Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Tom,
Concerning the comparison of Hezbollah's gains in popularity in Lebanon to the US military's "out-of-the-loop" mindset in Iraq, I think you miss one very important point.

The convergence of modern private media org's with billionaire provocateurs (Wahabbi's, Soros) means that the journalism that we relied on for our view of the world has become corrupted. Akin to the muddled reportage on the "Middle East Peace Process," the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq threaten ages-old patronage-networks that are flush with petrodollars. And, where there are great stakes involved, we have to expect that these entrenched patrons will exercise their influence in every way they can.

In short, a million dollars deposited in the Swiss bank account of a "journalist" by a Qatari sheik, or a GazProm oil magnate, can buy a lot of favorable press.

Relating this to your post, in Lebanon, the media org's, who probably produced the poll you rely on, are propagandizing for Hezbollah. In Iraq the global media, whose tabloid reportage has consistently underreported our gains there, have actively campaigned against the effective enforcement of UNSC Res. 1441.

If a vested, biased media is responsible for framing Hezbollah's gains, and the same "framers" are bent on degrading America's gains in Iraq, then a complete comparison of Hez's PR acuity to that of the US military would mention this subjectivity of media reportage, and its author should expose to what degree he relies on this reportage for his views.

An aside, but, can it be a coincidence that the same media orgs. evanglized so loudly for "Global Test" Kerry in 2000 and 2004?

Steve:
I’m with you. We are getting inundated with lies and misrepresentation daily.

If we’re talking about war with-in the context of everything else then this includes the media as well. Propaganda certainly isn’t new but our refusal to use it as a war fighting tool is new. In the military there are three kinds of media. Information Operations-these guys focus on the population that we are among. Psychological Operations- These guys are focused on the enemy. Public Affairs- they focus on giving information to the American public. The problem is that the PAOs tend to be a bit naive and timid. “They can’t editorialize or push a point of view”. This is typical journalistic ethics but our soldiers are the only ones playing by the rules. The Pentagon tried to get a handle on foreign media and was smacked down for the suggestion. As we saw with Hezbollah though the media has been infiltrated by our enemies. So how we can trust anything that we see in the media? What if there is no rebuilding in Lebanon? How would we know? I think that the sysadmin force needs to include some real savvy media experts.

Clearly Lebanon is in motion. The dateline for the Economist article is on the 16th. Michael J Totten, a reliable journalist has thisto offer, a short reference to three articles and the thought that Hezbollah is losing.

Aoun announces to Al-Arabiya that they are not allied to Hezbollah but merely have an understanding on a few points (I believe that this was an article on the 17th). This is a sign of Hezbollah weakness, not strength. Nasrallah suddenly starting to refer to Nabih Berri as his "big brother" is another sign that Hezbollah is not a roaring lion fresh off of a victory. Ali al-Amin, the Shia mufti for Tyre and Jabal Amel also seems to be making news in his denunciation of Hezbollah's habit of advancing Iran's interest over Lebanon's.

It is possible that all this is slanted ideological propaganda. But the same possibility exists for bias in the Economist article.

My own take is that things are still in flux but Hezbollah has some strategic problems that will cause it to ultimately lose the peace. Berri's Amal will gain at Hezbollah's expense in the south so long as Hezbollah maintains its armed force but once Hezbollah gives up its guns, it has no unique selling point to differentiate it from Amal. It might as well be Amal1 and Amal2. Why would Iran preferentially finance Amal2? Gen. Aoun's opportunistic alliance with Hezbollah must mean real benefits for the christians coming out of Iran's pockets. That's not going to last forever. And finally, the Shebaa farms excuse is likely to go away in the next year or two as Syria finally gets forced to say, one way or another whether the land is under claim by them or not.

I think that "winning the peace" is a process that is measured in decades and you can hold early leads that last months but prove ephemeral.

Thanks Seth and TM,
I agree with Tom's basic framework and would like to see it get a more thorough, profound hearing in the blogosphere.

Unfortunatley, when he left the intellectual side-lines and entered the political fray with his endorsement of John Kerry in 2004, it made me look deeper at what impact his policy prescriptions might mean to the bounded American Republic, and to question whether the government-mediated methods that he prescribes to further connectivity don't amount to a giant, global, tax-payer-funded "bail-out" for failed states.

I have much reading to do, and a lot to learn before I can come to any concrete conclusions. Thanks for adding your thoughts to mine.

Steve,TM,Seth: so the Economist is now The Nation? Please enlighten and tell me what the Kerry 'global test' meant and means?

I don't have a problem with the Economist so much as with our ability to work with the media. Especially when it comes to foreign affairs the media either gets its news from local source (see the enemy) or they go there themselves and the enemy puts on a front.

I’m not really sure what Kerry’s “global test” does mean, that is part of the problem it’s a slogan and a very bad one from an American politics point of view.

Steve: I think that both Bush and Kerry have a piece of what Dr. Barnett is talking about but neither have the whole. Bush is too aggressive and allowed the media etc. to put blinders on him so that all his focus is on Iraq. Kerry on the other hand wanted all the talk and none of the action, can’t have one with out the other.

Steve and Seth seem to be in denial - alleging media bias when they read some factual account they find ideologically unpalatable.

The Economist is a pro-capitalist mag - which is merely quoting the common wisdom about Hizbullah's organizational efficiency without any original reporting of its own. But if you read the the comments of Lebanese experts you will find that is the consensus view - Hizbullah runs a very efficient, honest and technically competant bureaucracy. They did a good job of rebuilding South Lebanon after the last Israeli invasion. Given the abject waste and failure of the U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq, I'd bet Hizbullah could have done a better job.

The Daily Star, a pro-western and anti-Hizbullah Lebanese newspaper nevertheless recognized Hizbullah's efficiency in this editorial:

"Hizbullah did not suddenly materialize magically on a Persian carpet or a divine edict. The organization methodically built itself up and sharpened its capabilities in all fields over a period of years. The core of its success is its capacity to identify the real needs of its constituents, meet those needs systematically through an efficient network of staff and managers, and not to waste time bragging about the fact in public.

Whether you approve or disapprove of Hizbullah, you cannot simply ignore it, or wish it away. Debate about its tactics, goals, values, allies, and place in Lebanon and the region will go on for a long time. Such discussion should not merely parrot the rhetoric and cliches of ideologues who love it or hate it, making it a one-dimensional phenomenon that belies its complex multiple roles. We would suggest, rather, that the enormous physical and political reconstruction demands of Lebanon in the months ahead would benefit from the sort of efficiency, focus, strategic planning, diligence and follow-up that have characterized Hizbullah’s efforts in all the fields it has entered."

"Hizbullah happens to be the Lebanese organization that has taken this degree of professionalism to the highest degree of impact on the public - good or bad impact, depending on your perspective. Politically, Hizbullah will be challenged, engaged, opposed and long debated. Organizationally and logistically, it has historic lessons to teach all other Arabs in the country and the region. Those Arabs, including the Lebanese, should be alert enough to recognize the rare capacity for efficacy that Hizbullah has developed, and apply it in those crucial fields of public life and national development that have suffered so much mediocrity in the recent"

reprinted here:
http://peoplesgeography.wordpress.com/2006/08/17/daily-star-editorial-love-it-or-hate-it-hizbullah-has-lessons-for-all-arabs/

1.I’m not saying this stroy didn’t happen. I am saying that I have a degree of skepticism about the accuracy of reported events. Why shouldn’t I? There are Reuters reporters doctoring pictures and false information constantly past as news.

2.I know for a fact that Iraq is not reported accurately. When I was there I read stories that supposedly took place in the area that I was at that did not happen or were distorted. We would sit around, read the stories and laugh at some of the lunacy of the reporting.

3.The fact that Hezbullahs activities are even reported positively by outlets that are pro-west means that Hezbullah has a good public affairs department. These places do get their stories from somewhere. The fact that the good stuff that we are doing doesn’t go reported by anti-west foreign media and by our own media means that our public affairs personnel are falling asleep on the job.

4.My main point is that we need to do a better job of getting what we are doing (economic connectivity) out through the media and letting those are in the Gap know that groups like Hezbullah and Al Qaeda are really seeking to disconnect and dominate.

Sorry for the spelling errors in my previous post, but I'm a bit tired.

It is much easier to place lies and bullshit in the media than facts, because bullshit can be tailored to create good headlines.

The Muslim extremists in general have become very good at working the media. They understand that a newspaper, or a TV news program, is primarily entertainment, designed to tempt viewers into seeing the adverts.

The US military in Iraq dutifully puts out factual statements (selecting the better facts, of course, but not creating events from pure fiction). Who is going to make a headline about the opening of another health clinic in Iraq?

But they are also amateurish. Read the transcripts of Caldwell's weekly press conferences, and they are full of "inaudible"s and clumsy answers.

The problem is to get the right balance between slick, lying media professionals and bumbling, truthful amateurs. I think the spin and bullshit comes around to hit you in the end, but in the short term, it can be effective.