The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by David Keck:

(I might have said "aforementioned" thingamajig now that I look closely).

Look I'm being vaguely helpful! Here's a thingamajig from an Advertising Standards Authority that's practically a guidebook to tuning your offensiveness.

I'm bringing it with me next time I talk to the English (just in case).

(Regarding the word "Mediocrity" at #28

Mediocrity has a pretty negative load in common parlance, I think. (Bad connotations; maybe even bad denotations). Mediocrity is the state of being mediocre -- not moderate. Most English speakers would take offense at having their efforts termed "mediocre." Your random dictionary will typically support this definition.)

Terry,

I agree that most of what gets defined as "security theatre" has a corrosive effect on morale.

All I'd hoped to say was that, although "security theatre" might be cynical and misguided, such ploys are engaging with the enemy in the struggle for public opinion.

It seems to me that, when a government realizes that it's playing for public opinion and not fighting for trenches and machine gun nests, we might have a first glimmer of a functional strategy.

Of course, my thesis hangs on the vain hope that a Western power will recognize that it's the enemy it's trying to win over.

I think it's fair to say that, for a very long time now, the foreign policies of the Western powers have provoked outrage and dispair in many quarters of the world. I'm hoping we might take more intelligent and farther reaching action to reduce such strong negative feelings (because they are so dangerous).

My contention: Be nice and cut the legs out from under the radicals.

(What as altruism, cynicism and socialism merge).

Ford is right that governments have been posturing for their home crowds for a long time. (And we have all seen nations driven into war and worse by such inward-looking foreign policies).

My hope was that somewhere, someday a government might finally extend the principle.

When I talked publicity stunt, I was hoping to drag in "cynical" ploys such as responsibility in foreign trade, the avoidance of close alliances with the world's more brutal dictatorships, steering clear of high-handed brute force activity, etc.. Treating the citizens of other nations with respect is the kind of "stunt" I intended to imply.

It may be that I'm excessively cute when I pretend that PR ploys like checking bags at the opera or sending the infantry to the airports are really playing that game (no matter how badly).

In my mind, the problem is that most Western goverments haven't realized that they're fighting for the public opinion of their opponents... and that they are losing.

~D

To Ulrika and Erik:

I suppose my notion is that a move like S's was at least playing the same PR game as the opposition. (I think I allowed that the move may have been more-or-less successful).

Here was my thinking:

When Western powers attacked a relatively diffuse international radical movement with tactics that might have been better suited to toppling a nation state, they provoked ill-feeling and drove more and more of the majority in the region to support (or join) their radical opposition.

If Western counter-terrorism efforts are to succeed, the West must fight the right battle: wherever possible, they must reduce the motivation of those who oppose them. They must urge the majority away from the radicals. (And this might require a close look at how Western policies affect the lives of our neighbour nations out East).

I do not imagine that it's possible to utterly remove the ideological differences that will drive some people to extremism (even domestically). But the West might be clever enough to move such extremist to the lunatic fringe.

While I might argue that beefing up apparent security is probably not the best move, it is a PR play. And that is the game.

Hi guys --

Lemme do the devil's advocate dance for a moment:

If the intention of bombing plots is to knock the morale of the target populace, then any action which positively influences that morale is a direct counter-attack. (ie. A false sense of security is the best antidote to an exaggerated threat?)

While such moves may seem to be little more than publicity stunts, publicity may just be the name of the game.

While calling out the national guard is a vaguely reasonable PR move on a local, tactical level, I can't help but wish that the west was doing a better job playing such games on a strategic, global level. We seem very slow to recognize that our economic and political decisions provoke desperation and outrage among our neighbours, providing plenty of fuel to radical movements.

It seems to me that actions like propping up dictatorships to promote stability and expanding the more ruthless brands of economic exploitation were once practical effective (if immoral). When distances were great and individuals nearly powerless, an unscrupulous foreign policy could treat people on the other side of the world very badly. Now, however, I feel as though we need to behave more politely with our neighbours. There are no far corners of this world.

I've mumbled this elsewhere, but we're getting close to the MADness of the old cold warriors these days: a time where everyone can be dangerous and we must be careful about who we provoke.

Stick a few guys with machine guns in the airports to make the populace feel like you're on the ball. Okay. Although it may create more fear than it allays, at least the right game is being played. Maybe we can start to play a better PR game overseas fewer people would be worried about coming after us.

~D

Comment statistics for David Keck on the Making Light blog

Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.