I think it’s a bit ridiculous actually. First of all, Bin Laden's messages will not sway American perceptions to any great extent (except, perhaps to make us hate him even more), so as a propaganda tool I don’t think it has a great deal of value either way. As far as sending strike orders – perhaps. I got that impression when I first heard the latest speech and before it became a public issue. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is only one source of information given the fact that there are numerous Muslim news sources and the Internet. We posted a transcript of his video on this board. And, I don’t think there is any way to fully stop the inevitable acts that will be committed here as the war progresses. Our Intel will let us stop some before they happen and others will be rolled up after the fact. In some ways, like with serial killers, we almost have to have additional attacks to open up information on new cells, etc.
I don’t think Bush is doing a particularly good job when it comes to PR (Ari is only the mouthpiece, these policy decision are made with a lot of input by the cabinet). First there was the “controversy” over Bush’s delay in returning to Washington on 9.11. The press was a bit ignorant up front, which is not unusual, but then you had Ari up there trying to spin it like there was ‘a potential attack on Air Force One…blah, blah, blah.’ All he had to say was the truth about realistic security concerns (plane crashing into the Whitehoue), and stick by it, but political habits die hard even in time of crisis. The press continued to follow up precisely because the spin was so poor and obvious. That was the only thing that gave me a laugh so early after the attack. This latest press issue seems to be wishful thinking and overreaction. Given the fact that the information is readily accessible seconds later on the Web, it would be better not to confuse people over possible “hidden motivations” behind such efforts.
The real security issues are related to operational information, which the press does a pretty good job of handling. Our elected leaders in both parties, wanting to appear in the know and on the ball when the cameras are rolling can be quite another issue. Still, there needs to be congressional oversight when we go to war because that is how or balance of power works, and has worked well.
Yeah, the press can be ignorant and overreacting, but without a free press it would be fairly easy for the government to do whatever it wanted and just tell the people what they wanted to hear. Democracy is sloppy, and there are many disadvantages with the system of governance. But once you start “simplifying” things it’s too easy to end up with fascism. After all, Nazi Germany had full control over the information it’s people received and a tremendous level of internal security, but it didn’t really serve their long-term interests.
The real issue that is probably bugging Bush (leading to knee-jerk reactions), is how do we get our message out as effectively to the Muslim world, so that we can maintain a “war on terrorism” supported by the moderate regimes in the Middle East instead of World War III with a mobilization not seen since 1945.
Charon
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
