishment of a framework for strategic communication, which is full of enemy and news informants, which will certainly not provide any precise picture of what is actually taking place.
Although the media environment has become very different today and is far more difficult to control, as a few decades ago, is correct. The fact that even in the Cold War massif on propaganda and influence the public opinion was set, is known. Rumsfeld but seems to recover the standard argument of each government, that not your policies is wrong or stobbing for rejection, but only it is displayed incorrectly by the media. Therefore, more must be put on medialy influencing, but that the incrementality is usually stronger, especially if errors and problems should be hide-out or uberglecht. But anyway, we will, so let’s wake up to clearer, need to expect a lot more with psychological operations, strategic communication, information operations or other media campaigns that the image of the US government should sputter ("The network must be evaporated like an enemy weapon system"To).