Messaging the Enemy

I'm actually not so sure that it is possible to generate crisp statements of principle on something as complex and, frankly, poorly defined as terrorism. I'm writing this post before diving into Powers's article, so perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, but I think the first order of business is to educate the public that "war on terrorism" is a foolish, counterproductive approach. It paints a black and white world, when there are oh-so-many shades of gray. But how do leaders explain complexity using simple terms, I just don't know. When it comes to fear, shades of gray just do not compute. Life vs. death is a binary choice, so most expect our policy should be as clear-cut and this is why the Republican approach of us vs. them, kill or be killed holds sway. How do we move from that clearly understandable, even if wrongheaded, position to one that is smarter, but a lot more difficult to distill into pithy statements and one-way-or-the-other decisions?

In the Cold War days, policy nuance was actually possible because the Communist enemy was at least operating with the same strategy -- territorial control to gain political control. "Winning the hearts and minds" was a "simple" matter of getting more people in more countries on your side. Now with a diffuse enemy that is essentially nihilistic, such a calculus no longer applies. How do you fight back against an enemy that has no interest in self-preservation?

As you can see, I have no answers, which is what makes blogging so relaxing. I can spout off at the mouth (i.e., keyboard) and am accountable to no one. Unfortunately, way too many columnists who are paid to do what they do, have adopted the same attitude.