Opinion

The Great Debate

The “missing battle” of 9/11

By Andrew Hammond
September 7, 2011

By Andrew Hammond
The opinions expressed are his own.


Almost 10 years after 9/11, the United States has a new window of opportunity to regain the initiative in the “missing battle” of the campaign against terrorism. That is, a sustained soft power effort to win the battle for hearts and minds in predominantly Muslim countries.

The US and wider Western response to the September 2001 attacks has been dominated by counter-terrorism and military might. While key successes have been achieved, including the unseating of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, an overwhelming emphasis on hard power has fueled controversy across much of the world.

Even former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged the problem when, in 2006, he asserted that the United States “probably deserves [only] a ‘D’ or a D-plus’ as a country as to how well we’re doing in the battle of ideas” [in the anti-terrorism campaign], and that “we have to find a formula as a country” for countering the jihadist message.

However, the death of Osama bin Laden, especially when taken in combination with the ongoing Arab Spring, offers a new window of opportunity for policymakers to re-emphasize the importance of soft power in the campaign against terrorism. As President Barack Obama said, this must include an “alternative narrative” for a disaffected generation in predominantly Muslim countries.

According to the just-released annual findings of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, in 9 out of 13 key countries for which relevant time series data is available, significantly fewer people think favorably of the United States in 2011 than before 9/11. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in predominantly Muslim countries. In Turkey, for instance, US favorability ratings have declined precipitously from 52% in 2000 to 10% in 2011. In Pakistan, the fall-off is from 23% in 2000 to 12% in 2011.

Of the predominantly Muslim states which Pew surveys only Indonesia (where Obama lived for several years as a boy) has a majority — 54% — currently expressing favorability toward the United States. However, even this number has fallen from 75% in 2000. This global trend, which is also replicated (albeit not as severely) in many other parts of the world, is so serious because of the erosion of US soft power — the ability to influence the preferences of others derived from the attractiveness of a state’s values, ideals and government policies. History underlines the key role that soft-power instruments, which include diplomacy, economic assistance and strategic communications, have played in obtaining desirable outcomes in world politics.

For example, the United States skillfully used soft resources after World War II to encourage other countries into a system of alliances and institutions, such as NATO, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN. The Cold War was subsequently won by a strategy of containment and cultural vigor that combined soft and hard power.

Like the Cold War, the challenges that are posed by the campaign against terrorism cannot be met by hard assets alone. This is especially so as the anti-terrorism contest is one whose outcome is related, in significant part, to a battle between moderates and extremists within Islamic civilization.

This factor is, ironically, very well understood within the top echelons of Al Qaeda. For instance, Ayman al Zawahiri asserted that “more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media … We are in a media battle for the hearts and minds”.

It is precisely in this context of winning Muslim “hearts and minds” that 10 years after 9/11, Obama now has a precious political window of opportunity to re-launch the campaign against terrorism. Seizing the moment would require the United States giving higher priority, as it did during the Cold War, to activities such as public diplomacy, broadcasting, development assistance and exchange programs.

American public diplomacy is in particular need of revitalization. Here, Obama should fully resource and implement the “strengthening US engagement with the world” strategic initiative launched last year. This identifies many priorities, including better combating the messages of violent extremists, and ensuring that US policy is better informed by an understanding the thoughts of foreigners.

A re-launched anti-terrorism campaign would continue, of course, to include a significant military and counter-terrorism component. However, barring a major new attack on the US homeland, or that of a key ally, hard power could be de-emphasized in relative importance, including through the planned withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan from 2011-13.

Photo: A girl stands next to a U.S. soldier from Task Force Bronco, 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry on a patrol in Rodat district in Jalalabad, Afghanistan September 5, 2011. Picture taken September 5, 2011. REUTERS/Erik de Castro

Comments
2 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

The best public diplomacy we could practice would be to abandon this crazy campaign for full spectrum dominance, for corporate/military hegemony, for oil resources belonging to others.

Posted by ChrisHerz | Report as abusive
 

The greatest terrorists in all of this were those in the Bush administration who used 9/11 to carry out their pre-planned invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us. The Iraqis did not attack us. Neither was a threat to our security. Get real. Oil and oil pipelines and hundreds of billions in private contracts set the post 9/11 decade in motion. Think of what might have been if the SC had not appointed GW Bush to the presidency. No wars. No deaths. No terror campaign to keep Americans in war mode.
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911 -facts/48/20581-you-only-believe-the-off icial-911-story-because-you-dont-know-th e-official-911-story-.html

Posted by shadow7 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •