• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Durn Liberal Pentagon

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Have you given the Pentagon's Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication a glance yet?
It's all "Global Test" and "sensitive war" crap.

“Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method … … [it] will build on in depth knowledge of other cultures and factors that motivate human behavior. It will adapt techniques of skillful political campaigning … It will engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.

“[Global] opinions must be taken into account when [US] policy options are considered and implemented.

“The Task Force recommends that the President issue a directive to: (a) strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to understand global public opinion, advise on the strategic implications of policymaking, and communicate with global audiences ...

“The strategic environment has changed radically since the October 2001 Task Force report. We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility[!] and ways the U.S. pursues its goals[!].

"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

Why not just build bigger, cheaper bombs?
 
Top Bottom