The Golden Mosque Bombing

[Mickey]

The problem is, if the press will not get the message to the people then Bush has to take it.  Communications and dealing with people has been one of his major problems.  He seems to do well with the people and in polls when he does evening conferences.  He needs to call a national address and take the message directly to the people on national TV.  Hell if he needs to he should call a weekly, monthly, whatever national address and force the major networks to show him, and get his message across. 

 

The press corps pretty ignores what is said in the whitehouse briefings, or hides it on page 22. 

 

If he forces the message they will have to make it frontpage.

609321[/snapback]

The bombing story is on the front page of the online ed. of the Washington Post and Bush is quoted three times in the story Mosque Bombing.

 

Its also the lead story in the online NYT where Bush and General Casey are quoted calling for calm and referring to the attack as a crime against humanity. Sectarian Fury

 

It is also the lead story in the online LA Times and Bush is quoted there as well.

Shrine Blast

 

CNN.com also has a featured article on the bombing quoting the President and General Lynch who says the attack has the thumbprints of terrorists all over it.

Sunni Party Quits...

 

Their message is getting out, lets not blame the messengers. The problem is a civil war in Iraq, not the reporting of the NYT or Fox or anyone else. The idea that things are really going swell and it just seems otherwise because the administration is really bad at PR or the Press is ignoring their good PR or some combination does not, I think, survive contact with reality. That doesn't mean that their PR isn't bad or that the press doesn't screw them over, it just means that there is no cause and effect between that and conditions on the ground.

 

If its poll numbers we are talking about, which PR can effect, I think that even if their PR stunk and the Press screwed then over daily, their numbers would be solid, spectacular even, if things in Iraq were just great. They are not.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The bombing story is on the front page of the online ed. of the Washington Post and Bush is quoted three times in the story Mosque Bombing.

 

Its also the lead story in the online NYT where Bush and General Casey are quoted calling for calm and referring to the attack as a crime against humanity.  Sectarian Fury

 

It is also the lead story in the online LA Times and Bush is quoted there as well.

Shrine Blast

 

CNN.com also has a featured article on the bombing quoting the President and General Lynch who says the attack has the thumbprints of terrorists all over it.

Sunni Party Quits...

 

Their message is getting out, lets not blame the messengers.  The problem is a civil war in Iraq, not the reporting of the NYT or Fox or anyone else.  The idea that things are really going swell and it just seems otherwise because the administration is really bad a PR or the Press is ignoring their good PR or some combination does not, I think, survive contact with reality.  That doesn't mean that their PR isn't bad or that the press doesn't screw them over, it just means that there is no cause and effect between that and conditions on the ground.

 

If its poll numbers we are talking about, which PR can effect, I think that even if their PR stunk and the Press screwed then over daily, their numbers would be solid, spectacular even, if things in Iraq were just great.  They are not.

609508[/snapback]

 

Their statements are out. Again, there is a difference between statements and proper public relations. Clinton, for example, made very stupid-ass statements ("Don't ask, don't tell", anyone?), but had great PR.

 

Although at this point, the administration and their image is so fundamentally !@#$ed when it comes to PR, the difference hardly matters anyway.

[Mickey]

Or, someone who wants everyone to think that...

609495[/snapback]

Or someone who wants people to think that there is someone who wants people to think that....

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Well, I think its cummulative.  This may be the worst and most effective attack in terms of bringing about a civil war but it's hardly the only Sunni vs. Shiite clash since we invaded unfortunately.

609481[/snapback]

 

I never said it was the only clash. I just said it was strategically brilliant and extremely cost-effective.

 

As for it being cumulative...most seminal events are. Tet, Gottlieb's MMWR report on AIDS, the Challenger explosion, 9/11...all were punctuation on a series of previous events that heralded massive shifts in perception and/or action. Historical Shi'ia-Sunni conflict in no way weakens the idea that the Golden Mosque bombing has potentially ruined administration policy in the Middle East and touched off an Iraqi civil war.

[Mickey]

Their statements are out.  Again, there is a difference between statements and proper public relations.  Clinton, for example, made very stupid-ass statements ("Don't ask, don't tell", anyone?), but had great PR.

 

Although at this point, the administration and their image is so fundamentally !@#$ed when it comes to PR, the difference hardly matters anyway.

609511[/snapback]

I think the statements they are making are the kind of ones a few here have said they need to make. What would be a better or more effective statement for them to make vs. the one Bush made that I quoted in the lead post?

 

I think its reality that is killing this bunch, not their lack of effective spin. You may be right that at this point their reputation is so bad that its impossible for them to make a good showing no matter what they do but if things were really, truly going well in Iraq, they wouldn't need PR.

 

Good products sell themselves, it just takes longer. Bad products ultimately don't sell even though, with good PR, they will do well initially.

[Mickey]

I never said it was the only clash.  I just said it was strategically brilliant and extremely cost-effective.

 

As for it being cumulative...most seminal events are.  Tet, Gottlieb's MMWR report on AIDS, the Challenger explosion, 9/11...all were punctuation on a series of previous events that heralded massive shifts in perception and/or action.  Historical Shi'ia-Sunni conflict in no way weakens the idea that the Golden Mosque bombing has potentially ruined administration policy in the Middle East and touched off an Iraqi civil war.

609517[/snapback]

I think that we agree that without all that has gone before, the bombing would not have ruined their policy. Its all that, and now this, that has ruined their policy. That and whatever fundamental flaws were present in that policy from the start, aided and abetted, in some respects, by poor execution. Kind of reminds me of the Bills' offense.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think that we agree that without all that has gone before, the bombing would not have ruined their policy.  Its all that, and now this, that has ruined their policy.  That and whatever fundamental flaws were present in that policy from the start, aided and abetted, in some respects, by poor execution.  Kind of reminds me of the Bills' offense.

609584[/snapback]

 

No, we wouldn't. Failure of the policy was not preordained. Even if it were, it does not change the idea that this event has caused the failure of the policy.

 

That also does not excuse whatever errors or defects there were in said policy. Indeed, had Middle Eastern policy been effectively formulated, it would theoretically take into account this sort of event.

[Mickey]

No, we wouldn't.  Failure of the policy was not preordained.  Even if it were, it does not change the idea that this event has caused the failure of the policy. 

 

That also does not excuse whatever errors or defects there were in said policy.  Indeed, had Middle Eastern policy been effectively formulated, it would theoretically take into account this sort of event.

609600[/snapback]

I'm confused. You are not saying that this event, alone has caused the failure of the policy, right? It is not the sine qua non of the failure, is that right?

 

If that were true, what kind of policy is so fragile that it would collapse the minute any Mosque gets bombed?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm confused.  You are not saying that this event, alone has caused the failure of the policy, right?  It is not the sine qua non of the failure, is that right?

 

Yes, I am. Failure is generally attributable to a confluence of events, but precipitated by a single event. The War on Terrorism, again, is a good example: there were a great many events that built up to it, but the precipitating event - the "cause", if you will - was 9/11.

 

"Failure" tends to be like that. Due to the influence of a complex interaction of innumerable variables, but not foreordained - not "caused" - by anything until a single event occurs. Rather like riing a bicycle off a cliff, actually. But by your definition, I could label the root cause of the Iraqi civil war as the Six Days War.

 

If that were true, what kind of policy is so fragile that it would collapse the minute any Mosque gets bombed?

609733[/snapback]

 

The easy answer is "Bush's kind". Though honestly, Clinton's was as fragile as well. As Kerry's would have been, I have no doubt. Really, "the American kind" is probably the correct answer. American foreign policy has a long history of getting blindsided and derailed by unexpected events (e.g. Tet).

[KRC]

The easy answer is "Bush's kind".  Though honestly, Clinton's was as fragile as well.  As Kerry's would have been, I have no doubt.  Really, "the American kind" is probably the correct answer.  American foreign policy has a long history of getting blindsided and derailed by unexpected events (e.g. Tet).

609755[/snapback]

 

Do you think that it is the result of not enough time planning, planners looking to simplify plans, lack of understanding of the dynamics of the region, not having the stomach to finish the job, a combination of the above or other issues not listed? I am talking "American policy", not just one administration.

[Ghost of BiB]

Do you think that it is the result of not enough time planning, planners looking to simplify plans, lack of understanding of the dynamics of the region, not having the stomach to finish the job, a combination of the above or other issues not listed? I am talking "American policy", not just one administration.

609767[/snapback]

 

Speaking as a planner, I think part of the problem is that other than the DOD, nobody knows how to plan. It's not a matter of having ideas and concepts, it's putting them together logically and having a system to make sure you haven't missed anything.

 

This is why Interagency Coordination has become a hot issue. One doesn't only have the problem described above, but nowhere in Government that I'm aware of, is there someone who has "The Plan". Everyone sort of has their own version of their piece of it. Supposedly coordinated, but by the time things get to the levels where approvals for actions take place - those people involved are too high up the food chain to understand planning.

 

There needs to be a JOPES type format and a planning methodology that involves all agencies and is followed by all agencies so everyone has the same operating picture. Rather than a vague directive to "go forth and do good things".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you think that it is the result of not enough time planning, planners looking to simplify plans, lack of understanding of the dynamics of the region, not having the stomach to finish the job, a combination of the above or other issues not listed? I am talking "American policy", not just one administration.

609767[/snapback]

 

Combination of the last three with an idealistic American sense of thinking everyone has an American inside them waiting to get out. A consistent theme in American foreign policy from Vietnam (and presumably before) to now is treating everyone as though they're American. They're not. Ultimately, someone involved in policy needs to realize they're not.

 

And I wouldn't necessarily call it "not having stomach to finish the job" as much as "not having time to finish the job". Tough to have a coherent long-term national foreign policy when your foreign policy direction changes every 4-8 years.

[KRC]

Tough to have a coherent long-term national foreign policy when your foreign policy direction changes every 4-8 years.

609783[/snapback]

 

Don't forget mid-term elections.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Don't forget mid-term elections. 

609787[/snapback]

 

I went by the assumption that their effect, if any, was indirect and minimized, as the executive isn't directly impacted.

 

Particularly in THIS administration, who, when it comes to foreing policy, simply says to Congress "Shut up and have another !@#$ing martini, !@#$s."

[Ghost of BiB]

I went by the assumption that their effect, if any, was indirect and minimized, as the executive isn't directly impacted.

 

Particularly in THIS administration, who, when it comes to foreing policy, simply says to Congress "Shut up and have another !@#$ing martini, !@#$s."

609793[/snapback]

 

Foreign Policy is not in Congress's lane, except to the extent it can be affected by legislation. Don't forget that the dynamics of the world change as well.

 

I though you guys were refering to actual plans, like for Iraq.

[Mickey]

Yes, I am.  Failure is generally attributable to a confluence of events, but precipitated by a single event.  The War on Terrorism, again, is a good example: there were a great many events that built up to it, but the precipitating event - the "cause", if you will - was 9/11. 

 

"Failure" tends to be like that.  Due to the influence of a complex interaction of innumerable variables, but not foreordained - not "caused" - by anything until a single event occurs.  Rather like riing a bicycle off a cliff, actually.  But by your definition, I could label the root cause of the Iraqi civil war as the Six Days War. 

The easy answer is "Bush's kind".  Though honestly, Clinton's was as fragile as well.  As Kerry's would have been, I have no doubt.  Really, "the American kind" is probably the correct answer.  American foreign policy has a long history of getting blindsided and derailed by unexpected events (e.g. Tet).

609755[/snapback]

I don't know, that seems to be a pretty good definition of "fundamentally flawed".

Mabye we didn't expect this but if so, I can't imagine why we wouldn't have. Hasn't there been conflict, violent conflict, between Sunni's and Shiites since we invaded?

 

4/16/05:

 

"The Sunni-Shiite conflict exploded Thursday in Madain, 15 miles southeast of Baghdad, when Sunni militants attacked the town mosque with explosives. National Security Minister Qassem Dawoud said government security forces had the town surrounded and were conducting raids to root out the hostage-takers. He said U.S.-led forces were backing the operation, but the U.S. military said it had no information on the matter." Sunnis attack mosque

 

1/6/04:

 

With the threat of sectarian strife hanging over Iraq's transition, punctuated by mosque takeovers in the southern city of Basra, an explosion at a small Sunni mosque in Baghdad, and the press rife with talk about rivalry across Iraq's great sectarian divide, the imams want to head off potential conflict. Shiites and Sunnis on Edge

 

 

1/9/04:

 

"An explosion ripped through worshippers streaming from a Shiite mosque Friday, killing five people and wounding dozens, and police defused a car bomb outside another nearby mosque." Mosque Blast Kills 5

 

11/20/04:

 

"IRAQI forces, backed by US soldiers, stormed one of the major Sunni Muslim mosques in Baghdad after Friday prayers, opening fire and killing at least three people, witnesses said." Mosque Stormed

 

9/5/03:

 

"Three gunmen have sprayed worshippers with bullets at the end of dawn prayers at a Sunni mosque in Baghdad, wounding three people. "They wanted to harm the unity of Islam," said imam Walid al-Azari at the Quiba mosque. He said the attack took place when three gunmen got out of a pickup truck and opened fire with Kalashnikov rifles. In Najaf, 110 miles south of the Iraqi capital, more than 10,000 worshippers filled the area around the Imam Ali shrine waiting to hear a sermon from Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, whose brother was assassinated in a huge car bombing outside the mosque a week ago. " Gunmen Target Mosque

 

 

Unexpected? Blindsided?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Foreign Policy is not in Congress's lane, except to the extent it can be affected by legislation. Don't forget that the dynamics of the world change as well.

 

As I am aware, thus my conjecture that mid-term elections don't much matter (they DO...but pretty much only in how they're interpereted as a "no confidence" vote or mandate.)

 

I though you guys were refering to actual plans, like for Iraq.

609808[/snapback]

 

Actual plans are arguably part of (or, more accurately, a function of) policy, particularly in that they inherit the biases and assumptions of the policy that dictates them. Thus, we get questionably based plans for "westernizing"and "democratizing" Iraq, based on a policy of stabilizing the Middle East via democratic reform that itself is based on the assumption that "democratic reform" means "Western liberal democratic reform".

[Mickey]

Speaking as a planner, I think part of the problem is that other than the DOD, nobody knows how to plan. It's not a matter of having ideas and concepts, it's putting them together logically and having a system to make sure you haven't missed anything.

 

This is why Interagency Coordination has become a hot issue. One doesn't only have the problem described above, but nowhere in Government that I'm aware of, is there someone who has "The Plan". Everyone sort of has their own version of their piece of it. Supposedly coordinated, but by the time things get to the levels where approvals for actions take place - those people involved are too high up the food chain to understand planning.

 

There needs to be a JOPES type format and a planning methodology that involves all agencies and is followed by all agencies so everyone has the same operating picture. Rather than a vague directive to "go forth and do good things".

609779[/snapback]

Is it possible that maybe no matter how great the plan or how wonderful the interagency coordination, invading Iraq was just a bad idea? I'm just asking.

[Ghost of BiB]

As I am aware, thus my conjecture that mid-term elections don't much matter (they DO...but pretty much only in how they're interpereted as a "no confidence" vote or mandate.)

Actual plans are arguably part of (or, more accurately, a function of) policy, particularly in that they inherit the biases and assumptions of the policy that dictates them.  Thus, we get questionably based plans for "westernizing"and "democratizing" Iraq, based on a policy of stabilizing the Middle East via democratic reform that itself is based on the assumption that "democratic reform" means "Western liberal democratic reform".

609820[/snapback]

 

There, once again, is no plan that I am aware of. Plans involve goals and objectives with end states and measures of effectiveness, among other things. Iraq is (was?) well suited to an ends-ways-means approach to achieve terminal objectives with transition points not only integrating agency/partner tasks to achieve those goals, but in phasing from the military objectives into the ultimate diplomatic objectives.

[Ghost of BiB]

Is it possible that maybe no matter how great the plan or how wonderful the interagency coordination, invading Iraq was just a bad idea?  I'm just asking.

609826[/snapback]

 

From what perspective?

 

I think this could have been a wildly successful activity if it certain things had been done differently upfront.

 

As I said, some people don't know how to plan. Just because you have the power to create and conduct policy doesn't mean you have the skills to implement and execute it.