Psyop
PSYOPS or Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives.
posted by Tom at 12:03 PM
36 Comments:
Tom writes on pg 9 "The goal of the terrorist is to intimidate-to instill fear and coerce a response from the target." That certainly dovetails with the posted definition of psyops. What means do the terrorists use to intimidate? Obviously they have attacked us on our home soil, made us feel vulnerable. Do we believe that we as individuals are vulnerable or that the nation as a whole is vulnerable? The terrorists provoked a response by preying on our notion of vulnerablility. The face of travel has forever been changed and, agree with it or disagree with it, the PATRIOT Act was a response. But do we believe the US is in danger as a nation? Tom says "The existence of a critical node within the United States is a fantasy." He states "even if the attacks worked, the attacks would still not approach threatening the survivability of the United States." Using these guidelines the terrorists indeed achieved their goal.
Tom tells us the terrorists are "short sighted." They attacked us and we responded to that attack. But have they been able to sustain their influence long enough to meet the criteria for psyops? Did they truly use operations to "influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals"? They made us feel vulnerable but for how long? IMHO the tide is turning and people are starting to see Tom's view of risk. There is risk in every action. I would love to see the Associated Press carry an article quoting Tom's statistics comparing the risks from terrorists to the risks from riding in a car. Our nation is coming to realize that "there is no way to prevent all of the ways that are to kill people at all times." In the immediate aftermath of a tragedy people look for someone to blame. It had to be preventable. The levees should have been stronger, the tornado sirens should have sounded sooner, the terorists shouldn't have been able to get on the plane. As the anger ebbs we are able to look more clearly at the true threat and the cost of prevention. I heartily agree with Tom that "If there was a way to prevent all the ways there are to kill people all the time, hopefully, no one would voluntarily put up with the invasive measure required to protect them." Lisa put it perfectly (what I thought too) when she said "I was thinking protection from terrorism was defeating terrorism" and "I didn't want the terrorist to have a successful attack, and a win". We as citizens must learn to separate between a succesful attack and a win for the terrorists. Tom says "The specific problem is one of collecting, collating and prioritizing all of that thought and making a conscious decision to accept risk with thorough consideration of strategic significance." This is where Tom's military background gives him the advantage. He looks at their actions in terms of succesful missions rather than my response of "hey those *&&%&( came over into my country and I'm going to happily stand in line without shoes or coat or drinks to get on an airplane if it will keep them from having a single "Success."
"The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives." Tom says "The framework that was created on 9/11 was that the survival of the United States was vulnerable to terrorist attacks and that extreme measure were/are required to close all vulnerablilities." Since we have already established that this is false, then the terrorists have had success. But do you think this is still the framework we are using? If there were another attack, would we blame ourselves for letting them get us or could we spit and say you will never destroy us? We fought their psyops every time we went to work, school, the mall, Disneyland...b/c we were not afraid to gather and refused to let the wheels stop turning.
My questions are: Do you think the terrorists have continued to use effective psyops? What is their most effective psyop? What can we as individuals and as a nation do to combat the terrorists' psyops?
Laura
1-16-08
Laura's questions were:
1. Do you think the terrorists have continued to use effective psyops? No, not in my opinion.
2. What is their most effective psyop? 9/11, followed closely by "convincing" so many of us that they are masterminds.
3. What can we as individuals and as a nation do to combat the terrorists? Ignore them, live our lives, educate ourselves by setting up true cost/benefit analysis tables about the real cost of terrorism ... perhaps I'm being nostalgic but American has been called a land of immigrants. Public eduation was their entree to a better life. Don't know if that's the case today, the way it was. Sorry, bit off topic :) but Tom's question about educating lawyers made me think about that. So weaving back to Laura's last question: restore public education to a place of glory.
Do you think the terrorists have continued to use effective psyops? I think that they have tried but their influence has lessen greatly overtime,the further they get from any successful attack. I do believe that psyops, has been their greatest tool and weapon. The thing is it was never completely under their control, what they did excel at is using the global media, our own media, against us.
What is their most effective psyop? The world media, our national media, and their thirst for sensational headlines, sound bites and tragedy 24/7!! I think this is where a national psyops program where we utilized the global media in our favor would really rock! Why aren't we using it as effectively as the terrorist ? I have my own opinions on that, our media has double standards , they don't mind broadcasting the rhetoric of fanatics all over the global but they then grill our leaders on anything and everything they say. Don't get me wrong, the media has been, and can be very beneficial to our country, but in this instance with respect to terrorism, it has been used against us effectively, because of it's very nature.
What can we as individuals and as a nation do to combat the terrorists' psyops? We can start by saying "we are not afraid" loud and long.! We can inform our representatives on all levels of government that we are not afraid, that we think terrorist are inept, and that we don't want all our resources funneled into fighting terrorism. We can call every reporter on their use of " terrorist mastermind " . We can call our mnedia on their biased negative reporting on America, and their willingness to allow any fanatical leader or terrorist the ability to disseminate their messages. We can make sure we don't alter our life based on anything the terrorist do. We cannot react the way they want us too!
Great questions Laura, and this is an intersting topic. I want to reread the psyops section in FTC (pages 1-20) but I'm wondering what are the distinctions if any between information war, psyops, and psywarfare?
Like your questions Lisa. I looked it up and was surprised to find there is actually an information warfare website. The definition of information warfare is "the offensive and defensive use of information and information systems to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy, an adversary's information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks while protecting one's own.
Such actions are designed to achieve advantages over military
political or business adversaries."
-- Dr. Ivan Goldberg
My interpretation is that information warfare also includes the systems by which information is distributed. Where psyops tries to use info to influence attitudes and behavior, info warfare tries to destroy and discount the information the enemy has now and that which they may receive in the future.
It could be a used as a form of psyops since the corruption, exploitation and destruction of the enemies information and information systems would affect their views. I'm guessing here but say the enemy puts out information saying that they have killed 4 US soldiers. The US responds by saying that one soldier was killed, 2 injured and that 67 enemy combatants were killed. Supporters of the enemy may lose faith in the accuracy of their leaders' info and also be demoralized by the loss of their comrades.
I don't know what psywarfare is (other than a band LOL) so any definition would be appreciated.
I am learning so much from this discussion. We have talked about psyops and its affect on the US. What psyops are we using against the terrorists outside the US and do you think they are working?
1-18-08
What would Rosa Parks do?
By that I mean, some of the restrictions on the ordinary day-to-day activities of ordinary people since 9/11 are absurd. Unnecessary and perhaps most importantly, don't make us any safer. I pulled up a post I wrote earlier about the MIT student who couldn't get through airport security:
Where in the never-ending debate about personal rights vs. collective security is a sense of the absurd? Recently police arrested a 19 year-old MIT student at Boston's Logan Airport who had what the police described as a fake bomb. Ms. Simpson was wearing a computer circuit board that lit up [it was connected by wires to a battery] over a black sweatshirt. She was also carrying PlayDoh.
Even writing this makes me wonder who could possibly have taken this seriously. Altho perhaps it is analogous to shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre? I'm really torn here: sometimes unconventional methods are needed to get people to take a 2nd look at their beliefs. Perhaps what she did could be considered street theatre or a non-violent protest against a law that has morphed into something untenable.
Is there room for humour, for non-violent protest in this debate? Would that be considered a Psy Op? :)
1-18-08
Just for the heck of it I searched for the term psywarfare, and other then a bunch of information on the band :), I found an article talking about psychological warfare. Within the article psychological warfare is referred to psywarfare. So back to the dictionary I went (I've actually added dictionary.com into my favorites, I think I've looked up more words in the last week then I have in ten years - sorry for the side trip)so the definition is the use of propoganda, threats, and other pyscological techniques to mislead, intimidate, demoralize, or otherwise influence the thinking or behavior of an opponent. So my thinking is that psyops and psychological warfare are basically the same thing. Am I wrong? I am also going to reread pages 1-20 tomorrow morning when my house is quiet and I hopefully won't get interupted 20 times. My girls are spending the night with my really good friend so I won't have a 6 and a 3 year old wanting to "help" me.
(let me just preface this with saying..I haven't read the book...just the Q/comments here and what I've learned from T before, so, I am not sure that this isn't addressed further on and if I am skipping ahead, sorry..but)
Laura states "The terrorists provoked a response by preying on our notion of vulnerablility"...my thought is...it wasn't a notion...they did find and exploit a vunerability...(from Tom) a "High Impact/Low Probabilty" occurance...but how many HILP's can we withstand? How many "Cole's" how many "subway/bus bomb's" how many "Marine barracks", how many "9/11's" can happen before we have to say...the terrorists MIGHT be on to something here?...(simmer down out there:)
What I mean is, "Tom tells us the terrorists are "short sighted"...What if they aren't? What if it's just that they are THAT committed, and not "short sighted?" Willing to go the long haul?
Looking at it globally, not just "in my backyard"...you have a system that operates by hitting fast/hard and most especially sporadically. I think that sporadic hitting is a powerful tool. When people (globally) don't know where and when the next HILP will happen(cause let's face it...it's a lot easier to say..."that's too bad", about those bus/subway bombings in London/Glasgow...but it didn't really effect my life)...
BUT IT DOES...it changes forgein policy, it changes the way Forgein countries operate, and that has a trickle down effect for the USA.
The same as the Patriot Act has impact on people entering the USA.
How many sporadic hits do we take, globally before we consider them a success? How many HILP's does it take?
And to add to the mix...let's look at the other side...do they really care if we consider the Event a success? How much does our collective response to their hits, really change the way they operate? Terrorists are still going out with bombs strapped to their chests, hitting sporadically.
We may be like the British, marching into battle in formation.
They can go back to their caves and plan the next sporadic hit, while we scramble around changing. They use that for their benefit also...if they can go back and say "SEE, SEE, with FAR less man-power on our side, WE DID THIS and we changed the way the world operates...Let's do it again and again"
Yes, I agree, they ARE HILP hits, but they are having an effect. How long before the effect is permanent? How long before their apple pie is ala mode?
Brenda
Whose reaction is it, anyway?
Brenda said, Yes, I agree, they ARE HILP hits, but they are having an effect. How long before the effect is permanent?
It's hard responding without my trusty reference texts at hand but a quotation immediately came to mind ... "If not me, who ...and I tracked it down to a famous quotation from Rabbi Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who am I?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?
I didn't realize that he was a religious leader in Jerusalem back in 30 AD :) I need to give this a lot more thought but my knee jerk reaction was that "if not now, when?" means to me, the title of Tom's book is "The COURAGE of the Founders ... it's going to take a lot of individual courage to say that HILP hits are outrageous and scary and unfair but even so, we should not change our most deeply held precepts in an attempt ... I would say probably futile attempt ... to thwart off potential HILP hits, both on our own soil and internationally.
1-19-08
Joni, thanks for the definition, looking forward to your future comments. I did read that some consider psyops to be a subset of the information war.. The lines are becoming a little clearer. Now I’m working on understanding the scope of psyops campaigns(?) national, theater, tactical etc.
Brenda, Interesting comments, especially since your questions and views were very similar to the questions and views I had before I read FTC. I urge you to read the book, it makes a big impact, and it’s a well-reasoned argument. It has changed the way I view terrorism, and the way I view the US response to counter terrorism. It’s all about perspective… if you look past the drama of terror attacks, the sensationalism of 24/7 news coverage, a dramatically different picture of the threat emerges.
How many HLP’s can we stand… we let’s see of all the attacks in the last 7 years, 9/11 was the most successful and yet with from Tom’s perspective Tom says it was ”terrible mission execution” pg 13) There have been no attacks on US soil, that is the “shortsightedness” As a terrorist you want to keep the threat level high. And even with our media disseminating their threat messages, you still need successful attacks to raise the terror level. Let us look at the Glasgow airport incident., those guys were definitely inept, they had explosives and a car and managed to kill zero people…… there goes the idea of a highly trained mission… just think it you had tasked 2 Navy SEAls, or 2 Green berets guys to blow up Glasgow airport., how would their after –action report have read? Do you think they might have had more success?
And also it’s really all the hype around bombing… bombs are dramatic… and unlike Tom we don’t know anything about them, so we are afraid of bombs more afraid of bombs say than riding in a car… but your odds of dying in a bombing or riding in a car are statistical miles apart and yes as I’m sure you guessed the risk form riding in a car is huge!!! The yearly average of 42,000-43,000 American fatalities for the past 6 years (2001-2006) equals 252,00.000 dead Americans; contrast that with international terror attacks, which have killed less than 3,500 US citizens in that same period. Let’s break it down even further. In 2005 56 private US Citizens were killed in international terrorist attacks, and 43,510 US citizens were killed in motor vehicle fatalities. Take 2006, 28private us citizens were killed in international terrorist attacks and 42,642 US citizens were killed in motor vehicle fatalities.
And I too was like what if there is that great apocalyptic attack… well 252,000 dead Americans in vehicle fatalities is still more then the number of Japanese killed 220.000 in the 2 atomic bomb attacks on Japan. The terrorist do not have the means to drop an atomic weapons on us. You don’t procure that training and that technology hiding in a cave. If you look past the drama of the bombs, the sensational 24/7 news coverage, a dramatically different picture of the threat emerges!! I ask you is it just the drama and sensational news coverage that surrounds terror attacks, or is the life of a US citizen who is killed a motor vehicle accident less valuable than a life of a US citizen killed in a motor vehicle accident? If your answer to that is no, then I ask you are you more worried about a terror attack or a car accident?
Also note that IMO Tom is not saying we should not hunt down and kill terrorists,or that we shouldn't fight terrorism. He's saying that we need to keep the threat of terroism in perspective and deal with it appropriately based on it’s real threat, not on it’s dramatical perceived threat!
forgot to mention... I was reading this article about sleeper cells, the article said that a 2005 FBI report said they did not find conclusive evidence that sleeper cells existed. but that there are comments on jihadi websites that suggest that sleeper cells exist...
So the question is do sleeper cells exist ? Or is this more psyops? And does the Internet make an effective vehicle for global psyops ? Do you think the US is using the Internet to our advantage with respect to psyops?
I am absolutely reading more carefully, paying attention to all the language, I found in the past attempting to focus on the facts, the details, it was easy to miss the language, and accept it unconsciously. That doesn't happen anymore I notice the negative subjectivity, and question it's validity after reading the first 20 pages of FTC ... thanks Tom:) ) From the same article, an example of language I take issue with.
This article went onto say that a poster on one of these jihadi websites was advising those in sleeper cells to act as lone wolves instead, less chance of getting caught. The author went onto say that it wasn't the sleeper cells but the notion of a lone wolf that " terrifies the FBI in particular and internal American security in general."
Now lone wolves may be a concern of the FBI, and American security but it "terrifies" them ?The article was written by a so called security expert but this assertion that the possibility of a lone wolf "terrifies" the FBI was no major quote, just his opinion with no support at all!!
1-20-08
1. Do you think the terrorists have continued to use effective psyops?
No but George Bush did an amazing job right before the last Presidential election.
2.What is their most effective psyop?
Watching the towers fall. If they hadn't fallen I'm not convinced they would have had as much "power". The symbolism was perfect for the news media and the country went into hiding and fear.
3. IMO - the terrorists won long ago. All you have to do is hear on the news about the paranioa of anyone with the wrong skin colour and religion, immigrants, discussion of fences along the Cdn border b/c of course we are all terrorists up here, a recession and the billion dollars+ Bush is going to kick into the economy in the hopes that there isn't a full blown recession before November, the lowering of the stock markets and the lowering of the US dollar - to see the overall effect on the US economy.
Question is.... are you going to drag us down into that recession?? The economists are still undecided here.
Also, all we can do here is roll our eyes. B/c you know the 9/11 terrorists some how landed in Florida and then went to Canada and then back to Florida. The big power outage came from Canada via Ohio...... The "Blame Canada" list goes on for pages....
There will always be those that thing "the grass is greener over the fence". That think for some reason they were wronged. That wish power and the chance to rule the world. Empires always collapse - history shows that.
Trying to make change always costs... in dollars and lives... Question is... Has it been worth the price?? AND, do you really know what it is you paid for??
Sheri
OOPS In my post timed 12:32 AM starting with "Joni" in the part responding to Brenda, 2nd last paragraph, my question should have read...
"Is the life of a US citizen killed in a motor vechile accident less valuable than the life of a US citizen killed in a terrorist attack ? If your answer is no, as it is for me, then I ask, should we be more worried about terror attacks or car accidents?"
Lisa, yes, yes yes!!!
(I don't want to drag this out...'cause I'm working blind here...but this is basically my Q)
"we need to keep the threat of terroism in perspective and deal with it appropriately based on it’s real threat"
I can see where we need to back the truck up and put the threat into perspective...
But I also wonder how that is to be done?..is that in the book?..(which I'll TRY to get that read:0)
But I'm also trying to look to the future and see if their form of effects based operations... IS their stratedgy to get to their imperative....
UUMMM, does that make sense?
(and I'll just go over here and shut up now, until I can get to the book...hopefully some of the answers are there)
Thanks all
Brenda
In response to Sheri, and a little off subject, your response to:
Do you think the terrorists have continued to use effective psyops?
You said "No but George Bush did an amazing job before the last presidential election", can you explain what you mean, or give me a specific example? I'm just curiouse how closely the Canadian media follows what happens in the US and what kind of a spin they put on it.
In response to "discussion of fences along the Cdn border b/c of course we are all terrorist up here" I take offense to that and I'll tell you why, I live in a part of the US where illegal imigration is a HUGE issue. We have a lot of illegal imigrants that here that are taking advantage of government programs that I a natural born American citizen will never get to use. They want us to change the language in our schools to Spanish so that their children can take advantage of our "free" education system. My tax dollars make it possible for their children to eat and have health insurance, yet they pay no taxes. Sorry, back on subject - the only real discussion here where I live about fences was on the southern border and has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
You said "Also, all we can do here is roll our eyes. B.c you know the 9/11 terrorists som how landed in Florida and then went to Canada and then back to Florida. The big power outage came from Canada via Ohio...The "blame Canada" list goes on and on for pages...
My question, what are you talking about? My memory may not be so good but I don't recall blaming Canada for anything. I'd love a specific example.
I think our way of life, our freedom, free speech the very rights that give us the freedom to bad mouth our president,(whether it's right or wrong) without worrying if someone was going to cut out our tongues for speaking against them. I think that it is absolutely worth it. Freedom isn't free.
I am looking forward to the next section of the book.
Joni
1/20/08 2:29pm
Laura asks:
Do you think terrorists have continued effective psyops?
No. I think that people have begun to understand their propaganda and have begun to grow “accustomed” to the terrorist mentality. However, I also think that their overall effectiveness is directly related to our willingness (cowardice) to allow them to affect our comfort. Should they have another attack on US soil, we shouldn’t see it as a failure of keeping us safe, but of an attempt to get us to react in the same manner we did before by further deteriorating our constitutional rights and civil liberties.
What is the most effective psyop?
The most effective psyop in my mind is when we modify our behavior because of a message or action on the part of terrorist that has such a limited probability of truly affecting our way of life. Let me make a comparison: Terror Alerts and Hurricane Alerts. When we “alert” the people about a heightened level of terrorist activity – what are we really doing? Encouraging vigilance or encourage paranoia and fear? Saywe get some piece of intelligence or some event happens, i.e. Bhutto’s “assassination,” then the terror alert for the US gets announced. Now as a citizen I know to be “extra” careful about terrorists. Does this mean I don’t board an airplane if someone suspicious is in line? Does this mean I eye everyone around me with suspicion? What in all practicality does it mean for me each day? I see some similarities with the Hurricane warning system. Here in FL, we get them pretty regularly during the Hurricane Season. I get the point of saying, its now hurricane season so be prepared, but we hear of tropical storm developments off the coast of Africa and it is reported on each and every day when in all likelihood the storm will either dissipate or barely come near us. Yet, coverage of the issue occurs days on end, producing anxiety about what if we have to leave? where do we go?; do we have enough supplies?. I’m not saying advance warning isn’t necessary, but that such warning should come when the probabilities are much higher.
What can we as individuals and as a nation do to combat terrorists?
We can stop being afraid. (Afraid: filled with fear or apprehension). Imagine if we made choices about driving on the highway in the same way we have made choices about our rights and civil liberties as a result of the fear of terrorism. People wouldn’t dare get in their cars each day.
We can stop reacting in fear. (Fear: to feel fear in (oneself); to have a reverential awe of (fear of God); to be afraid of: expect with alarm (fear the worst); to be afraid or apprehensive (feared for their lives)) Our reactions to the threat of terrorism has been in fear (e.g. fear the worst, feared for our lives) to the extent that we have elevated terrorists on a level of fear like that described above – to have a reverential awe of (fear of God, or in this case, fear of terrorists.) We give them so much more recognition than what they deserve.
We can react with courage. (Courage: mental or moral strength to resist opposition, danger, or hardship; courage, mettle, spirit, resolution, tenacity. Courage implies firmness of mind and will in the face of danger or extreme difficulty {the courage to support unpopular causes}. Mettle suggests an ingrained capacity for meeting strain or difficulty with fortitude and resilience {a challenge that will test your mettle}. Spirit suggests a quality of temperament enabling one to hold one's own or keep up one's morale when opposed or threatened {her spirit was unbroken by failure}. Resolution stresses firm determination to achieve one's ends {the resolution of pioneer women}. Tenacity adds to resolution implications of stubborn persistence and unwillingness to admit defeat {held to their beliefs with great tenacity}.
Note: all definitions are from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
Brenda asks:
How many sporadic hits do we take globally before we consider them a success? How many HILP’s does it take?
I think the answer to the question lies in the question of what is mass destruction. In reading Tom’s section on WMD I was very surprised to learn that we don’t have a clear, uniform definition. Yet, I completely understood his point. I read an article within the last year in the local paper, Weapon of Mass Destruction? The AK-47. I hope I remember correctly, but it is an assault rifle that is easy to transport, operate and is relatively effective. [Tom, please correct me if I’m wrong. I want to be sure I’m referring to the correct weapon and I can’t find the article at the moment] Anyway, the article went on to point out the estimated number of deaths that this one weapon (in the hands of many – legitimate military, militia, gorillas, other “freedom” fighters, tribes, etc.) has been used in since its creation. I certainly thought a lot differently about WMD after reading the article. The question remains though to be a WMD just how many deaths must be caused, how much devastation must occur and over what period of time?
Lisa A asks:
Do sleeper cells exist? Or is this more psyops?
I don’t know if they exist of not, but I think that this question in and of itself helps to perpetuate our fear of terrorists.
Do you think the US is using the internet to our advantage with respect to psyops?
I’m not sure, but I think the draw back to the information age is that there is often too much information available and people frequently take the easy way out by forming opinions on rhetoric and headlines rather than taking the time to investigate the facts or theories. The internet gives us the resource to get the information we need, but we do not take the time to read it. So, I think the terrorist use it more than any other medium because books and articles are expensive to publish so they use what is cost effective. One video tape released on the web can be picked up and played anywhere (but only if people are willingly distributing it.)
Sheri asks:
Has it been worth the price? Do you know what it is you paid for?
I don’t know if it has been worth the price because I don’t think we know what the price really is at this point. Only history will tell us later on.
Sheri mentioned the Canadian border issue….
Coming from Florida I am well aware of the immigration safety issues that surfaced as a result of those coming to Florida to study then going to Canada and coming back in. I don’t think that the US blames Canada; I think the US is trying to shift the issue to one of immigration. It is easy to think a fence will solve the problem. It’s even easier to blame illegal immigration as a homeland security concern with respect to terrorism. I disagree with Joni’s take on the immigration issue.
I think the border security issue has been effective psychological manipulation on the part of the US government trying to explain how it was possible that we were so vulnerable to the 09/11 terrorists. As Tom said on page 17, “if there was a way to prevent all the ways that there are to kill people all the time, hopefully, no one would voluntarily put up with the invasive measures required to protect them.” I see this in a very similar context. Are we willing to pay for 100% border security and the cost it takes to ensure no illegal immigration happens? If we solve the illegal immigration problem do we solve our vulnerability problem? I don’t think so. All it takes is one terrorist to get through our borders, and I know of no system that can ensure 100% enforcement in preventing illegal immigration. Not to mention that there is in all likelihood the possibility of the homegrown terrorist or the legally immigrated one.
As you can probably tell, this is a soapbox for me. As the daughter of an immigrant, who came here illegally, worked, paid his taxes, had a driver’s license, got married to an American, had kids, was deported anyway, only to come back and make something further of himself and eventually become a citizen I have strong opinions on this aspect of the homeland security issue. In my opinion, pointing at the illegal immigrant population as a homeland security issue is bogus. It may be an economic issue. It may be a humanitarian issue. It is certainly a political issue, but it is not a homeland security or terrorism issue.
One other statement Mr. Rancich made caught my attention- pg 20: “Something in our national psyche demands that we raise our enemy to our level of proficiency.” Is it our pride or our arrogance that yields this reaction? Do we do this to help explain away our choices about how vulnerable we are willing to be?
01/20
Definitely read the book, 20 pages every 2 weeks :) There is a lot to process in FTC, but whereever you are on this journey, it's so worth the time to read FTC. I believe anyone will reap more than they expend, always a good thing. And believe me when I say NOWAY do you want to miss the question about Yemen! Simply Brilliant...Classic Tom :)
And yes, the answer to your question (if I understood it correctly) is in the book, and when read from beginning to end, makes great sense... but if you want a little reassurance read the first sentence in the second paragraph on page 91 :)... then go back and start from the beginning :)
Some words to add to our conversation: silly, satire, street theatre, symbolism, sit-ins ... think about it: "it [civil disobedience] ought to be [silly] to avoid draconian punishment". Agree or disagree? On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it seems only appropriate to think about that weapon ~ can we use it in the struggle to roll back some of the restrictions, some of the attitudes that have crept into American life.
I suppose some of the prophets in this cause would be comedians, people like Jon Stewart.
Honestly, I think our strongest argument is appealing to the common sense of Americans: as Lisa says, how many deaths in cars vs terrorist attacks? But satire and humour can often sweeten the message.
1-21-08
Well it's time to move on to the next section of Tom's book. From January 21st - February 2nd we will be reading Section 2, pages 21-44 .....stopping at "WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT."
Believe me it's OK if you are a little behind (like me) or are just joining the group. All questions and comments are welcome!! Remember there's never a wrong/dumb question. :)
All of you have posted great questions and thought provoking comments. I haven't posted but that doesn't mean that what I've read from all of you and Tom has had an impact on me.
Last week the presidential candidates were all in Michigan and there was one in particular that was speaking on how "When the terrorists come...and they will..that he had dealt with them and knew how to protect us" - of course I'm parapharasing here. But the feeling I got was that he was trying to make us fearful of terrorist and I don't want to be afraid! Before starting Tom's book, I never would have thought that way. Ok, so maybe this doesn't make sense, but it sure does to me. :)
Anyways, keep posting and Tom feel free to jump in here and tell us what you think of what we say. We love the feedback.
Lora :)
Laura asked... "What can we as individuals and as a nation do to combat the terrorists?" I answered... "We can inform our representatives on all levels of government that we are not afraid, that we think terrorist are inept, and that we don't want all our resources funneled into fighting terrorism"
Well today, brief as it was, I had that chance :) The Republican debates are in town this Thursday and so are the Republican candidates I just spent the morning with Mitt Romney , well okay me and 100(?) others in a restaurant listening to him speak, Interesting enough , the economy was his main topic of conversation, and he mentioned terrorism just once. Unfortunately there was not, a question and answer period with Romney, but there was chance for voters to let the candidate know what topics were important to them. We had a chance to let Mitt know what issues resonated with us via our level of applause,and I could see it register in Romney's eyes what issues, received what level of applause..(yes, I actually could see his eyes, I had a spot where I could have touched him while he was speaking). We also had a chance to have our voices heard via our brief comment attendees were able to make while shaking his hand, and getting his autograph. Not to mention the time we spent talking to a few staffers as we waited his arrival, or the time spent discussing the candidates, with other attendees.
I was standing by a college guy who had arrived at 8:00 AM for a 10:00 event and had chosen Romney as his candidate in 2006. And next to a business man who had raised significant funds for Romney and had decided to vote for him based on his business experience. A woman who had not yet made up her mind, and had just attended a Rudi Giuliani event 3 days prior. And a very young man who was voting for Obama but didn't want to miss a Presidential candidate's appearance. So this year of all years is a perfect year to have our voices heard, and maybe by candidates who will be in a position to make changes :) I plan to attend as many presidential candidates appearances from both parties, (Democratic debates are here next Sunday,) as I'm able, as we head towards our Florida Primaries on Jan 29, and use my voice :)
Sheri asked.. "Are you going to drag us down into that recession?" Sheri, are you saying the US now responsible for Canada's economy too?
Joni ...I think "illegal immigration" is a huge issue for all Americans, it undermines a basic component of our system, "rule of law". and therefor undermines our system IMO. I don't think 100% border security is a reality, we have huge borders including both coasts! But geez it should not be as easy as it is for "illegals" to enter our country. IMO what will make a difference is penalizing those companies who hire "illegals"!
JC said..."Should they have another attack on US soil, we shouldn't see it as a failure of keeping us safe, but of an attempt to get us to react..." Well said JC :) BTW I love the advance warnings for hurricanes, gives me time to check my prepareedness.
Janet, Comedians and cartoonist are often "spot on" with just a picture or a few words. I've been a fan of Dennis Miller's for many years.. love his political humor.
1-22-08
"Sun Tsu 'Never attack the enemy's strength' " (pg 30) That makes fabulous sense to me :) Tom wrote.. asymmetrical warfare "Flying a plane into a building and causing it to collapse is not asymmetrical (pg 31) Looks like in this section it's time to learn a bit about "The Art of War" !
These statements me wonder do we (our discussion group) know what are the terrorists strengths ? Is there anything they do well besides PSYOPS, with lots of help from our media? And what are the terrorists weaknesses? Seems to me these would abound, and are we taking advantages of all of them?
Tom also wrote...
"Confusing Safety with Security- In the months following 9/11, the United States became obsessed with security. Securing our borders. Securing our airports. Securing our ports. Unfortunately, our efforts in this area are prejudiced by our short-term focus. What we really began doing was trying to make things safe. We have been building a greater and greater physical security scheme. Without a greater long-term strategy, physical security does not make you appreciably safer within an already safe society." What are your thoughts on safety and security of Americans in general, and also with regard to terrorists and counter terrorism?
Just a reminder...It's time to read section two for our discussion pg's 21-44.
What is your favorite point or quote from this section ? What do you have questions on ?
1-22-08
I'm being selfish Lisa but I wish you'd post to a wider audience your thoughts about listening to the candidates: grass roots, real questions, immediate decisions to be made.
In front of me is my absentee ballot: we need the reminder that this year, more than ever, we can "call" our candidates on some of the truisms that the media has formented, put forward ... you get my drift!
Thanks, so much, for the bird's eye view :)
1-22-08
The US and Cdn economy are closely tied together and yes, you've knocked us into a recession before.
The general consensus in the world market place, is that the US economy can and may very well trigger a world wide recession. The TSX did rally yesterday but it's still down considerably. But it's back in the red today http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/01/23/stocksfall.html and http://www.cbc.ca/money/ and http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/080123/b012342A.html and http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/080123/b012358A.html and http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/080123/b012332A.html
With a sinking dollar, a huge debt, a housing crisis....
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2008/01/23/gaza-egypt.html
Also may I recommend "The Long Weekend" it's a social history of the British POV btwn 1918 and 1939 and also Jimmy Carter's "Palestine not Aparteid". I haven't read the second yet. Dad and the Dh have, it's in my TBR pile.
Add a little history to the "now". It explains a lot of why the Middle East is.. what it is. "The more newspapers people read, the shorter grows their historical memory; yet most people read little else." pg 1 - The Long weekend - Robert Graves and Alan Hodge.
Maybe instead of fear... we can learn compassion and offer a hand not a slap.
Sheri, can you wrap me back to how a book holding up the Courage of the Founders of America to the actions and decisions and laws of the present day American populace intersects with the vageries of the global economy?
I'm a dual-national myself and frankly, the Canadian economy has oft benefited over the decades because of being in the same room with the American "elephant".
Forgive my ignorance, but the relevance of the book by former president Jimmy Carter ... please illuminate me.
Seriously, I do understand the next-door-relationship of these two countries: I just don't get a few of your links, your allusions.
Thanks :)
1-23-08
Short-term stimulus package VS Long-term strategy to improve the infrastructure
Why does it seem to have to be one thing or another because ONE thing that your book has made me think is that American is mired in a kneejerk, fast, automatic solutions mindset. That's what happened after 9/11, now again as a Recession looms. Instead of dropping money from planes, why not invest in education, high speed trains, solar power .......... anything that would benefit future generations?
Once one reads and absorbs FTC you look at national events differently.
Just a cursory read of the first few sections acts like a "translator" for political thump speeches: there really is an element of fear-mongering in the speeches of many candidates ~ like we can be "scared" into voting for them? Please :D Maybe they're behind the curve and they don't know it yet.
1-25-08
Let’s try this again….Not only was my house broken into this past week and my jewelry box stolen, but I had also made my first “real” post to our discussion on Tom’s book and it seems that that cyber gremlins have stolen it!! I didn’t make a copy of it, so it’s officially lost in cyberspace. I guess it wasn’t meant to be.
The point I was trying to make – and it seems a little dated now – was that the Candidates were in Michigan a week or so ago for our primary. I didn’t get the chance to listen too many of them but I did catch one candidates pitch. The majority of his speech was about terrorism. He basically said – and I’m paraphrasing here – that “when the terrorist come, and they will…that he has the experience to deal with them and to keep us safe”. I felt he was using scare tactics to get us to vote for him. Well I’m tired of people using terrorism to try and make me afraid. There are many more things to be afraid of in Michigan than terrorism. Before I started reading Tom’s book, I never would have looked at it like that or questioned how this candidate was trying to make me feel.
Believe me terrorism doesn’t even begin to compete with the real facts of life where I live. Every street has at least 2 -3 empty houses that the owners have either lost or have walked away from, there are NO jobs to be had and I could go on and on. Talking about terrorism is the easy thing to focus on…it’s a very real concern and a daily way of life in some countries, but not in ours.
I also wanted to let all of you know, how much I’m enjoying your posts and to let you know that even though I don’t post much, I’m reading and learning things I never thought I would. I originally bought For the Courage, just to support Tom in something he found important.(look at all he’s done for us) I wasn’t sure if it would ever leave my TBR pile, but with some not so gentle prodding (haha) – I’m enjoying the book and the discussions even more. I’ve also found that Mr. Webster and Google have become my constant companions. Lol
Does anyone know of a website that gives a short and sweet definition of the U.S. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act?? (can you tell I’m a little behind - lol) I’m going to get caught up this weekend…..so if there’s anyone else out there who is behind, there’s still plenty of time to join in.
Lora
01/25/08 5:10pm
Short-term stimulus package VS Long-term strategy to improve the infrastructure
Why does it have to be one thing or another because ONE thing that your book has made me think is that American is mired in a kneejerk, fast, automatic solutions mindset. That's what happened after 9/11, now again as a Recession looms. Instead of dropping money from planes, why not invest in education, high speed trains, solar power .......... anything that would benefit future generations.
I hope this isn't getting too far afield from the theme of your book because in MY opinion, once one reads and absorbs, FTC, you look at national events differently.
It's possible to hear the fear-mongering in the speeches of some candidates after reading the first 20 pages or so of FTC: surely as an electorate we're too smart to be scared into voting for someone. Or at least that's my hope.
Off my soapbox!
1-28-08
Lora, try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
I couldn't find anything that was short. I did find the document it's something like 350 pages.
So much to talk about in this section, here are a just few of the points I found interesting, And a few questions I had.
Tom writes (pg 20)”We are not on the verge of annihilation- We are, in fact, undefeatable—or rather, only able to be defeated by ourselves. Twenty years ago we went to bed and slept soundly every night on the brink of global nuclear war"
Tom, are you saying undefeatable by any nation state or alliance of nation states or with regard to terrorism only? Also, not sure about all of you, but I had a few restless nights during the cold war. Maybe cause I knew the number of ICBM’s the Russians had and I had a Prof. that used to translate Pravda to us… scary stuff that Soviet propaganda !
Tom writes (pg 25) ”We should not allow 19 zealots to change the course of America, which is precisely what we are doing. Without consideration in real terms we are allowing the actions of nineteen people to change the course of American democracy." Tom, You are saying on a national strategic level right? On a tactical level we can learn from their attacks and adapt our tactical levels without it being manipulation right? We'd call it planning right?
I think Tom's point most often missed is...(pg 30) "Protecting the United States from terror can be a priority. In fact it has always been a priority. It just can't be the sole focus and number one goal; there are too many other truly important problems to solve."
Anybody else have to reread the following point? (pg 35)”The precise point being that the risk born at the current moment, although largely ignored rather than accepted,12 is fixed, if not known”. I am having difficulty comprehending ”is fixed if not known”… How can it be fixed if not known ? I'd love a concrete example of this, so I can understand it. …anybody ?
Lora, here are a few links about the Patriot act. Varied takes….
The Department of Justice's take
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm
Ron Paul's take
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr072105.htm
A blog with a summary of a few panelists views.
http://exparte.powerblogs.com/posts/1109442647.shtml
The ACLU's take
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/whereitstands.html
I'd be interested in a discussion of the Patriot act (well the controversial parts, as Joni says it's quite lengthy in it's entirety)...anybody else?
2-9-08
Have you seen the news broadcasts of the latest DHS, and FBI warning? They strongly warned that potential female homicide bombers could use "prosthetic devices that mimic the look of a pregnant woman." Made me think of what Tom wrote...
“Further, though meaningful to security specialists, added security is only a planning factor for the unconventional warrior. That is a known dichotomy of warfare and the very purpose of "special forces". Security specialists seek to establish a set of rules to control, sort, search etc; the unconventional warrior seeks to operate within those rules but avoid, deceive, and strike. Example: At any given moment there are many thousands of people walking around the United States with implants; breast enhancements, buttock enhancements, pacemakers, various prosthetics. How long until that well endowed young lady sitting in the window seat explodes? The terrorist is, at a very basic level, an unconventional warrior. For the unconventional warrior, security is simply a planning consideration. Unconventional warriors are cunning, flexible and dedicated; static security posturing and defenses will always become obsolete in the face of an innovative enemy.” (pg 37-38)
2-14-08
Here's some of my thoughts on section 2
Pertaining to Psych Ops-
President Bush's GWOT is a master plan of psych ops:
- It is A VERY strong Public Policy created to reassure the American people that something is being done to hunt down and prevent future terrorist attacks. Prior to 9/11 the lives that were lost in Mogadishu, Somalia drove our national policy regarding the use of our military. No administration wanted to accept the political risks of another failure. That is why most of our public response was air attacks. What the GWOT did was to make public a few of our strategies for offense and defense against terrorism. I think that this was needed, not as response to our fear but as a response of a people who wanted to rid the world (as much as possible) of terrorist organizations.
-IMHO, the creation of the GWOT( which did form a coalition of allies) put the focus on terrorist organizations and should have been a blow to the psyche of any terrorist organization. Now they had many enemies who publicly had pledged to work to destroy terrorist cells.
Page 32
On short term and long term goals.
Tom has it exactly correct. Our system of government works against the implementation of effective long term long. Considering that most successful chief executive, the president,serves only 8 years. (really 6 years effectively, eliminating the 1st year as a start up year and the last year as a lame duck year) how can effective long term strategy be developed and achieved? And yes, our elected politicians respond to pressure of approval ratings. There is no such thing as bi-partisan politics as the power struggle takes precedence over statesmanship and common sense.
Feb 15,2008
Unconventional responses to the unconventional warrior
Lisa excerpted an illuminating argument from Tom about the necessity of operating "outside the box" when we seek to determine the possible actions of those who would does us harm. Tom said: "Security specialists seek to establish a set of rules to control, sort, search etc; the unconventional warrior seeks to operate within those rules but avoid, deceive, and strike."
So, a few questions come to mind ~
1. Is there a role for racial profiling? A broader question ~ can we/should we "suspend" civil liberties extended to American citizens in order to prevent terrorism?
2. Are not the armed services and their various think tanks the most appropriate people to lead this charge? Agree or disagree?
3. Would the fight against terrorism be more likely to succeed if we could a) downscale or b) dismantle the Homeland Security apparatus?
My feeling is that fighting terrorism requires nimble far-sightedness and the less bureaucracy, the better ... and Debbie, much as I might agree that a presidential learning curve is too short over eight years, better the devil you know. The thought of the entrenchment of power and mores and attitudes with a three term president is more scary to me.
2-15-2008
Kat
Ladies,
Just let me start by saying again what an amazing group of women you are. I’ve finally caught up on all of the discussion for section two. The obvious effort you have put into each of your responses and questions you have asked show an intelligent thought process by each of you. That being said, I would just like to add a few of my thoughts and comments before we move on to the next section.
“Do you thing the terrorists have continued to use effective psyops?”
I agree with Janet… NO … I also agree that our media system needs to stop being the propaganda purveyors for terrorists. We are definitely giving the terrorists free advertising by continuously showing their ‘training camps’, videos and allowing them to be perceived of as intelligent forward thinking leaders.
I believe that psywarfare can be an effective tool if used correctly. However, I don’t believe that the leaders of today’s main terrorist factions have neither the intelligence nor the means to correctly facilitate such actions. Yes they almost had a win with 9/11 but I agree with Tom that it was not a lasting effect, and it certainly wasn’t the effect I’m sure they were looking for. Look at the pride we showed in our country and military after it happened, even in our police department the reaction of citizens changed and people were more apathetic to each other. Yes, the stocks did drop for awhile, but overall there was not a decline in economics that they hoped for. As it was mentioned, it actually brought work to the area.
Lisa A gives us the totals for motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. vs terrorist attacks. I think the American people are generally becoming desensitized to these types of incidents on both parts. You talk to the average American and tell them the number of dead from MVA’s and their first thought is ‘what did they do wrong’ ‘what were the road conditions’ and then they go about there day … oh well doesn’t concern me. The same is becoming true of terrorist attacks ‘well if they hadn’t been over there they wouldn’t have been killed’, ‘they were doing their job’.. again the oh well doesn’t effect me factor has taken over. For this reason alone the psywarfare will no longer work for the terrorists.
Over the past few years I have thought of myself as being well trained/versed in Homeland Security matters due to my training with the police department and my studies outside of work. After reading Tom’s book and reviewing your comments and information you have dug up I see I have along way to go. Thank you again ladies for the insight and information and for allowing me time to catch up.
02-16-08
Beginning on pg 21 I have serious questions. Tom says "to question the government could be construed to be aiding and abetting the enemy." I heartily disagree. Most glaringly obvious is that Tom has published this book and yet remains free to move about the country and work with dangerous materials. All of us are discussing this book and I know I have yet to have a knock at the door or anyone questioning my loyalty to the US. Turn on the tv, open a newspaper, check out a bookstore. The media seemingly does nothing but bash our nation's leaders past, present and future. If we truly were targeted as aiding and abetting the enemy every time we questioned the government, then all of us and those in the media would be in a dank cell somewhere.
On pg 23, Tom addresses security saying that the US "was adequately physically secure." Who defines "adequately secure"? What is acceptable in criminal activity? How do you quantify this? a certain number of crimes...percentage of violent crimes?
This leads me to ask who determines the "real truths (risks, threats, strengths, weaknesses, etc.)" that Tom says are necessary to create a strategic plan? I'm not trying to be argumentative; rather trying to understand how it will be possible to create a viable strategic plan.
On pg 25, Tom says we have "allowed 19 zealots to change the course of America." What role does the opinion of other nations play in our response? Does world opinion or should world opinion influence our response? I don't think that 19 zealots were the only thing that influenced our response. Certainly if those had been acting alone, I could agree. But these men were part of a greater network. That network was then aided and abetted by other countries. To me this exposed those who would help anyone who wanted to hurt the US and its citizens.
On fear, pg 26 "We want fear inculcated throughout our society so that we can justify aggression, single mindedness, an inability to take advice from long time friends, a willingness to give up the liberties that others died for." Who is we? Do you mean the American people? Why on earth would this be our wish? I can certainly understand the need you explained to elevate our foe to a worthy opponent, but this does not resonate with me. I do not want to live in fear, justify aggression, cause political enmity with our allies or give up my liberties. I am exercising them right now to disagree with Tom and to even discuss this. What American do you know who would agree with this?
As we speak about the terrorists I am finding that the views seem contradictory. If the terrorists are short-sighted and their goal was not just to kill but to instill fear causing us to restructure our society, then isn't that a long term goal? They have played beautifully into Tom's definition of asymmetry. OTOH if we refuse to react and spit in their faces, are we taunting them to attack us harder? I don't know if it is so, but I see us as kids on a playground saying "Is that all you've got? You don't hurt me." What reaction can we give that doesn't further antagonize them? Also since Tom has said that someone has thought of the risks beforehand of scenarios, hasn't the government already (albeit tacitly) said this was an acceptable risk? Going back to the terrorists as short-term thinkers, if the threat is short term then shouldn't our response be also? Tom says our response is a short term one.
One last question, how do you fund courage? Tom speaks repeatedly of education and funding and rights. Tom, how would you or how would anyone reading this suggest a plan to promote and fund courage?
2-18-08
I was going to post this on the bb... but since I believe Tom was part of the discussion on torture, I thought I'd leave it here.
You can move it if you wish.
Extraordinary rendition - http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/21/miliband-rendition.html?ref=rss
I never knew such a phrase existed.
Sheri
Section 3 is my favorite so far even though I am only a short way through it. I totally agree with Tom that for a nation to succeed it "will not avoid risk; it will avoid decline." When I think of the word "decline" I immediately think "and fall". The decline and fall of the Roman Empire as an example. How can we fight decline? Toms says "We cannot allow ourselves to be put into situations where we cannot utilize our inherent advantages." But we cannot rely on one sole strength such as military power or borders or technology. We must diversify our strengths. I believe we must look at decline in the long term. The economy ebbs and flows and we mustn't panic right away. History proves Tom's statement that "there appears to be a constant churn that allows a country or a power to rise to preeminence and then sucks it back down in a few decades or centuries." The US has a special consideration as a super power. We have responsibility and Tom says "Part of that responsibility is to act with extreme caution and malice of forethought to maintain a stable world environment." I interpret this to mean that the US cannot and should not stand alone as we make decisions. We have to realize that every action we make affects the entire world to some degree. That does not mean we should put the world first. We must find ways to measure our strengths and successes in a long term view and to stave off decline. We must change with the world situation and adjust to new political situations and technology. But we must do this while keeping before us that "the United States was created for freedom, not safety." and it is based on a "government of law." What do you think we can do to ensure that the US remains a strong super power rather than being relegated to the history books like the Roman Empire?
Them's Fightin' Words!
When I read John McCain's oft-repeated line, that the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists" I hardly know where to start parsing the sentence. Words do matter and saying "transcendent", "challenge", "Islamic" inflames the situation, imo, and leads not to solutions but to the intensifying of positions and that is not helpful.
How can we dial back or tone down the exaggerated rhetoric of a campaign year?
2-21-08
Post a Comment
<< Home