...but losing the war in Information Space. And the media is, wittingly or otherwise, not on our side.

As long as al-Qaeda detonated IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could increase the perception of a quagmire. By getting the media to focus on the IEDs-of-the-day, al Qaeda was able to bury the good news (like the training of the Iraqi Army and reconstruction efforts), and was able to weather the loss of senior leaders like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

In the case of keeping Cornet Wales from deploying with his unit, it did not take any IEDs. He was kept home via the use of threats by a terrorist whose claims were repeated by the media. Eventually, senior British Army officers flinched. This is a major victory for the terrorists in Iraq – one that did not require a single IED or even a shot.

And here's some perspective.

[Update a few minutes later]

All is quiet on the Anbar front:

I cannot believe my eyes and ears in Anbar. Very quiet where I am. Did a foot patrol today with Iraqi Army and a couple of Marines. Local population was friendly. Have not heard a shot fired in anger in days. (Whereas before the sounds of war were nearly always in the air.)

Not only that, the enemy has driven two million refugees into Jordan and Syria to create a media perception of failure.

The American public didn't give up on vietnam ecause of the casualties but because it seemed pointless.

5-10 years of effort didn't seem to effect change, the
countryside was still dangerous, and gee 30 years after leaving
they like us fine.

Yeah, let's just forget the millions who fled for their lives, the millions who were imprisoned, and the millions who were killed, as result of not just our departure but our refusal to even lift a finger when the tanks rolled in.

"And the media is, wittingly or otherwise, not on our side."

That would be wittingly - and in the case of the MSM, I use the word "wit" very loosely.

"nameless" at May 18, 2007 09:12 AM wrote:
"Not only that, the enemy has driven two million refugees into Jordan and Syria to create a media perception of failure."

Since most "nameless" posts are more or less rabidly anti-war I'm writing this under the assumption that "nameless" intended this as a mockery of the article. It could very well be that "nameless" didn't intend it as such and that's fine and good but since there are plenty of people that would make such a statement as mockery I'll reply.

And if it's a case of attempted mockery "nameless" might not understand why there was such a lack of response but it probably triggered some gut feeling of having missed the mark (and perhaps the second "nameless" comment but that's pure speculation on my part since I can't compare IP and MAC addresses).

So I'll explain it: AQ mostly uses the tactics and strategy of terrorism. Creating strong psychological impacts is one of the ideas at the core of what terrorism is all about, often in the form of media coverage but not neccessarily so as it depends on context. Another of the core ideas of terrorism is aiming at the softest targets (almost always civilians but not always exclusively so) in order to create the most impact for the least cost. Terrorism isn't a "high ground" strategy as common in normal warfare but a "low ground" strategy where the targets (of both the violence and the impact) are people in general everywhere and the more the better as the more numerous the higher the chances of gaining not only a general impact but outright support (due to reasons as diverse as fear, lack of understanding and/or knowledge, misguided sympathy, agreement, and others).

Terrorist attacks that don't result in some form of psychological impact can be regarded as failures - if the target is purely military or material one has drifted away from terrorism tactics over to guerilla tactics (see note*). The more coverage the better and it doesn't have to be 9/11-style headlines; if a general perception that works to the advantage of the terrorist has been established it's enough if that perception is maintained or strenghtened. This has been terrorism 101 since long before the PLO discovered the efficiency of hijacking planes. AQ has expanded upon "classic" terrorism in several different ways but the above still holds true whether it's to the "benefit" of the NYT or the local village or both.

AQ counts on things such as refugees from their actions. It has outright practical benefits to AQ as disorder (and in this case large displacements of people) eases their actions in many ways as well contributing to their impact. AQ relies on superficial attention to refugee problems as well as anything else AQ does, causes, or contributes to. AQ is pleased if (or rather 'when' as far as most of the world press is concerned) the consequences of their actions are portrayed as the evil of their enemies. The list goes on, the simple fact is that most things in asymmetrical warfare benefits terrorist tactics, at least unless people in general give it and the problems it represents some honest thought and reflection.

Hopefully anyone no matter which opinion they hold on the war in Iraq or Bush or the US can now see at least some reasons why a statement about AQ actively contributing to a refugee problem isn't particularly shocking or wrong, nor that they wouldn't do so partially in order to increase a perception of failure on behalf of their enemies and partially for outright practical reasons. Both of those things are exactly what any moderately intelligent terrorist would do.

We would all be better off if AQ wasn't actually more intelligent than those who fail to see the above points or, if that's setting the bar too high, we would at least be better off if all like them weren't so keen on proving their ignorance. That's what the topic and article is about.

I'm pretty sure some will simply perceive this as an unmitigated insult and for sure I would feel slighted too if I was one of them but I don't write this to insult. If they don't actually try to understand both what's being said and what is actually happening then that continues to be a far greater and self-inflicted insult. Only they themselves can change that.

* Note: there is a somewhat gray zone between both the terrorist and guerilla as well as "high ground" tactics when it comes to systems themselves rather than populations, armed forces, or material - usually some sort of infrastructure, physical or not. I can't think of an example where such attacks haven't been integrated in more straight-forward and easily defined attacks or strategies and are thus easily defined, but it's still a somwhat gray zone defined by intent.