By Patricia H. Kushlis
Rumors abound that the Obama Administration is putting the finishing touches on an International Counter-Terrorism Communications Center likely to be housed in the State Department under the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
There are serious questions as to whether such an organization if it ever gets off the drawing board belongs under a State Department Under Secretary (more, hopefully, about this in a future post) but I fear that such an endeavor would most likely result in an outdated, overly costly, not to mention dysfunctional institution when American national security activities in terms of public diplomacy - and isn't this what an Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy be focusing on - should have substantially shifted before such a center gets off the ground.
How should US public diplomacy be directed?
Or at least I wonder whether the number one target of the US government’s multi-bureaucratic international efforts should remain that of countering militant Islamic extremism when the people's revolts that are shifting the tectonic plates of the Arab world have little, if anything, to do with religion – extremist or not.
The best the vanquished or soon to be vanquished can claim is that the unintended consequences of the Arab Spring could usher in a terrorist threat because over 95 percent of the non-radical populations are too disorganized to stand up to the militants. But didn’t Congress already establish a humongous Homeland Security Department that is supposed to deter this country from terrorists launching a 9/11 repeat?
The latest proposed counter-terrorism organizational mini-endeavor to placate whomever, needs to be thought out carefully as federal funds are reduced willy-nilly in the budget cutting frenzy – one that is likely, once again to favor the right wings’ favorite charity – the military – industrial – covert intelligence complex – when our foreign policy emphasis should be on soft-power connections with people in the Muslim world by means other than guns, tanks, smart bombs and “allies” attempting to manipulate this country to carry out questionable policies for them.
Apres moi, le deluge?
Then there’s another question that needs resolving: Why should this country continue to go easy on aging Middle Eastern dictators simply because they threaten the specter of failed states ripe for an Al Qaeda takeover if, heaven forbid, said dictator is deposed and family sent packing?
The right-wing Foreign Policy Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania is about to publicize the results of a Gluvem poll that purports to tell us that Yemenis favor Al Qaeda. On the surface, this is enough to send shivers down my back.
Wait a minute.
Yes, I know that Al Qaeda has relocated its most active chapter to Yemen and that the Saleh government has lost control of the area in which it operates – if it ever controlled it. Yes, I think the US government should be worried about Al Qaeda in Yemen but a substantial number of Yemenis supporting Al Qaeda? I’m skeptical.
Furthermore, I did a little research and discovered that Gluvem’s founder was part of the infamous Lincoln Group public relations organization that screwed up royally in Iraq because it was unqualified to accomplish the psy-ops operations it contracted to undertake – all the while receiving countless funds for its apparently fruitless efforts from the U.S. government way back in 2004 and 2005. Regardless, it still seemed to be getting contracts from the Pentagon in 2009. Hmm.
So let’s try again.
If this poll had been conducted by Pew, Gallop or PIPA, then I would sit up and take notice but it wasn’t. So until I see otherwise, I intend to take the results of this Gluvem poll with a grain of salt. I hope the media and the administration do the same.
Just a few short months ago, didn’t Hosni Mubarak threaten the same eventuality with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood – which he likewise characterized as extremist - not to mention in bed with Al Qaeda?
Pavlov's Dog Effect
This all reminds me of the Pavlov’s dog effect. Threaten the wrath of Al Qaeda and American administrations’ resolve too often turns to jelly. I’m not discounting the fact that groups of Islamic radicals think they can face down the US and European governments by unconventional use of force and that we need to be taking good care – through intelligence and police channels primarily – to deal with those threats. But it just seems to me that substantial research has demonstrated that few Muslims are anti-western militants with agendas to physically attack the West or, for that matter, to re-establish a caliphate at home.
So shouldn’t the US direct our scarce public diplomacy resources differently? Meanwhile, I’m unimpressed with the latest State Department public diplomacy facts and figures –because I see the same endemic problems: Far too little money overall, support for far too many foreign students and academics coming here in comparison with way too few American counterparts being sent abroad plus a strange new narrow casting twist on the delivery of US information programs which will all too likely and needlessly reduce, not expand our overseas audiences.