When L. wrote a while ago about how woeful the US is in the information wars, I tried to think what the US could actually do improve the situation.
I thought about a newspaper published from Iraq, called MENA Today, along the lines of USA Today. Hire all the blacklisted journalists and non-blacklisted ones too. Charge very little and pay very well. Consider it investment capital towards the day when the paper pays it own way. Don't exercise ANY editorial control, except for fact checking. If there is anti-american stuff, surely that reflects the truth of the region and enhances the credibility of the paper. Print an arabic and english version that are exactly the same. Sure, there will be accusations that the US is purchasing the journalists, but the paradigm of al-jazheera is basically encouraging. Marketplace competition drives al-jazeerha's emergent attempts at unbiased coverage.

Since I was called:
When L. wrote a while ago about how woeful the US is in the information wars, I tried to think what the US could actually do improve the situation.

Well you're confusing two entirely seperate issues, standards of journalism in the MENA region and the US engaging in successful promotion of its own point of view, etc. in region.

Not the same problems per se.

I thought about a newspaper published from Iraq, called MENA Today, along the lines of USA Today.

Published in Iraq?

That would be idiotic.

First of all Iraq is too dangerous.

Second, it would have the stink of a cheap occupation stunt.

Third, USA Today, from the few times I have encountered the same (hotels), is a terrible model.

But leaving that aside, a pet US newspaper is not going to get readership. Period. Comes tainted.

Making one's own media outlet when one is not starting from a point of credibility is just a losing proposition - the current efforts (Radio Sawa, al-Hurra, Hi Magazine) are proof enough of that.

Don't exercise ANY editorial control, except for fact checking.

If you put taxpayer money into something, you will have editorial interference, regardless of stated intention. Period.

The problem of US POV promotion is (i) putting it in terms that are saleable in region, (ii) actually getting it in places that are read/watched/listened to, (iii) issues of policy (that is for those who harp on the evils of American policy, yes some things are probably inherently unsaleable).

The problem of Arab media and independence is a different issue and as I have said in the past, tied to lack of political liberalism plus lack of financial independence.

There is no fast way to address either of these issues (and I think the training programs EU and US engage in on this subject are pure idiocy - although they are backdoors ways to influence).

So just why* would any competent, self-respecting journalist want to work at a USA Today clone run by the American government that wouldn't circulate outside Iraq, itself hardly a great place to be based?

* Aside from masochism, anyway

I most likely have an insanely naive idea of my country's goals in the region--but since GW says democracy, let him deliver. A free press is an unalienable right in this country, it should be so in Iraq if we are going to help make a "model democracy" there.
And if Iraq is too dangerous for a free press, then it is too dangerous for a democratic government.

So just why* would any competent, self-respecting journalist want....

Oh, I dunno....a paycheck? Editorial control? A chance to make a difference?

Why would it be a pet newspaper?

And if Iraq had a voice in English, might that be a partial solution to Rumsfield's problems with the antique media in this country?

I happen to think a free press is neccessary component of a democracy. MENA needs a free press, sure. But I would be willing to start with Iraq. I think that a free press, a truly free press, would be far more saleable to american taxpayers than other economic initiatives, which I also happen to think are critical.

Also, there is always the impetous of free market competition. What if newspapers in MENA knew that the the US sponsered paper would gladly hire any journalist that the consrvative governments deemed too controversial for top dollar (heh.)?

Ok, USA Today is a horrible model. But it does have a broad circulation.
I don't actually read newspapers, even in the airport--I read blogs.
Like this one.

Since I was called:

I would think "summoned" or "invoked" or even "petitioned" would be more appropriate, O Emir of the Afriit.

Further to this:

I most likely have an insanely naive idea of my country's goals in the region--but since GW says democracy, let him deliver. A free press is an unalienable right in this country, it should be so in Iraq if we are going to help make a "model democracy" there.

Naive rot.

First come security. "Free press" in Iraq is meaningless in the absence of order.

Blithering on about Inalienable Rights in the US is stupid whanking that has fuck all to do with situations in other countries.

And if Iraq is too dangerous for a free press, then it is too dangerous for a democratic government.

That's been a bloody obvious condition to all but the most ideological fools for over a year now.

So just why* would any competent, self-respecting journalist want....

Oh, I dunno....a paycheck? Editorial control? A chance to make a difference?

None worth much if one gets blown up.

Never mind the stupidity of the pretension that "editorial control" would exist. Making a difference in American eyes, in local eyes, serving as the paid lackey of the generally unwanted occupiers.

Navel gazing in general is a poor way to understand others motivations, expecting American desires are all desires gets one in trouble.

Why would it be a pet newspaper?

Those who control the purse strings generally exert control, even when they are light handed, their enemies impute more unto the source.

Do not be any more empty headed than absolutely necessary.

And if Iraq had a voice in English, might that be a partial solution to Rumsfield's problems with the antique media in this country?

Eh, what the bloody fuck does Iraq having a voice in the occupiers' language have the fuck to do with Rumsfeld or the subject at hand. Are you retarded?

Bloody hell, seldom have I read such idiotic tripe.

Eh, what the bloody fuck does Iraq having a voice in the occupiers' language have the fuck to do with Rumsfeld or the subject at hand. Are you retarded?
Actually, not.
Rumsfeld was talking about the image of Iraq perpetuated in American media, as one front in his info-war. I was talking about Iraq having a voice to America, not speaking to Iraqis in English.

First come security. "Free press" in Iraq is meaningless in the absence of order.
So what do we do now? I've read your archives on how we've mucked it up so far. I personally believe that democracies can't exist without free trade and free markets either.
How do we instantiate those things?

Blithering on about Inalienable Rights in the US is stupid whanking that has fuck all to do with situations in other countries.
Well, we were colonized and oppressed and fought our way clear and became, actually, a republic. It is the only model we have to operate from.
We decolonized Iraq.
And, it does seem like the Iraqis want self-representative government. They turn out to vote.

I am not completely naive about our presence in Iraq.
Our previous successful model for overthrowing the tyrant oppressors of the Soviet Union was containment. We bottled them up until the freemarket beat them.
Unfortunately we cannot contain the Islamic fundamentalists until we transform MENA with freetrade, because of globalization, oil, and porous borders.
But I am not deluded that we are in Iraq out of altruism. It is pure self-interest.
Iraq is a tiger trap where we can draw in the biggest baddest tigers and hopefully kill them. It keeps them out of our village, but it sure sucks for the goat.

Jinni-
You have the exact same problem I saw with most Americans in regards to iraq and mena in general - especially in blogs. Why does everything has to be centred around american view points and interests? Can't you for once get your head around that there are other places on earth?
I mean I have yet to meet any American who has any basis for opposition to the war on iraq other than 'our boys are getting killed' or 'we are not safer now'
Who cares about rumsfeld or selling the war to americans? all this time L. has been talking about selling US image to mena peoples, not the other way round.
I guess that's what you get from reading blogs exclusively. May I suggest the FT?

'Unfortunately we cannot contain the Islamic fundamentalists we transform MENA with freetrade, because of globalization, oil, and porous borders.
But I am not deluded that we are in Iraq out of altruism. It is pure self-interest.
Iraq is a tiger trap where we can draw in the biggest baddest tigers and hopefully kill them. It keeps them out of our village, but it sure sucks for the goat.'

Just how many times did you say 'we' or 'our' in this post? I am willing to bet that what you meant by that is America and Americans not 'we' as in humanity in general or even writers on Aqoul.
You know this is not your struggle only.
Just look at this sentence: 'until we transform MENA with freetrade, because of globalization, oil, and porous borders'
I rest my case.

Our previous successful model for overthrowing the tyrant oppressors of the Soviet Union was containment. We bottled them up until the freemarket beat them.

Are you freaking serious about this vision of the Cold War? I don't think even Ronald Reagan was ever that simplistic about it, and that's certainly saying something.

Eva Luna-
Are you the same Eva Luna on SDMB? If you are then I have to tell you I enjoy reading your posts.

Yep, that's me - thanks! And what's your handle there?

But Ali K, all I have is my perspective. I am telling you why America is involved in this, and yes, "we" and "our" is America. I come here to learn, because I don't know anything about MENA.
And I read FT and I have a subscription to the Economist.
But that doesn't help a whole lot.
Isn't 'Aqoul a blog?

Only recently have I discovered that the popular perception of Islam in America in general is entirely wrong! I think I am making some progress--until recently I was an LGF commenter. :)

I mean I have yet to meet any American who has any basis for opposition to the war on iraq other than 'our boys are getting killed' or 'we are not safer now'

Well, you have met me and my opposition is that it sucks for the goat. Is it moral? Is it just? I understand that a lot of Iraqis are being killed because we are fighting there. I can only hope that getting rid of Saddam and giving them a chance for self-governance is some kind of compensation. When Sistani tells us to get out then I will believe we should go. I really admire him.

Who cares about rumsfeld or selling the war to americans? all this time L. has been talking about selling US image to mena peoples, not the other way round.

The article L. referenced talks about both fronts in the info-war. Interestingly the rightside blogs only talk about the info-war with the American media. L. only talks about the American image in MENA. I am trying to learn. Tell me, Ali, how can I sell myself to you?

You know this is not your struggle only.

I know that. It is the struggle of all people not to be blown up at work or at prayer for some political ideology, and to raise their children in comfort and peace.

I just don't know how to get there from here.

Are you freaking serious about this vision of the Cold War?

Eva, hindsight is 20/20. In retrospect that is how a lot of people believe it worked.

Jinnilyah, I was living there at the time the Berlin Wall came down, and the second I set foot in the USSR I couldn't believe the U.S. had been led around by the short hairs by the intelligence community. The place was falling apart at the seams, but "containment" sure as hell wasn't the only reason - anyone with two synapses to rub together could see that. And do you seriously think that the USSR (long a major petroleum exporter, by the way - Baku was a major drilling and refining center by the late 19th century) didn't have huge natural resources?

The only people who thought any single reason or policy led to the collapse of the USSR were didactic morons.

You can call it capitalism versus communism if that makes you more comfortable. But it was the battle of the economies.

Otherwise, couldn't the USSR's "huge natural resources" have saved them? ;)

You can call it capitalism versus communism if that makes you more comfortable. But it was the battle of the economies.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with my comfort level, except sheesh...Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia?

I mean really, I was hoping for something slightly more nuanced.

Sorry, Eva, I am not a very nuanced sort of grrl, I guess. I have a sort of Manichean worldview.
What do you think caused the fall of the USSR?

It can't be their technology--that was pretty good. It is still used a lot of places in the world.

Jinni-
Sorry if I sounded a little scathing, but I figured not as much as L. did with his stream of expletives.

Yes aquol is a blog. I was reacting to your comment about reading blogs only.

I know you were talking from your perspective as an American, but try to see this from a non-american perspective:
-someone blogs about freedom of press in mena
-someone immediately jumps to what America can do to correct this situation, tying it to how it benefits american interests and how freedom of the press is an inalienable right to americans.

Do you understand what I am saying? it's not simply talking from an American perspective, but the attempt - even if inadvertent - to override other perspectives. I know you mean well and I applaud you for it.
You ask how you can sell yourself to me. You don't really need to sell yourself to me personally, but I guess you meant any other Arab person. I hope this goes to helping you in that direction.

As with USSR, I guess what Eva Luna is trying to say that the USSR fell because it was destined to fall. it couldnt support itself any longer, not because of any particular pressure from capitalism. but then again you could say that capitalism won because it was the one still standing.

Jinni, please don't mention the "flypaper" thesis again. Seriously, it's a very stupid theory.

Better writers than me have ripped this whole "fight them over there so we won't have to fight them" trash apart repeatedly. A sampling:

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/08/meanwhile-back-at-ranch.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003631.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/london-bushs-flypape_b_3815.html

http://billmon.org/archives/001995.html

Well, that is the unique American perspective. We never say, oh, that's not our business--we always say--what can WE do to fix it?
I don't mean for it to seem that it is all about us.
It is a kind of global guilt. Why should we have it so good? Why can't we spread it around?

I suppose that we are like great clumsy fat children. Our intentions are good--why doesn't everybody like us?

I do see that.
I'll shut up now.

Jiinilyah,
don't have time to write a magnum opus on the fall of the USSR at the moment, but please do refrain from speaking for all Americans without any qualifiers. I'm American too, and frankly I find it kind of annoying to be lumped in with nearly 300 million people, not all of whom think the U.S. can fix everything, by the way - or why woulld there be such a huge political current of isolationism and "let them fix their own screwed-up countries - why should U.S. soldiers die there?"

Jinni-
You see, there you do it again. I realise it is not intentional. There are other valid positions other than 'What can WE do?' and 'It's not OUR business'. Because even though on the surface these two seem opposites, in the end they are both American-centred.
I hope I conveyed the distinction between an American perspective --because really every American talks from an American perspective -- and being American-centred.

Eva Luna-
Sorry if I appeared to lump you with other Americans. I thought I made sure to put qualifiers. The only place where I hadnt is when I said 'I have yet to meet any American ...' which is true because I really havent.

Hi Ali - I was addressing my comments to Ms. J, not to you; no sweat. Will have more once I dig out from a week's worth of work correspondence - have been out of the office.

As with USSR, I guess what Eva Luna is trying to say that the USSR fell because it was destined to fall.

From the Manichean to the teleological. Great.

Anon-
'From the Manichean to the teleological. Great.'

I dont know how you got a teleological argument from what I said. Perhaps it was my poor choice of words. It is my contention - and I believe Ana Luna's - that by the late 80's the Soviet state was a lost cause, owing to many factors probably least of which is pressure from the United States or capitalism.

I'm not real sure if this is where Eva was coming from with her mention of Baku being a major oil drilling center back in the 19th century, but the idea here seems to me pretty simple: the USSR never really developed a true industrial economy, and lived/lives by selling its unfinished resources to the rest of the world. The game there has always been about being part of the elite who can squeeze money out of the exploitation of said resources. A resource-dependent country is simply never going to be able to give sustained competition to an industrial one. They can for a time, but eventually they fade out. (Yes, I realize there was a big wave of industrialization under Stalin. But it never produced export-worthy goods, and therefore over the long-term the industrial sector was dependent on the success of the resource sector and lived off of that success. Who ever bought a car made in the USSR? Who buys a made in Russia one now?)
Remember, re this, that commodity prices for everything from oil to gold to diamonds collapsed in the eighties. That would have been a major problem for the USSR no matter what.

"Remember, re this, that commodity prices for everything from oil to gold to diamonds collapsed in the eighties. That would have been a major problem for the USSR no matter what."

Indeed, and it may even be fair, if a tad simplistic, to assert that it was "the Wahhabis" that brought down the Soviet Union.

It was "the Wahhabis" , ie Saudis, who recruited and financed the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan that drained Soviet wealth and morale*, while they also kept the oil prices down and undercutting any sustained Soviet income obtaniable through oil resources.

* Drawback that it ended up crashing into New York and Washington, but that's a later issue.