Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org
If there is a more insulting canard than the claim by many rightwing nutcases that a given criticism puts someone in the "blame America first crowd", I'm sure it would be racist. Endlessly, for decades we have heard any questioning of American foreign policy by Democrats written off as blaming the United States. I want to know how long it will take for some ignorant, kool-aid drinking neo-conservative to lay that insult to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.
[NY Times] "I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all," he wrote. "They are policy and execution problems. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don’t follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are."
Will any republicans or conservatives have the moral courage to stick to their principles on this one?
US is viewed unfavorably by the world
As global opinion polls have repeatedly shown, the United States has an image problem. Pew Global Attitudes produced a report in May of this year showing opinion of the US is lower than other western nations in every region of the planet. A couple of years prior to that, in April of 2007, PBS demonstrated that US favoribility had steadily fallen over the last decade.
Favorable opinions of the U.S. have, in general, dropped steadily from 1999/2000 to 2006 in most of the 15 countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. In Britain, some 56 percent of people had a favorable view of the U.S. in 2006, compared to 83 percent at the turn of the century. In 2006, favorable opinions dropped significantly in predominately Muslim countries, ranging from 12 percent in Turkey to 30 percent in Indonesia and Egypt.
Neither article really addresses why favorability plummeted so dramatically.
Why?
How does one begin to correct such a thing?
A rational, logical place to start would be to look at what you have the most capability to affect first, then look at contributing factors outside your sphere of influence. This means in a practical sense, blaming yourself first for perceived problems. We, as a nation, have a great deal of influence in the world, but it is not so much that we can force people into our interests while dropping bombs on their neighbors. Any sensible analysis would seek introspection to address the concern.
Strategic Communication
Our low favorability has become a strategic national security concern. So says Adm. Mullen.
We hurt ourselves more when our words don’t align with our actions. Our enemies regularly monitor the news to discern coalition and American intent as weighed against the efforts of our forces. When they find a "say-do" gap—such as Abu Ghraib—they drive a truck right through it.
So should we, quite frankly. We must be vigilant about holding ourselves accountable to higher standards of conduct and closing any gaps, real or perceived, between what we say about ourselves and what we do to back it up. [emphasis mine]
While this may seem officious to the cowboy-wannabe, chickenhawk neo-conservatives, it is, in fact, the very sensible, non-partisan, non-ideological security analysis that can only come from a serious military man.
He proceeds to dismantle a pernicious myth about the make-up of the Afghan insurgency.
The problem isn’t that we are bad at communicating or being outdone by men in caves. Most of them aren’t even in caves. The Taliban and al Qaeda live largely among the people. [snip] No, our biggest problem isn’t caves; it’s credibility. Our messages lack credibility because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises. [emphasis mine]
Understanding your enemy is a critical part of establishing a defense against them.
But more important than any particular tool, we must know the context within which our actions will be received and understood. We hurt ourselves and the message we try to send when it appears we are doing something merely for the credit.
I am very fond of the way he makes the distinction in the next quote between being liked and being credible. Credibility is far more important in the foreign policy arena than any amount of brazen military action. Credibility issues are killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That’s the essence of good communication: having the right intent up front and letting our actions speak for themselves. We shouldn’t care if people don’t like us; that isn’t the goal. The goal is credibility. And we earn that over time.
Summary
It is a terrific essay, both wonkish and plain-spoken. As I read it, the primary point is this: We must act responsibly in order to regain our credibility with the world, particularly the muslim world (as much as there is such a thing). I look forward to rightwing outrage for such a progressive-sounding statement.