Duh

I am still waiting for the press to explicitly acknowledge that terrorism as a strategy is communicative, that there is method to the madness, that it is centered on gaining, yes, media attention. An old rhetoric professor of mine used to say (uh, to be clear, "old" as in "back in the day" not old as in "he's old") "Great art conceals art." If you want to defuse a strategy, unpack it, make it clear, lay it out, articulate it.

Here's the Times on yesterday's attack on the Palestine:

Though the death toll was far lower than in many recent suicide attacks, the significance of the assault went beyond casualty statistics. The two high-rise hotels, the Palestine and the Sheraton, have been symbols of the foreign presence in Iraq and have been the bases for Western news organizations and foreign security contractors since the American-led invasion 30 months ago.

Yes, yes, it's symbolic! You got it! It's not about casualties! For God's sake crack the code! Lay it out! Explain it! Isn't this a place for one of your vaunted "News Analysis" pieces?

But, no. You will search in vain for the paragraph that goes further, that explains explicitly that the whole point of the attack was to target the media so that even a failed attack would get maximum attention. (And, hey, look what's happened. None of the three vehicles, thank God, actually made it to the hotel. And it's clear from the size of the explosions, and the damage done anyway, that had they gotten through, the attack would have been devastating. Yet the attack is still getting enormous amounts of coverage, the footage of the explosions are being played over and over, and let's just say the frame of the coverage isn't a focus on the fact that quick responses from Iraqi and American security forces averted a tragedy.)

The coverage simply isn't self-reflexive enough to discuss the strategy as a strategy, perhaps because doing so would require admitting that the terrorists have a fairly sophisticated understanding of how the Western media works -- that the terrorists have cracked their code.

There's more here:

For the past several weeks, Iraqi and American military officials had been warning that insurgents might stage a series of spectacular attacks to disrupt the constitutional referendum on Oct. 15. But on that day, there were fewer than 90 attacks across Iraq, a quarter of the number of attacks during the January election, and only nine of them were in Baghdad, none with major casualties.

That was hailed as evidence that the command was gradually wearing down the Islamic militants who have been responsible for many of the suicide bombings that have caused a high proportion of the civilian casualties in the war. Such claims have often been followed closely by major attacks, as if the insurgents have been aiming to discredit American claims of progress in the war.

Jeez, ya think? There's just a refusal to acknowledge or deal with the fact that these attacks are about more than simply ratcheting up the body count or creating chaos, that these guys are running a media strategy and that they're doing so in a very sophisticated way. Is it just beyond imagining that these guys are aware of what's going on in the media? Obviously they're net savvy -- and the press know that, since they quote (and borrow from) their web sites all the time. They're also savvy about other forms of media (and the press are aware of that) given their use of al Jazeera. Why wouldn't they also be aware of what's up with Western outlets?

The press has utterly forgotten its embarassment over the way it was used and manipulated by various terrorist groups in the 1980s. I'm not suggesting they're being used in the same way now; I'm suggesting there is a history of these groups being extraordinarily sophisticated in their use of Western (particularly American) media, and the press needs to be aware of and senstive to that -- and make their audience aware of and sensitive to that.

Update: Bill Roggio offers all sorts of other strategic considerations that won't be discussed by the media. I noticed that as of a few minutes ago (just before 3pm, so, more than 24 hours after the attack) MSNBC was still replaying their footage of the blasts. Part of that, no doubt, is that they rarely have such spectacular footage, but part of it is the fact that they were the target. If they had spectacular footage of an attack elsewhere, that had not succeeded, would they continue to play it over and over? I think not, particularly given that it is now being reported that the 2,000th casualty milestone has just been reached.

To be fair to MS, they are putting attention on the fact that the quick reactions of an American soldier saved the day. (Although I was absolutely stunned that they had that soldier on, and named him. Obviously this was cleared by the Army -- his commanding officer was standing right next to him -- but when was the decision made that identifying soldiers who had foiled terrorist attacks was a good idea?)

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

The media doesn't care and isn't _being used_. It's a synergy of the terrorists and the media audience. The media caters to the audience.

The outrage would be that they put business before country or American lives.

No news analysis piece is going to reveal the audience to itself (``They attacked because you idiots suck up such footage, morons that you are, and we sell your eyeballs to advertisers.'' Yet that's the truth.)

[Chap]

Christopher Allbritton wrote for Time on this, and he has a blog post up about it that you've got to read to believe. More info at my place.

[Carol]

I followed the link from chapomatic and find your take on this really interesting.

My first thoughts were that it had something to do with Rory Carroll's quick catch and release. I'm sure I read a report that said the terrorists' plan was to take over the hotel and hold the journalists inside as hostages.

So, a way to say "you journalists are still at risk" - plus maybe a smokescreen for a big ransom, that's how my mind works!

But your idea of it being a propaganda stunt makes an awful lot of sense.

Michael Collins (1890-1922) the father of urban guerrilla warfare, was a master of propaganda and often staged ambushes in order to encourage outrageous counter reactions from the British Auxiliaries - the results of which he then had printed up and posted to every newspaper editor in England and the States.

I'm glad this has overshadowed the soldier death "milestone". They've done us a favour in providing a story about a failed attack plus great footage which will have pushed everything else from the front of the queue.