BOOK REVIEW: The Utility of Force by General Rupert Smith

The Utility of Force draws on British General Sir Rupert Smith's extensive personal experience to illuminate modern conflict in the age of international coalitions, humanitarian interventions, and asymmetrical warfare. Citing examples from the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the recent forays into the Balkans, Smith rejects the notion of war as an series of exercises independent from political and current events or culture. The book is divided into three parts. First, the rise of “interstate industrial war” introduced by Napoleon, described by Clausewitz, and culminating in the World Wars. Second, the Cold War, which Smith calls the “antithesis” of the previous generation of wars. Third, Smith describes “War Amongst the People” and the new understanding that modern operations require a more complete look at the human battlefield. Smith concludes with his vision for the way ahead – a future fighting force equipped with better analysis and planning for the human dimension, one that understands that the enemy is no longer a monolithic army of a foreign state.

Educated at Haileybury, the Imperial Service College, and at Sandhurst, General Sir Rupert Smith commanded the British Armored Division during the Gulf war and the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia in 1995. Smith was also the senior European officer in NATO during the 1999 Kosovo campaign before retiring in 2002. NATO Review called Smith “one of the most outstanding officers of his generation.” Unmentioned on the dust jacket or anywhere in the text is Guardian journalist and UN political analyst Ilana Bet-El. It is unclear what role Bet-El played in drafting this book, however Smith has acknowledge Bet-El in interviews and she does share the copyright. Bet-El writes a regular column on foreign affairs and defense policy, occasionally criticized as being “too soft” on the United States out of career self-interest.

Published only three years following his retirement, The Utility of Force occasionally betrays Smith's desire to explain his decision-making. He engages in some “if only” talk, which is not entirely useless. The first part of the book is an academic review of the theories of war that precede Smith, illustrating quite nicely his radical break from tradition.

Smith advocates for a fighting force that engages with minds before machines, that anticipates the challenges of the modern world, and that understands that war is dead – only operations have survived. Smith also suggests a military that include the media, or at least the perceived reaction of the media, in every operation. He clearly understands the vital role the media play in framing events, and the importance of capitalizing on that ability:

...the media [is] to a large extent the source of the context in which the acts in the [military] theatre are played out: they do not make the facts, but it is they who express and display them...that is why establishing the context of the event and getting the story correct from the start is so important. To act effectively one is trying to gain a position where the majority of the audience and people on the stage are following your script in the context, and not that of the opponent.

Smith's understanding of the new media and how it has shaped public opinion reveals a thoughtful approach to the world that the warrior must fight in. Instead of reacting to coverage by the media, Smith exhorts commanders to anticipate and shape what the media see – actively using the media as an arm of the fighting force. This unity of media and war can only be shouldered by a commander who knows that guns and bullets are not everything.

The Utility of Force is useful in two contexts. First, for the student of warfare, it is a crisp look at the past 250 years combined with the personal reflections of a senior commander during the Gulf War and operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Second, the book challenges the military theorist with its provocative assertion that “modern”, meaning industrial, state-on-state warfare is dead, and that militaries must adapt not only to new technology but to a human battlefield and an ever-changing media.

This does not mean that Smith is necessarily correct. He is a prophet of a coming age, but if this new warfare that Smith envisions fails to materialize – if states return to industrial warfare – then his book will be regarded by futures scholars as a curious misstep in judgment, but useful for its personal reflections nonetheless. All in all, an interesting and thoughtful book grounded in sound academic research.

References:

Cooper, Robert “Review: The Utility of Force by General Sir Rupert Smith” Sunday Times 18 September 2005

“General Rupert Smith DESACEUR” NATO Review Vol. 49, No. 2, Summer 2001

“General Sir Rupert Smith” Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA) Speaker Biography 16 May 2007

Bet-El, Ilana “Who needs Fox News when you've got John Bolton?” Guardian 8 June 2006

Good Luck, Britain! Good Luck, World!

Oil production in the UK will take a 40% hit today due to a strike at a Scottish pipeline. Supply and demand are the greatest determinants of price, and since spring typically causes gas prices to shoot up like the dandelion stalks in my front yard (two feet tall, no kidding), I think we can safely say that Monday morning is going to be ugly.
Remember world - what happens to one part of the oil supply/demand chain, happens to all. Have fun!

Elections in Iran

I love it when the Tehran Times prints garbage like this.

President Mahmud Ahmadinejad here on Thursday urged the regional countries to be vigilant in the face of conspiracies by the United States and be prepared to foil them.

“We should always be prepared and have a plan for foiling the U.S. movements in the region,” Ahmadinejad told visiting Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem in Hamedan where he was on a provincial tour.

Great. Awesome.
This is in the wake of the Iranian Majiles (Parliament) elections, which resulted in a victory for conservatives - both Ahmadinejad's party and his conservative critics. At least the Washington Post bothered to report on it for a change.

It's my birthday!

Happy Birthday to me, Ella Fitzgerald, Justice Brennan, Al Pacino, and Oliver Cromwell.

Iran, the Chador, and Prostitution

Slate, Washington Post's online nook for B-grade news for the twenty-some set (news with an attitude), wrote a brief piece explaining prostitution in Iran. According to the authors, prostitution is rampant in Iran, even though it carries an incredible sentence for both man and woman/women involved. Because prostitutes wear veils and chadors, it can be rather challenging for a potential John to approach the right lady. Perhaps because of this, any wary John can bring the prostitute before a cleric and arrange a "temporary" marriage. Perfectly legal in shari'a, the temporary marriage lasts for some specified amount of time, no need for witnesses.
The Tehran Times, to its credit, acknowledges the problem of prostitution in the holy city of Qom. In 2001, a group claiming to want to "clean up the streets" killed a dozen prostitutes, sparking an investigation. Tehran Times did not report on the outcome of the investigations, and the articles were little more than blurbs.

Side Note: there seems to be a distinct difference in how Tehran Times reports on crime, compared to the Western style, but I can't quite figure out what it is. To some extent, it may be the lack of standard phrases such as "allegedly" or "The Washington Post does not identify victims of rape or sexual assault". Interesting.

Oil is to blame for... Starving Palestinians

So:
Palestinians are starving
Because UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine had to halt food deliveries
Because Israel cut off fuel to the area
Because Hamas was firing rockets at civilians
Because Israelis have taken their land
Because the British gave it to them
Because the Jewish people had no home
Because of the diaspora by the Romans
Because of....

So, yeah, oil IS to blame.

Oil is to blame for... global instability?

So, ascribing to a realist theory of international relations, what happens when Royal Dutch Shell finally decides they've had enough of these Nigerian rebel groups destroying their energy infrastructure? When energy prices become untenable?
A.) Small wars to secure resources
B.) Neo-colonialism
C.) Collapse of international institutions
D.) All of the above?

Constructivism is all well and good when resources are abundant, but don't tell me that a starving nation would prefer to perish nobly adhering to the international norms.

Personal Reflections of a National Security Advisor

How it happened and why:

The first problem the White House faced is that we did not have an agenda. How could we? The agenda of the President in the real world is set after a great deal of contemplation. Our executive leadership had nothing they wanted to accomplish, other than to “have fun”. We were doomed from the beginning to end up dancing to the tune of others because we had no music of our own to play.

We needed to hold a press conference, but we really had nothing to say. Of course the press was severely disappointed! We also never reached out to any other government – I think we were so busy paying attention to what was happening in the real world that we forgot we could let go of that a little bit and actually have talks or debates.

I observed a decided lack of initiative and little risk-taking (which is probably common to bureaucracy in general – the neck stuck out is the one that fits the guillotine). The press slammed us before, during and after the press conference. Some criticism was legitimate, some was absurd. I was frustrated (see below) but did not feel excused to act. My final move was to address a letter directly to the reporter my colleagues seemed to hate the most, and with whom things were entirely out of hand. The ANSA probably does not take time to write a sincere email to a foreign media journalist, but I was sick of the caustic tone (which, admittedly, I encouraged at first – see below).

I genuinely believe that each member of the group wanted to enjoy the assignment and play to the best of their capability. Unfortunately, involvement did not match role, and as a group, our schedules were dissimilar enough to prevent us from ever really coming together.

Although working in a group, as usual most of my insights are about myself. First, I learned that I hate indecisive leadership. If I am going to follow someone, I need to know that he or she has a vision. As the National Security Advisor, I felt incredibly restrained to providing support and guidance only. I did not “set” the agenda because I needed to stay on top of any potential security threat. I had no political desire to see any particular threat become the central focus for the media – in fact I did my best to remain apolitical and focus on facts. I prefer to lead, but I know I can follow gracefully if convinced of the leader's worth. I tried to follow in this case, with lackluster results.

This is the second thing I learned about myself – I hated not having a forum for response. The National Security Advisor, I believed (perhaps wrongly?) does not have time to correct all the egregious errors and rumors promulgated by the press. Some of the articles I found to be completely worthless and unprofessional. I wanted to denounce the ridiculous assertions (“the surge in Iraq is no longer necessary” “General Patreus”) but also didn't feel like being drawn into the trap of responding to everything and letting the media lead me around on a leash. In the end, the best I could do was release a situation report that subtly addressed a few of the points from the journalists, without directly responding. I made sure not to speak for the Administration – as it became clear that the Administration had nothing to say – but somewhat appeased my own desire for rectification. I should have liked to be one of the bloggers, free to ridicule and make everything my business. Turning my nose up at shoddy journalism was all too frustrating.

Still on the subject of the media, I found myself wanting to purposefully make their job difficult. Why? I couldn't say – perhaps retribution for having my inbox jammed with questions beneath my attention. It was my suggestion that the press conference invitation only be offered to the members of the media we had had contact with. It was my suggestion (perhaps a stronger word is in order) that we refuse to respond directly to the press. It seemed clear to me from the beginning that press perceived themselves in an antagonistic role towards our administration, especially since the administration didn't help itself by failing to immediately set a professional tone and agenda.

As a group, we didn't work together much. I think we all felt a general sense of helplessness – the senior executives lacked initiative to implement and follow through on any plans of action, and as I mentioned before, I felt that my role was to advise, not direct. Most likely this was a mistake on my part. I'm certain I could have pushed any agenda I wished through the leadership – the President read almost word for word the update on Iran I prepared – but I felt compelled to remain loyal to the administration. I suppose I might have “leaked” my frustrations, but again, some sense of duty restrained me. I anticipated at the beginning that my role would be to feed the executive leadership security concerns on any pressing issues, but I was never asked for any. I provided my thoughts anyway. But again, I didn't have an agenda. I think if the exercise began with a one page individual and private memo answering the question “what is your agenda?”, I would have been able to think of several agendas I could have had – pressure Congress to give more funding/fewer restrictions to the IC, pressure various foreign governments into committing more funding to the GWoT. I should have thought of these, or anything, but instead I tried to play with the team, in the support role.

Finally, and truly the most frustrating: I spent a good deal of the simulation locked away in a SCIF. This created two problems for me. One, I received the daily blitz mostly in one lump sum. Since the reports typically consisted of regurgitated news focusing on the non-security matters, I largely dismissed my classmates' contributions. Two, after being surrounded by real news and real national security all day long, I had to recuse myself from speculating on national security situations for fear of alluding to classified material. I was extraordinarily reluctant to play this role with much vigor, and I felt the constant need to keep my head “out of the game” as it were. So while it was good OPSEC practice, I was certainly restrained.

Overall – I could have done better. I should not have let my “advisor” title tie my hands. I should -

I just read a White House release with my name on it. To which I did not provide input. I change my mind. Everyone could have done better. I didn't observe anyone handle their job, myself included. Opinion veiled as “journalism”, mouthpieces with a mind of their own, leaders who didn't lead....

I've already written too much, so the last few points will be quick: when presenting, compartmentalize- economics and Iran should never have been mixed. Give Neil Barlow an A. He was probably the one person in the class with energy and commitment. And in the future, I can't function unless I always have a plan.

Alert the Press! Tehran Times publishes actual news!!

Sadly, it is because of a deadly explosion at a mosque in Shiraz. Sympathy to the families, and interesting how a tragedy can be reported so clearly when most other news is not.
WaPo got in on the story for a change, too.

Arash, or Why I Love Persian Music

Arash, born in Tehran, left for the wider world like so many Iranians in the 70s and 80s. Currently living in Sweden, Arash is probably one of the best-known Persian singers since Googoosh. Greatest hits include Boro Boro, Arash, Tike Tike Kardi, Temptation, and his newest single, Donya. Arash has gone gold in five different countries and reached the top of the charts across Europe.
To celebrate the appearance of the Iranian national football team making the German World Cup in 2006, Arash collaborated with DJ Alligator to produce "Iran Iran". The song is both incredibly nationalistic and at the same time, critical of the regime.
"You are the voice of Iran - for the people of Iran!" The singer says, "I am an Iranian child... with one voice we sing, everyone with one voice: Iran! Iran! Iran!" The chorus is simply a mass of hundreds cheering "Iran! Iran! Iran!", the music video depicts Persians of all ages dancing and cheering. But the flags they are waving say "IRAN" across the white band in the middle, instead of the coat of arms of Iran, which spells the name of God with the sword of the revolution. The flag waved in the video also lacks the twenty-two iterations of "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) along the border of the white part of the flag (see image), which represents the 22nd day of the 11th month - the day of the revolution.
Displaying the flag of Iran without the additions approved by the revolution is a common method of expatriates to show disapproval of the current Islamic regime.
So, curious, I searched for Arash in the archives of the Tehran Times. Nothing. I shouldn't be surprised. As an arm of Iranian government, Tehran Times probably can't discuss any hint of dissent.
It is a strange mix - patriotism and dissent. Or perhaps dissent is the most powerful form of patriotism.


On a side note, Washington Post hasn't heard of Arash, unlike their European counterparts.

Psyops!!

The Psyops Cyclops!!!

So, today in class we talked about "covert" ways to frame/set agendas... Public Relations, Advertisements, PSYOPS!!!

I just really like the word psyops.

But, seriously, what kind of moral questions are attached to psychological operations? If ends can be achieved, are the means justified? What kind of attachment to "truth" do we have? Is a psychological operation better/less invasive than other kinds of operations?

Personally, my time at Georgetown has made me more of a realist than I'm sometimes comfortable with. I find myself able to justify all kinds of quasi-ethical operations in the name of national security. What happened to my convictions about liberty??

Ahmadinejad: Iran’s nuclear drive ‘non-negotiable’

More excellent news from the Tehran Times:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview published Friday that he would reject any new incentives offered by world powers in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Asked about possible incentives that Iran suspend its enrichment activities, Ahmadinejad was quoted as telling Japan’s Kyodo News: “This is a non-negotiable subject.”

He said, “Iran is a nuclear country and has no reason to give up the technology. If there are to be any preconditions, we must propose preconditions.”


Washington Post says:









What are they doing over there? Singing Sweet Caroline?

Aren't safe and Canada the same thing?

So while the Tehran Times is offline - a bit of humor from a "news organization" that doesn't even pretend to be independent from the Islamic Republic:

The Persian Gulf region is the world safest oil supplier, Minister of Oil Gholam-Hossein Nozari said Saturday evening.

He stressed that as a powerful country in the region, "Iran plays essential role in security of the Persian Gulf."
The minister made the remarks after a meeting with the Secretary General of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Abdullah al-Badri who arrived in Iran on Friday on a three-day visit.

Persian gulf? Safe? Safer than Nigeria, okay, but safer than Canada??

Fitna or Football

So in the news this week we had blond Dutch parliament member/filmmaker with his incendiary piece "Fitna" which pairs footage from terrorist attacks with quotes from the Koran. So I opened up the Tehran Times, just to see what they had to say today and... nothing? This is the headline photo:


Okay, so those poor girls have to play soccer with all those layers on but... but... I can't help but feel some small amount of hope when I look at the photo.

CORRECTION: Okay, so apparently Tehran Times hasn't been updated in over a week... probably because of Norooz, the Persian new year. My lack of oversight - should have looked at the date.
In other news, interesting that they don't publish at all during the holiday - its not a religious holiday, just a cultural one. Hmm.

Book Report?

Haven't had class in awhile - I really thought we were supposed to show up last Wednesday but there only ended up being about 10 of us so... okay!
Not sure how the book report fits in to the rest of what we are doing with these journals and etc, but I'm just going to jot a few ideas here:
1.) I just finished the Utility of Force by British General Rupert Smith, who led UN forces in the Bosnian and Gulf War conflicts. General Smith looks to "update" the Clausewitzian Trinity to the modern age and extensively looks at the role of the media and the increasingly-involved international community.
2.) Language Shock, by Michael Agar, sits on my shelf (a bookstore purchase that hasn't made it to the top of the queue yet - it's somewhere after Paris: The Secret History and The Fabric of the Cosmos). It claims to be about not taking language for granted - that language is a byproduct of culture. This relates in class to the idea of looking at the foreign media - an English translation of an article, or even an article produced in English but intended for the consumption of a specific audience is very, very different down to the level of the very words...

Tehran Times Still on Vacation

It's still the holidays in Iran and so the Tehran Times is still not publishing.
But here is a cool picture of Shiraz:!عید فطر مبارک

Oil is to blame for... lame spring breaks?

Price of oil increases, ergo the price of vacations increase. Hooray! Thanks Washington Post for the cheery news!

Why We Fight

I've been thinking about the documentary by Frank Capra that we watched in class today. In no particular order:
(1) We forget sometimes the propaganda that our country engages in. We think of "propaganda" as a peculiar element of Soviet countries and other enemies of the state, but we churned out one-sided media just as readily. The difference of course is that the free market makes room for more than just the propaganda, whereas the closed market disseminates only state approved messages.
(2) It's amazing how transparent the propaganda is to our savvy 21st century eyes. It makes me wonder what I am accepting as unbiased today that future generations will giggle at.
(3) All those Biblical references in a film produced by the Department of War and intended for Army use - wouldn't see that today. I liked it.
(4) The narrator (Walter Huston) at times sounded like Burl Ives in Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
(5) Speaking of Hollywood and WWII, I've been meaning for some time to track down a book about the Hollywood prop masters who fooled the enemy into believing in the existence of entire brigades that were entirely fabricated.

What questions do I have?
(1) Is propaganda an appropriate tool for a democracy to use?
(2) During war, does the media have an obligation to cooperate with its government or is its responsibility to scrutinize it even more carefully?

(1) I think that propaganda is usually not terribly useful, as it seems that anything published by the government is immediately suspect. What about items covertly published by the government? It may be that the internet may ferret some of these out, but overall I suppose the intent must be scrutinized. A democratic government should not be in the business of duping its own people. However, propaganda targeted at foreign allies, neutrals, and enemies, I suspect may be of value.

Tehran Times suspects conspiracy!!!

I'm reproducing this article in full. It is the top headline at the Tehran Times for March 17, 2008.

U.S. biggest loser of Iran poll
Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN -- Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini declared here on Sunday that the United States is the main loser of the parliamentary election in Iran.
“Surely the biggest loser of this election was the United States, and the real winners were the people of Iran,” Hosseini told reporters at his weekly press briefing.
About 60 percent of eligible voters in Iran took part in Friday’s parliamentary elections.
The Western plot to discourage the Iranians from participating in the elections was foiled, the Foreign Ministry spokesman stated.
The U.S. put great pressure on its European allies and other countries sitting on the Security Council to approve additional sanctions against Iran prior to elections in order to discourage people from turning out for polls.

Wow. I'm currently reading The Persian Puzzle which looks at Iranian-American relations. One of the main points the author pushes is that Iranians perceive the United States to be more interested and involved in Iran than it actually is. This article I think is a perfect example of that mentality.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, covered Iran's parliamentary election by reproducing a Reuters article which called into question the legitimacy of the elections, but otherwise does not appear to have paid much attention.

Oil is to blame for... the war. Or is it?

The Washington Post presents a column that actually rationally looks at the case of blood and oil in the Middle East. Columnist Steve Mufson states that it is nearly impossible that the invasion of Iraq was at the behest of Big Oil, but also admits that yes, the government does have an eye on oil and it is impossible to extricate energy security interests from our national security interests.
Some of the comments following the column, however, are impossible.
A sample:
"Of course, AA 77 never took off, and no plane struck the Pentagon. Explosives were planted in the Pentagon, and it might have been struck by three cruise missiles."
"...let the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese defend their oil interests with their own soldiers. The Arabs would not be whining about their relatively benign treatment under US occupation anymore. I'll bet they would be very well behaved if they were occupied by the Chinese Army- the Chinese wouldn't put up with the kind of b.s. that we do out of some misguided sense of political correctness."
"I do not believe Iraq was about oil directly; but it was about preserving the "Imperial Dollar" as the world's currency standard."
"Israeli security interest as represented by the neocon architects of this disaster. For the Jews, having a major American land army invade one of their sworn enemies and having to deal with resentful fundamentalist suicidal Muslims was perfect. They can’t be too open about it but you see their silent hand on it. Joe Lieberman and subtle Jewish influences in the media are obvious."

My question - how is the article improved by this commentary? It seems quite clear that a number of the commentators did not read the article or address it. Some of these outrageous
statements seem ripped straight from the Tehran Times. It seems a shame that a decent article was ruined by the obnoxious and ignorant commentary that followed. It is no surprise that the Post hides comments behind a link, unlike other papers which stick comments right on the bottom.

Mammoths also taste good with fire

Oil is to blame for... countries uniting agains the U.S.

Tehran Times reports that Iran and Vietnam inked a deal for a Vietnamese exploration company to survey Iranian oil fields. Hooray for our non-allies uniting.
Also, I had no idea that the Vietnamese were known for feats of engineering.
And the Washington Post...? Not a peep.
Seems like the kind of story we might be interested in knowing about, right? Guess not!

Pterodactyl Egg Marinade

To be perfectly honest I already forget why we talked about Pterodactyl egg marinade and how fire improved the process - but if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that it was in relation to the role of "technology".
Technology has always been in the arsenal of the media. They don't seem particularly to be innovators but they are quickly shaped by the newest medium. As Dr. Parker mentioned in class, "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube". Once technology is unleashed, it is here to stay until it is replaced. It's a fine line between one who exercises wise caution and the luddite, and a fine line between what is visionary and what is merely trendy.
I wrote a paper once about how technological evolution impacted cryptology and cryptanalysis. I found that each new generation of technology tended to switch the advantage between the coders and decoders. I wonder if a similar look at the media could be made - when does the technological medium of the media benefit the sender and when does it benefit the receiver? Does "advantage" even exist in those terms?
I think I cannot answer the question the way I posed it. Rather, I might make the hesitant claim that each new iteration of media technology (the newspaper, the telegraph, the radio, the television,the fax, the internet, etc) wrests control away from the sender. The receiver, certainly at risk of overstimulation, now has access to a wide range of information and can easier evade any controls set up by the sender.
Of course, everything I just said only applies to this country. Hmmm.

I'm on Spring Break

...and the only news I'm going to follow is the weather forecast for Orange County, California.

(just kidding)

Posts will resume in a week.

Molotov Cocktail

I just want it to be known that the titles of these class notes are taken directly from my notebook, which means they were uttered or inspired by the lecture.

Today in class we talked about Infoseeking vs. Confirmation Seeking behaviors. Infoseeking describes those who legitimately are looking for more information on a given subject, whereas confirmation seekers are only tuning in to opinions and facts that reaffirm their previously held world view.
Clearly, one of these behaviors is conducive to a thoughtful approach, and the other isn't. However, confirmation seeking happens in many more circumstances than we may realize. The example brought up in class was of the campaign debates. Those people who tend to watch the debates also tend to be a certain type of people, who go to debate watch parties and follow politics closely. Those who prefer the sound bite approach to debates will wait until the next day -- when the sound bites are released.

(1) How can the populace be more engaged in the electoral process?
(2) Where do Confirmation Seekers originally get their beliefs?

In answer to (2), I believe that probably a mixture of formal and informal education contributes to the formation of schemas and biases. Parents, culture, and other experiences all contribute. So as easy as it is to criticize confirmation seekers, it is necessary to note that they are only seeking media that confirms things they know from real life. Are information seekers changing their "real" world to fit things they hear from talking heads?

Iranian perception of the satellite shootdown

Wednesday's successful shootdown of the rogue satellite provoked an interesting reaction by the Iranian press. The most viewed article on the site, the overall impression is of a deceptive Pentagon that underestimates the intelligence of the world. The article reads into the motives of the Pentagon, plainly stating:

The operation to shoot down the orbiting spacecraft was clearly designed to send a message to both Russia and China, America’s two major competitors in the race for military dominance in space.

Furthermore, the article criticizes the Pentagon's fear of leaking hydrazine from the satellite in light of its previous decision to use Agent Orange in Vietnam.
Though it would be easy to write off the comparison as ludicrous, this illustrates a peculiar aspect of Iranian-American relations. To Iran, a country of long history and memory, the actions of a government taken within 50 years constitute a continuation of policy, though no American would say that the presidencies of Johnson and Bush 43 are anywhere near so linked.
The article ends ominously:

...once you start shooting down satellites in space, for whatever reason, other countries are sure to follow, and before long, there will be mayhem and havoc in the heavens (as well as on Earth)!

This doomsday approach to the militarization of space aligns Iran more closely with Russia and China, who recently proposed a treaty to prohibit the deployment of weapons in space.

The coverage of the event in the Washington Post is a little more cautious. Noted is the relationship between the satellite take-down and the Russian/Chinese treaty, as well as the potential diplomatic strain. The article's conclusion, however, is ultimately more cynical than its Iranian counterpart. The article quotes proliferation experts as saying that the militarization of space is inevitable, largely because any tool for space defense can be turned around on the offense, as with the Aegis system (or the system successfully tested by the Chinese last year).
And of course, as it is election season (when isn't it?) the journalist inserted a quick tie to the primary candidates:

In a survey of presidential candidates by Washington's Council for a Livable World, Sen. Barack Obama backed a space code of conduct. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would constrain space weaponization "as much as possible." Republican candidates did not respond.

The political nod is sandwiched in between expert opinions. We discussed in class today the startling lack of media coverage of candidates' foreign policy. The little soundbites in this article give a little foreign policy snack to anyone interested in the issue, and ultimately, the issue probably isn't important enough for any fu

Oil is to blame for... everything

...but what does oil blame its problems on? In class we talked about various factors that impact foreign policy, or the media. Here's a quick scan on necessary factors for determining the price of oil:
Energy companies (broken down: "upstream" companies that extract oil, "downstream" companies that refine), OPEC, Department of Energy, nationalized oil companies (foreign governments), investors, demand of consumers (drivers of cars, trucks, boats, planes, consumers of home heating oil, manufacturers of anything plastic, the military), environmental/clean energy groups and lobbies, alternative energy companies, gasoline retailers, local taxes and restrictions, natural disasters (Katrina wiped out gulf production for some time), accidents (shut down refineries), safety and environmental regulation, transportation costs, weather, litigation.

So go on, pick your raison du jour, and lay it on thick when you complain about how much it costs to fill up at the pump.

Iran and other countries I can't visit on my U.S. passport

Here's a byline I didn't anticipate seeing at the Tehran Times: Fidel Castro.
The newspaper prints Castro's resignation statement as though he were an opinion columnist, and never identifies him as the dictator/president/head cheese in Cuba. It is interesting to see how keenly Iran follows political movements of other countries they see as being anti American, keeping close tabs on these future potential allies?

Oil is to blame for... Anchorage

Found this Anchorage Daily News headline scanning Google for news about oil: Wednesday's oil, gas, gold and zinc prices. I think its a nice example of how local regional news can be. Elsewhere, most people only read about oil prices - especially now with the price hovering around $100/bbl. But in Anchorage, you can read about the price of oil in relation to the other resources in the state. These prices are noted daily, that's how vital they are to the interests of the citizenry.
In the story of Big Oil, we don't frequently hear about the blue collar mechanics at the bottom of the industry. This series of Alaskan articles touches on how tightly they are connected to the market.

A lot of writing on the chalkboard

Today we wrote on the chalkboard and I realized that I have horrible cramped handwriting.

We also learned about the push-pull effect - the "everyone already knows this, and no one cares" reasoning behind not reporting on certain aspects of foreign policy. Overall, "everyone in the process is guilty".

I am wondering a little bit about questioning the motives of the media, foreign policy officials, the government, etc. Yes, the media has an agenda. Many agendas - competing agendas, even. But everyone has an agenda. I feel that a better day-to-day standard of information screening is to assume that all information is biased and tainted, regardless of its source. Instead of trying to navigate all the twists and turns on the LA Freeway (following all the advantages, agendas, frames, disincentives, etc), why not just heap grains of salt and consume it all? Possible outcomes include (1) a more critical approach to news, (2) overwhelming cynicism (3) heart attack - sodium is bad for you.

Iran low priority at the Washington Post

Just a few numbers I culled over this past week (M-F):
Articles mentioning Iran: 600
Articles mentioning Iraq: 1,542
Articles specifically about Iran: 22
Articles written by Washington Post: 2 (9%)
Articles specifically about Iraq: 37
Articles written by Washington Post: 12 (32%)

The huge volume of articles about Iraq is largely caused by its prominence in domestic politics. Almost 50% of the articles mentioning Iraq were found in the "politics" or "nation" section. Regardless, over the same period, Washington Post staff writers penned 37 articles about Iraq and 2 about Iran.
There is a saying that the army always prepares to fight the last war, meaning that senior leaders are preoccupied with the lessons of the most immediately previous conflict and do not innovate quickly enough. Journalism, at least in this instance, seems to also have a "previous conflict" mentality. Yes, there is a war going on in Iraq and not Iran. However, future security concerns are more likely to arise in Iran, or North Korea (only 190 mentions), or some other country even lower on the national radar. And when we're all blindsided by the new factor, we will be furious that we didn't see it coming. With coverage like this, should we be surprised?
The media is bound to print what the public wants to read, not what the public should read. Granted, I am not eager to suggest that newspaper editors are the ideal gatekeepers of public education, but media saturation of one concern at the expense of all the others is dangerous.

Oil is to Blame for... 9/11

From the Tehran Times, my favorite source of trustworthy information:
The Bush administration’s purpose in planning and orchestrating 9/11 was to create an atmosphere of fear in this country so that the military/industrial/oil/private central banking complex could start their fake war on terror which included attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.

The article, which was the most viewed for Thursday, February 14th, goes on to implicate the mainstream media and Congress as complicit in the events of 9/11. The reason? Oil.

Vice President Cheney met with the heads of the various oil companies right after Bush took office...They were talking about attacking Iraq in order to gain control of their oil fields. They were talking about attacking Afghanistan to take over the construction of a gas pipeline through Afghanistan.

What is interesting, of course, is that this view of America and 9/11 does not appear to be widely challenged in certain parts of the world. Tehran Times is one of the most widely read dailies in Iran, and they reported this story as truth, perpetuating the schema of Big Oil as a super villain.

Cavea Sic Draconis

Misreading the Public, overall, found that there are severe communication lapses between the government and the public. For example, government correctly thought that the public did not want to increase foreign aid spending, however the public truly was ignorant as to how much money was actually spent on foreign aid. Another area of misreading is casualty avoidance - government thinks that Americans have very low tolerance for loss of life in combat. This may or may not be related to the French-Algerian war, when Paris lost the will to fight but the generals on the ground did not and protested mightily when forced to withdraw.
Quote of the day: "Governments tend to bumper sticker complex ideas"
Questions:
1.) In an age of instant gratification and rapid communications, do we really want a government that is perfectly responsive to the demands and whims of the people?
2.) In regards to foreign aid, is that really a decision best made by the public?
Okay, so maybe both my questions get at a metaquestion - is "government" a dog on a leash, taken for walks by the people? Perhaps the wording is unfair, but I think my point is this: when the Ambassador (whose name I did not capture in my notes) bemoaned the invention of the telegram, which would make diplomacy all the more difficult for the speed, I do not think he was being completely irrational. Some things take time. Perhaps the delay in both time and perception between people and the government is not actually bad. Perhaps we ought to elect officials to make decisions, not obey the ones we make.
But this is neither here nor there. Speculation. I don't know.

Military Intervention for Iran?

In a speech covered apparently only by the Tehran Times, Iranian Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi asserted that Iran would not respond to military or economic pressure, and that the Islamic Republic is safe from any threat the West could possibly bring.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post picks up a Reuters story discussing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's desire to discuss intervention in Iran. Olmert said last month Israel would not be reconciled to a nuclear Iran and "all options are on the table."
In other words, Iran is posturing, but no one is paying attention. For a country that already struggles with feeling ignored and unimportant, Western media snubs cannot be pleasant.
Also, based only on the last few weeks of observation, it seems that most of the Post's stories on Iran come from Reuters...

Oil and Petrotyrants

Two news items from the oil world while I was "out" this week:
1.) Exxon moves to bring Venezuela to court for breech of contract. Big Oil Strikes Back at Petrotyrants. This move pushes against the trend of petrotyrants nationalizing their crude reserves, setting a trend to encourage further development in instable and oil-rich countries like Chad and Angola.
2.) Nigeria demanded that oil companies return to the delta. Oil Firms Ordered to Niger Delta. Many companies fled the area due to increased violence and kidnappings, and the Nigerian government's demonstrated inability to control local insurgents. The government claims it will kick countries out of the country if they refuse to do business in the most dangerous parts. Here we have the inverse of the previous event, with the government attempting to control the investments of international firms.
Overall, it is interesting to note the interaction between governments and corporations, and how they engage in a power struggle as near equals. Where do corporations fit into the Clausewitzian trinity? People? Or is the model of the trinity fundamentally unable to incorporate international business?

I can find the cafeteria, I'm oriented enough

No class for me this week, as I've been in orientation for my new awesome job which has nothing to do with oil, the Washington Post, or the Tehran Times.
Except it when it does.

Cyclical Media

Today, for new information on the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, FoxNews host E.D. Hill interviewed FoxNews host Greta VanSusteren.
Why one reporter should interview another reporter from their own station... I couldn't say.

Why Media Goats?

"When the god was asked whether they should go to war, he answered that if they put their might into it, victory would be theirs, and that he would himself be with them. With this oracle events were supposed to tally. For the plague broke out as soon as the Peloponnesians invaded Attica, and never entering Peloponnese (not at least to an extent worth noticing), committed its worst ravages at Athens, and next to Athens, at the most populous of the other towns. Such was the history of the plague."

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

How was the god questioned? Via goat entrails!
And how was the plague spread? Via goats!
So what became a symbol for the significance of the seemingly insignificant? GOATS.

Enough said.

More Media Resources

This is fun: Today's Front Pages, provided by Newseum.

Primary Glut

Every story on the "cover" of the online Washington Post is covering the results of the Florida primary. I thought I would look around at other online news sources and pull out all the important headlines that the Post missed by gorging on primary commentary, when I realized that there are no other headlines. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Google, Yahoo, and CNN are all running the McCain win/Giuliani defeat.
Internationally? The BBC, Le Monde, Die Welt, El Pais, and PressTV Iran all succumb to election fever.

So where was McCain's face not gracing the cover? India. China. Egypt.
Tonight there were two worlds - one that is attuned to American domestic politics, and one that is not.

Oil, Tehran Times, and How News Spreads

Tehran Times 1/29, at approx. 00:30 EST "Iranian Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari Monday reiterated that there was no need to supply more oil as the market was supplied sufficiently and its conditions were stable. "
No Oil Shortage in World Market: Oil Minister

Press TV-Iran 1/29, at approx 03:00 EST "Iran's Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari has said that there is no reason for OPEC member states of pump more crude into the market"
No Reason for OPEC Output Rise

Reuters 1/29, at approx. 09:00 EST "Iran's Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari was quoted in an Iranian newspaper as saying that 'there was no need to supply more oil as the market was supplied sufficiently and its conditions were stable.'"
Oil Above $91 as Rate Cut Hopes Lift Market

Blogging Stocks 1/29, at approx 14:22 EST "Iran's Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari said Tuesday that there's no reason for OPEC states to increase oil production, PressTV Iran reported."
Iran: No Need for OPEC to Increase Production

CNNMoney 1/29, at approx 23:19 EST "Prices were... getting support from expectations that OPEC will leave current production quotas unchanged when the 13-member oil cartel meets in Vienna on Friday for a crucial meeting about its output levels."
Oil Prices Above $92 in Morning Asian Trade

Okay, so what?
So this is how news travels. Tehran Times reports on statements by their Oil Minister. Another Iranian station picks up on the story, which in turn is posted to a stock blog after the end of trades Tuesday. The result is the story posted by CNNMoney - futures in oil are up by a dollar, buoyed in part by statements originally reported in the Tehran Times.
In less than 24 hours, statements made by one oil minister from one of the OPEC countries were impacting the Asian stock market four thousand miles away. That's the speed of information today.
At no point on this story's journey did any article mention the dubious journalism practiced by the Tehran Times. Likely the remarks of the Iranian Oil Minister were not fabricated, but some context might have been appropriate, especially considering what Iran stands to gain from rising oil prices.

Note: The Reuters story, including the quote from Gholam-Hossein Nozari, made it into the Washington Post. Nice to see my two papers tied together.
Note (part two): The pictured gentleman is Gholam-Hossein Nozari. The Farsi behind him reads, simply "oil".

Tehran Times Daily Headline: Islamic Revolution was one of history’s greatest events: Ahmadinejad
WTI/NYMEX: $92.37

Media Resources

Relevant websites I like:
Energy Information Administration (Dept of Energy) - Petroleum data, projections, analysis, and explanations.
Europe Media Monitor News Explorer - I'm still fiddling with how the data is aggregated, but basically this tracks stories published around the world and "clusters" them for comparison across languages and sources.
Small Wars Journal - Rounds up news about modern wars, publishes opinion pieces.
Kottke.org - a blog about the liberal arts. Not all terribly relevant, but the editor has a real interest in journalism and the impact of design on message and usually links to some interesting research.
The Danger Room at Wired - looks at technology, security, and national defense.

Tehran Times and the Washington Post on U.S. Involvement in Pakistan

Wednesday's breaking story over at the Tehran Times:

Trilaterals triangulating in Pakistan
The United States is basically run by a small clique of wealthy families who own and control the Federal Reserve System, and the Trilateral Commission is their policy think tank.

The article goes on to describe how the Trilateral Commission, a perennial conspiracy favorite, is not only in charge of the Federal Reserve, but also the Pentagon and all Intelligence Communities, and wielded their power to assassinate Benazir Bhutto. Oh and they are also in league with the ever-present Zionists. Okay.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post is running the following headlines:

U.S. Urged to Push for Reforms in Pakistan
U.S. Willing to Send Troops to Pakistan
U.S. to Step Up Training of Pakistanis

So what? So every article is based off quotes - the first story is based on the pleadings of a famous cricketeer, the other two describe statements given by U.S. officials. The articles represent U.S.-Pakistan relations about as accurately as the Tehran Times. Granted, the Washington Post's articles are based in fact, but they not about facts. They are about announcements. And essentially, the Tehran Times insistence that the Trilateral Commission is responsible for Bhutto's assassination is equally reporting on announcements (announcements made by the paper, rather than by others).

I am not trying to absolve the Tehran Times, or imply that the Washington Post is at the same level, rather point out that neither is actually reporting on the changing U.S.-Pakistan relationship - only what is being said about it by sources of varying bias.

Oil is to Blame for... Rising Global Unemployment

AllAfrica.com, a Washington-based news-aggregate site with a focus on the African continent, links to this story originally published by the Vanguard in Lagos. The article takes its information from a press release made by the International Labour Office(ILO)'s annual report on Global Employment Trends.
The headline of the article: Nigeria: Rising Oil Prices to Render 5m Unemployed, ILO Warns
The lede for the press release:

Economic turbulence largely due to credit market turmoil and rising oil prices could spur an increase in global unemployment by an estimated 5 million persons in 2008, the International Labour Office said today in its annual Global Employment Trends (GET) report.

Despite making the lede, surprisingly oil is not mentioned again in the article or press release. Turning to the actual report, we find:

For the first time, probably, turbulences in one economically strong region (namely, the Developed Economies & the EU region and upfront the United States as a result of higher oil prices and the US housing market turmoil) have, so far, not impacted on other regions. (emphasis mine)

Put simply, the press release and all subsequent articles written on the GET report fingered rising oil prices as a culprit for rising unemployment across the globe, when what the report actually claims is the rising oil prices have not had the anticipated effect on unemployment, and indeed that more people are employed than ever before.

It is rather incredible that the press release for the report would be so misleading, but a headline blaming unemployment on rising oil prices probably makes intuitive sense to a public that has been fed Big Bad Oil stories for years. As discussed in Robert Entman's Projections of Power, news that fits into an accepted schema is highly unlikely to be contested. A brief search online concludes that the press release was noted but not analyzed.

WTI/NYMEX: $90.13

Washington Post - Introduction

In some contrast to the Tehran Times is the Washington Post. Both are daily city papers located in their respective country's capital. The similarities largely end there.
The Washington Post is a traditional American-style newspaper, with an emphasis on objectivity and international, national, and local scope. Perhaps the definitive Post story was the investigation into the Watergate burglary in 1972 by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This story, which attacked American conceptions about President Nixon's character and ultimately contributed to his resignation, is an example of media "freedom" - the Post's ability to print a story that confronted the President and institutions of this country.
The Post's commitment to objective journalism begins in 1935, when then-owner Eugene Meyer printed his principles of journalism on the front page:

• The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
• As a disseminator of news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.
• What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as the old.
• The newspaper's duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.
• In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.
• The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

So, a western, liberal newspaper that claims to abide by journalistic standards, contrasted with a newspaper that is at best a rumor-monger and at worst part of a governmental propaganda machine. From now on I'll be putting the two head to head. Should be fun.

Today's Headline: White House Tape Recycling May Have Erased E-Mails

Tehran Times - Introduction

Tehran Times, "Iran's Leading International Daily" was founded in 1979 after the revolution, when "there was a need for an international media outlet to export the ideas of the revolution." It claims an online circulation of over 10,000 visitors per day, and publishes a 16-page English language newspaper daily, available throughout the capital city of Iran.
There are seven news sections (Politics, International, Social, Sports, Science, Economy, Culture) and an opinion page. Notable controversial positions taken by the Tehran Times opinion staff include that Al-Jazeera is a Zionist propaganda machine and that the Holocaust is a "religion of Zionism for gentiles."

It's fair to say that on the "ridiculous bias" scale, this state-run newspaper ranks somewhere just above advertisements and PETA. It's going to be fun keeping tabs on them.

Today's Headline: Bush throws tantrum after failing to hoodwink Arabs: Hosseini

Oil is to Blame for... the Recession

President Bush pleaded with Saudi leaders today for an increase in OPEC production, claiming that high oil prices might cause a U.S. economic slowdown (International Herald Tribune).

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the falling price of a barrel of oil indicates a future recession.

So which is it? High oil prices will cause a recession, or dropping oil prices are the canary in the recession mine?
"Big Oil" is today's handlebar mustachioed villain, today's robber baron. Although recessions and wars have been pinned on it, oil is not a sufficiency - oil alone does not explain the 2003 invasion of Iraq, nor any other social, political, or economic crisis. One of the issues I'll be charting in this journal is the scapegoating of the oil industry, as well as instances when oil truly is a necessary factor.

West Texas Intermediate (WTI)/Light Crude futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX): $91.71

Jello, Fist

Summary:
Discussion in class today centered around the power and limitations of the three models of media discussed last Wednesday. To refresh:

1. The hypodermic model - unadulterated from sender to receiver. Straight shot.
2. The two-step model - information packaged as a message travels to the receiver through a trusted Opinion Leader (OL). Note: receivers may internalize the OL.
   
3. The spaghetti/Los Angeles Freeway model - anticipates an environment in which everyone is influencing and being influenced. Note: this model reduces the importance placed on traditional demographics. Catholics don't all get their opinions from the Pope.
   

Agenda/Framing:
The media cannot tell you what to think, but they can tell you what to think about. This is agenda-setting, and it is terribly common. An issue can also be framed, or presented in such a way as to influence opinion.

Necessary/Sufficient:
An example exercise in the difference between necessary (a factor) and sufficient (the "true cause").
Question: Why don't I feel well?
Necessary Answers: You don't exercise. You have bad genes. You eat poorly. You don't sleep enough. You don't wash your hands. You work with kids. You have a tapeworm.
Sufficient Answer: Voodoo.


What I'm wondering:

1. Who has the power in the spaghetti model? Can anyone truly set an agenda?
2. What is the obligation of media during a human rights crisis? (ie, Tiananmen Square)

To answer the first, it seems that despite the fractured appearance, there may be more cohesion in the spaghetti model than the name implies. Opinion leaders are not isolated entities - the model tells us that. It seems logical that opinion leaders sharing some ideological concern may form networks. These networks can then, by the power of volume, set agendas. Considering blogs, briefly, a story posted to an influential news aggregate site like Slashdot may echo around the web for days afterwards, following established pathways through other blogs (Jason Kottke has an interesting post on the effects of being "slashdotted" and the implications of the information pathways here).

Course to Date (CtD): 98.6 degrees. Let's go. I'm ready.