Sunday, February 27, 2005

This seems like an excellent idea.

Since most (if not all) of the people who attacked the US on 9/11 did much of the planning/meeting in Europe, of course we need to concentrate getting our message out to the Middle Eastern populations in Europe. This would have to be a two pronged effort of both providing an alternative to the radical Islamic message and combatting European Anti Americanism. I don't think that we can rely on the French, Dutch, German, Belgian policymakers to help us out much (in spite of all the recent photo ops), as it's much easier for them to fall back on that, rather than to confront the problems they've gotten themselves into. We might as well take matters into our own hands.

As for this:

But independent experts say Alhurra's mass-market appeal is a risky departure from a Cold War propaganda strategy that sought to influence decision-makers rather than general audiences.

"I just don't know how effective it's going to be. A better use of resources would be to work with moderate leaders throughout the Arab world," said Nancy Snow, a propaganda expert at California State University, Fullerton.

First, this isn't the Cold War anymore. How battles are being waged has changed considerably since then. Also, my interpretation of past events is that the general audiences are the decisionmakers now. As for propaganda expert Snow's solution as to what constitutes a "better use of resources," which moderate leaders does she intend that the US work with? Moderate mosque leaders? Moderate country leaders? I think we're doing that right now. Or does she mean work with in the form of more aid (military and financial) to said leaders, like we've done with so much success in the past with the likes of Hosni Mubarak and the House of Saud?

No comments: