Al Quaeda is winning the media war. There are over 5000 jihadi websites, all preaching a sacred war against America, the West and Israel and America lacks a response. Videos of attacks on Westerners have become the objective of these attacks, not their strategic or tactical value. (Killmeier) These videos are picked up by major news networks and played to the American public as tragedies but they become the face of the war. Instead of any positive events in Iraq or the Middle East, there are constant bombings and demonstrations against the West.

Al Quaeda was not always winning this war. After 9/11, there was a tremendous outpouring of support for the United States and the media in all countries seemed sympathetic to our cause. The war in Afghanistan eroded little of that support. The war in Iraq was the turning point in the media war. The lack of WMDs in Iraq so eroded the credibility of this presidential administration that few media sources are willing to believe any of its claims, whether truthful or not. Jay Rosen illustrates this perfectly, as he accused them of creating a lie so big that the media could not help but believe it and now he and other media sources are dubious of any news out of the government as they will not be fooled again.
The administration promised the epitome of the virtuous war. The conventional war was won quickly with a minimum of American casualties and a maximum of “shock and awe.” Embedded reporters combined with a sympathetic media created a perfect news storm proving America was the penultimate military power in the world. Overwhelming American military force networked into accurate intelligence created a virtuous war, one that was fought because we had to, because Saddam was an imminent threat, because Iraqi civilians deserved freedom and democracy yet that could be fought without major American sacrifice. It is not the war, but the aftermath that tells us the most about how virtuous war lacks and is the point where the media turned against this war.
Then the aftermath of the Iraq war destroyed this virtuous war. Computer networks, smart bombs and the ability to project force from a distance came up against roadside bombs, snipers and ethnic hatred held for centuries. The insurgency could not be defeated in a virtuous war and Abu Graib proved that we lacked virtue. Classical counter-insurgency tactics had to be returned to, a surge in troop numbers and soldiers occupying every town until they were pacified and an attempt could be made to create the civil institutions that would prevent the return of violence and a civil war when the Americans left. The tools of the virtuous war were still used, the satellites and UAVs, but they were no replacement for Human Intelligence, a forceful response to any outbreak of violence and a constant human presence. The insurgency may be pacified, but the media are no longer willing allies.
The U.S. military seeks to dominate on all spectrums of war, yet they have not adapted to the Global Media as a 24-hour phenomenon where speed of response matters more than accuracy and the first reply is the only one that is heard. Colonel Tucker explains that the military, especially after Vietnam, views the media as the enemy and wants all their information to be accurate, no matter how long it takes, and thus takes too long to respond to stories in this new media environment, thus allowing blatant inaccuracies to go unchallenged. It is only recently that the military began abandoning this all or nothing approach in favor of a quicker and less complete response to inaccurate developing stories.
The United States government is further hampered by its need for accuracy. Any perceived inaccuracy damages its already tarnished image with American citizens. The United States government/military has failed to adapt to a global media, where they must operate in multiple media environments; each requiring a different approach and set of cultural assumptions.
This media war must be defined in order to determine the victor. This war consists of every media interface existing and it is a battle for public opinion, on one side to sustain American support for the war and the support of the rest of the world for the military and on the other to destroy American support for the war, the support of the rest of the world for America, and to radicalize Muslims and get them to rise up in a clash of civilizations against the West.
There are no rules to this war, no theories of how to carry out a just media war. The Pentagon is attempting deterrence through the media, trying to highlight moderate imans who oppose Al Quaeda and verses in the quran that oppose violence against civilians. The Pentagon tries to present a virtuous war with no American or civilian casualties while terrorist websites show American troops dying and reporters being beheaded. Extremists on both sides wish for a clash of civilizations in which the righteous will persevere and this leads to abuses in the media war. Hamas now runs children’s videos glorifying violence against Jews and the American President. Extremists in America dismiss Islam as a religion of hate that needs to be defeated in a long war similar to the cold war.

This media war might be winnable. Yet victory is so vaguely defined and relies on the cooperation of the media to such an extent that it could erode the independence of the press or put the military in the role of the press. The more effective the military and terrorist organizations become at manipulating the press the less the press remains a critical arbiter of what is actually happening in the world. The media war may be necessary, but can the media serve as a battleground without being distorted beyond recognition?
Works Cited
Der Derian, James. Virtuous War.
MSNBC News Service “Puppet child ‘kills’ Bush on Gaza TV kids show” April 1, 2008.
Arkin, William H. Goodbye on Terrorism, Hello Long War. Washington Post. January 26, 2006.