PoliticalWarfare.org

Hugo's tasteless tuna

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez is sending cans of tuna to Peruvian earthquake victims - with a picture of himself on the label.

Joining Chavez on the tuna can is Lt. Col. Ollanta Humala, his favored candidate to become president of Peru.

"Thousands of cans of tuna with photos of the Venezuelan president and his Peruvian subordinate Humala are being distributed in the disaster zones," the Lima newspaper Expreso reports.

The cans were shipped to the stricken areas of Pisco, Ica, Chincha and Cañete. Relief workers gave Expreso access to the Venezuelan aid. The tuna labels also feature a red "O" that was the symbol of Ollanta's political campaign, and contain political slogans linking Ollanta with the "Bolivarian Republic" of Venezuela.

The labels were printed specifically to take advantage of the earthquake, as the heavy-handed language shows. Here's a direct translation of one of the sentences on cans distributed in Ica, where a quarter of the city's buildings were destroyed: "In front of the national disaster that happened to Peru, and overall to our Ica region, the Peruvian Nationalist Party, with our leader Ollanta makes itself present, together with our sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whose president is our brother Hugo Chavez, is due to the fact that the current Peruvian government acts in an inefficient manner, slow and heartless, and heedless of the pain of the victims and leaving them at the mercy of hunger, thirst and criminal gangs." 

Military public affairs sites are bigger security risk than bloggers

When the Army issued a censorship policy against bloggers last May, it cited "operational security" reasons. Fair enough - as long as the reasons were legit. But we knew at the time they weren't, and now an Army investigative report confirms it.

Wired magazine is reporting that internal Army investigations appear to show that "official Defense Department websites post material far more potentially harmful than anything found on a individual's blog."

The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell (AWRAC) monitored 878 official military websites and 594 individual blogs between January 2006 and January 2007. According to an AWRAC report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the cell found 1,813 operational security violations on the official military websites, and only 28 breaches on the individual blogs.

Official military websites are generally run by public affairs officers (PAOs).

Statistics are unclear because of an apparently contradictory way in which AWRAC presents its methodology. But even the Army agrees that the milbloggers are more security conscious than the public affairs people.

Army spokesman Gordon Van Vleet (of the public affairs shop) says in the Wired story that one "factor that contributes to fewer violations being found on blogs is that in general the blogger is conscientious about their duty not to provide information that could be considered an OPSEC violation."

"Often these bloggers are stationed in the combat areas and they more than anyone understand the importance of security and the potential impact any OPSEC violations could have on themselves and their fellow soldiers, airmen and Marines," Van Vleet said.

He didn't explain why the military's highly trained PAOs don't share that same OPSEC concern.

US Naval Institute Proceedings gives thumbs-up to war of ideas book

Proceedings, the magazine of the United States Naval Institute, runs a favorable review of my book, Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War.

In the August 2007 issue, Lt. Dan Reiher, USN, says that the book "clearly demonstrates that the new thrust in the war of ideas does not have to originate in US government releases."

The Navy reviewer concludes, "By focusing primarily on the offensive aspects of strategic communication, the author has made a worthwhile contribution to what must be a key component of U.S. strategy in the terrorism war. For those who find themselves in a position to affect U.S. communication efforts, or to influence our image among allies and adversaries, this book should be placed at the top of their must-read list."

Proceedings does not publish the book reviews in its current online editions, but the attached document contains a copy of the review: Download proceedings_review_aug_07.pdf

The AP Stylebook for political propaganda

The Associated Press gives us a fine example today of political propaganda disguised as news. Kudos to AP national writer Deborah Hastings who has penned an easy-to-dissect non-story.

Let's take a look: The subject is Hastings' undatelined article published August 11 with the headline, "Iraq contractors accused in shootings." With Yahoo News featuring it as a top story, I expected to read about a new incident. I was wrong. The piece is just a rehash of old news reports from 2004 and 2005, and a well-reported incident from last May.

Here are some clues that indicate a piece of political propaganda disguised as journalism:

1. The article is full of old news. There's no news "hook," nothing that happened in the past few days that would make it a legitimate news story - especially on a wire service like AP.
2. The article contains demonstrable inaccuracies. The biggest one is this sweeping and false generalization: that private military contractors in Iraq "operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them." The fact is that the firms are closely regulated by the government contracting offices that retain them and operate under federal law.
3. The reporter editorializes by citing vague and unnamed sources to push an agenda: "Some military analysts and government officials say the contractors could be tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act." Hastings doesn't cite a single military analyst or government official. But she echoes the line of antiwar critics who want to try bring private security providers under the military, not civil, laws - even contractors who don't work for the Pentagon.
4. The AP article appears just as an überpartisan congressman, Rep. Henry Waxman (pictured), gears up for another show trial against private contractors. But Hastings didn't inform the readers about his latest activity, even though it is of direct relevance to the story.
5. AP reporter Deborah Hastings regularly covers Waxman's "investigations" and hearings as part of her beat, and nailing private defense and security providers has been one of her hobby horses.

Funny, but this breach of journalistic ethics doesn't appear in the 2007 AP Stylebook. On the bright side, Hastings has finally come out of the closet.

Good news: Pakistanis' anti-terror musical movement spreads around world

Pakistan's big anti-terrorism pop music video is finally getting attention in the US. As this blog reported in March, a Pakistani Brit composed a "We are the World"-style song, in Urdu, against Islamist terrorism. The biggest pop singers in Pakistan got together and performed it, and the song became #1 in the country. Now it's been released in the UK.

This week, Fox News discovered the music video. Correspondent Greg Palkot reports from London: "Waseem Mahmood and his two sons, Khurrum and Khaiyyam, have made this statement via a song and music video. It is called 'Yeh Hum Naheen,' Urdu for 'This is Not Us.'  [For the video of Palkot's report, click here.]

"The lyrics say it all: 'This story that is being spread in our names is a lie. … The name by which you know us we are not.'

"Taking a page right out of the hugely successful all-star relief song 'We are the World,' the song is performed by top young singers in Pakistan.

"Juxtaposed among the shots of the singers are ugly scenes and headlines about terrorism as well as heart-warming scenes of Pakistanis singing along … with passion."

Yeh Hum Naheen isn't some CAIR-style propaganda operation designed to divert us infidels away from the subject away from Islamist terrorism. It's a privately-sponsored production designed to rally young Muslims to marginalize the extremists. (That's probably why CAIR and its ilk have ignored it.)

And it's becoming a formidable musical movement, according to the official website.

"According to video creator Waseem, extremists here have criticized the song, saying it should target governments they claim are responsible for the terror," Palkot reports, "not the terrorists. But that's the very twisted logic the song is trying to knock down."

The Mahmood family has only just begun to fight. According to Fox: "The next priority is an Arabic version of the song. Then an English version. Then a 'Live Aid'-style concert. And a few other interesting projects they don’t want to talk about yet."

In March, PoliticalWarfare.org posted a link to the original 'Yeh Hum Naheen' video in Urdu. Here's a new link to the UK-released version subtitled in English.

At FamilySecurity, accuracy doesn't Matter

For some reason, FamilySecurityMatters.com has refused to permit corrections of falsehoods made in a recent column, and has denied the right or privilege of reply to those falsely accused of spreading Wahhabi propaganda.

The normally credible site ran a piece in July by Walid Phares, who himself is an ordinarily reliable figure. But this time accuracy fell between the cracks when Phares falsely labeled us as spreading Wahhabi or Muslim Brotherhood propaganda in assailing our argument that we should take advantage of splits within Islam to wage semantic warfare against the most extreme elements. The article contained a number of inaccuracies. The most serious was that Washington wordsmith Jim Guirard is a "lobbyist" who "concocted" a Wahhabi/Muslim Brotherhood line of argument that others, including this blogger, were allegedly spreading.

The "lobbyist" allegation came just days after Hugh Fitzgerald of JihadWatch.com (again, another otherwise excellent site) spread a false report that Guirard has close ties to the Saudis and had probably been taking money from them.

I've known Guirard for 25 years and he's always been a stand-up guy. I checked with him, the Justice Department and organizations that constantly monitor Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, and am satisfied that the report is completely without basis. His last lobbying activity was 7 years ago for a Louisiana company and related to the US Army. No Saudi or Islamist connections whatsoever.

I notified FamilySecurityMatters.com editor Carol Tabor, whom I have known since I helped her set up and staff the site, of the sloppy reporting and editing on her site (an editorial comment was similarly misleading). After a few days' wait, she refused to publish a correction or clarification, refused to allow either Guirard or myself to post a response, and said she considers the matter closed. The contents of her email are private, so manners prevent me from disclosing some interesting details.

Of the several sites that ran the Phares piece, we contacted three: FamilySecurityMatters.com, AIM.org and FrontPageMag.com. In contrast to FamilySecurityMatters, the other two sites immediately agreed to run responses. AIM ran a detailed piece by Guirard on August 6. Two days later, FrontPageMag ran an item that I wrote advocating semantic warfare. FamilySecurityMatters' refusal is bizarre. But the record is corrected, and it's time for the circular firing squad to disband and charge onward.

CAIR leader identified as part of early clandestine Hamas network in US

The leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, has been identified in FBI documents as part of an early clandestine network for Hamas in the United States.

Masquerading as a "civil rights" group, CAIR has mounted pressure campaigns to discredit, silence or marginalize critics - both Muslim and non-Muslim - across the nation. CAIR has even made inroads into the US government despite repeated warnings of its ties to suicide bombers.

Now, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that an individual known in FBI reports since 1993 as "Nihad LNU" is actually Awad. At a 1993 meeting at which "Nihad LNU" was present, Hamas supporters discussed ways to raise money for the terrorist group. As proof of a conspiracy to promote Hamas clandestinely in the US, the participants used code-words to refer to Hamas and to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP).

Awad, pictured above at a 2002 International ANSWER rally in Washington, was identified as a representative of IAP at the time. In the photo, Awad is seen on the right with his image projected on a large video screen. The yellow flag of Hezbollah is flying on the left of the speakers' platform.

The 1993 link is extremely important, because CAIR has played such a political warfare and propaganda role in the United States to undermine counterterrorism legislation and policy, and to marginalize Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Some senior officials in the Bush Administration have embraced CAIR or CAIR figures, underscoring the point of supporters-turned-critics that the US is not serious about really fighting global terrorism.

Is the 'global war on terror' phony?

Is the global war on terror "phony"?  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said so in a recent speech, arguing that the worldwide campaign against Islamist extremists is headed to anywhere but victory.

Gingrich did not appear to be referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - an important distinction.

"None of you should believe we are winning this war," Gingrich told students at a Young Americas Foundation event, specifying the "Global War on Terror" or G-WOT. "There is no evidence that we are winning this war." The Atlanta Constitution carries the story. He isn't blaming the Democrats. He said that the Republicans had control of both chambers of Congress and the White House from 2001 through 2007 - and they blew it.

Does he have a point?  I think he does, though the Democrats have no proposals of their own to win the wars, which explains the artwork at left from our friends at the PeoplesCube.com. Gingrich said that few apart from the troops on the ground are really fighting to win.

The former Speaker gives some good reasons why the US is fighting the "global war on terror" in a phony manner. A policy of continuing to pump petrodollars into Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is a big part of the problem - and the administration is doing nothing to stop Saudi subversion around the world and here at home.

The Bush Administration is also fighting a phony war because it has been stifling talk of the nature of the enemy - not just al Qaeda, but all Muslims who support terrorism against the United States. And pro-terrorist non-Muslims, too, but the administration has been stepping all over itself trying to deny the obvious: That every single signficant act of terrorism against the US since 9/11 has been carried out by a professed member of the Islamic religion.

And the White House's hug-a-Muslim operation, long dominated by the Saudi-funded activist Grover Norquist, has done NOTHING to build support support for the war among Muslims in America. (Remember Grover? He was the Jack Abramoff crony who took money from convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi of the Muslim Brotherhood, and received an award from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's convicted North American cell leader Sami Al-Arian. Among others.) All it's done is whine about being repressed and undermine the nation's counterterrorism capabilities.

The Bush Administration has a can't-do attitude when it comes to fighting ideological warfare. It seems to want to, but it won't. It's manifest at every level of government - from the White House to the lowliest contractor in the field. Policymakers seem to default to the feckless public diplomacy shop at the State Department. The Pentagon won't let its information operations people say anything much about Islam, and its public affairs officers keep illegally invoking a Cold War law that applies only to the State Department, as if to ensure that we don't fight the propaganda war we need to be waging.

A few key people like General David Petraeus get it, as do some folks at the Pentagon who are truly trying to get things done. And maybe one member of the US Senate. And that's really about it. 

Is the global war on terror "phony"?  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said so in a recent speech, arguing that the worldwide campaign against Islamist extremists is headed to anywhere but victory.

Gingrich did not appear to be referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - an important distinction.

"None of you should believe we are winning this war," Gingrich told students at a Young Americas Foundation event, specifying the "Global War on Terror" or G-WOT. "There is no evidence that we are winning this war." The Atlanta Constitution carries the story. He isn't blaming the Democrats. He said that the Republicans had control of both chambers of Congress and the White House from 2001 through 2007 - and they blew it.

Does he have a point?  I think he does, though the Democrats have no proposals of their own to win the wars, which explains the artwork at left from our friends at the PeoplesCube.com. Gingrich said that few apart from the troops on the ground are really fighting to win.

The former Speaker gives some good reasons why the US is fighting the "global war on terror" in a phony manner. A policy of continuing to pump petrodollars into Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is a big part of the problem - and the administration is doing nothing to stop Saudi subversion around the world and here at home.

The Bush Administration is also fighting a phony war because it has been stifling talk of the nature of the enemy - not just al Qaeda, but all Muslims who support terrorism against the United States. And pro-terrorist non-Muslims, too, but the administration has been stepping all over itself trying to deny the obvious: That every single signficant act of terrorism against the US since 9/11 has been carried out by a professed member of the Islamic religion.

And the White House's hug-a-Muslim operation, long dominated by the Saudi-funded activist Grover Norquist, has done NOTHING to build support support for the war among Muslims in America. (Remember Grover? He was the Jack Abramoff crony who took money from convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi of the Muslim Brotherhood, and received an award from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's convicted North American cell leader Sami Al-Arian. Among others.) All it's done is whine about being repressed and undermine the nation's counterterrorism capabilities.

The Bush Administration has a can't-do attitude when it comes to fighting ideological warfare. It seems to want to, but it won't. It's manifest at every level of government - from the White House to the lowliest contractor in the field. Policymakers seem to default to the feckless public diplomacy shop at the State Department. The Pentagon won't let its information operations people say anything much about Islam, and its public affairs officers keep illegally invoking a Cold War law that applies only to the State Department, as if to ensure that we don't fight the propaganda war we need to be waging.

A few key people like General David Petraeus get it, as do some folks at the Pentagon who are truly trying to get things done. And maybe one member of the US Senate. And that's really about it. 

Now available: The Public Diplomacy Reader

It's finally out: The Public Diplomacy Reader, more than 500 pages of some of the most important articles, letters, speeches and documents about public diplomacy and strategic communication.

Published by The Institute of World Politics Press and edited by your humble blogger, The Public Diplomacy Reader has already been assigned as a textbook at National Defense University.

Carnes Lord of the US Naval War College calls The Public Diplomacy Reader "unique and outstanding." Voice of America historian Alan Heil says the book has "a commanding sweep of history." And former VOA Director Robert Reilly says that the Reader is "indispensable for both students and anyone wishing to win the 'war of ideas.'"

In a few weeks The Public Diplomacy Reader will be available on Amazon.com, but until then, you can purchase it online directly from the printer.  Click on the following:  PAPERBACK EDITION $34.95    HARDBOUND EDITION $49.95   DOWNLOAD $19.95