Create an Account
username: password:
  MemeStreams Logo

MemeStreams Discussion


This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Center for American Progress | The Terrorism Index. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Center for American Progress | The Terrorism Index
by Rattle at 7:02 am EST, Feb 15, 2007

To help determine whether the United States is growing more or less safe, FOREIGN POLICY and the Center for American Progress teamed up once again to survey more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts—Republicans and Democrats alike—in the second FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index. First launched last June, the Terrorism Index is the only comprehensive, nonpartisan effort to mine the highest echelons of the nation’s foreign-policy establishment for its assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Its participants include people who have served as secretary of state and national security advisor, senior White House aides, top commanders in the U.S. military, seasoned intelligence officers, and distinguished academics and journalists. Eighty percent of the experts have served in the U.S. government—more than half in the executive branch, 26 percent in the military, and 18 percent in the intelligence community.

The full report is available in PDF format. There is also video of discussion on YouTube:

RE: Center for American Progress | The Terrorism Index
by noteworthy at 9:28 pm EST, Feb 15, 2007

These results strike me as unsurprising. The effort here seems worthwhile, but analysis of the survey results leaves something to be desired.

First, about the overall question: "Thinking about the present situation, would you say that the world is becoming safer or more dangerous for the United States and the American people?"

There's nothing directly in the question about terrorism. Degrading relations and increasing tensions with North Korea and Iran are not primarily related to "terrorism."

A question about "winning the war on terror" presupposes that: 1) there is a war, beyond its declaration; 2) that "terror" is something against which you can wage war, as distinct from simply raging against it; 3) that "winning" such a war is necessary and important. To my view, none of these are obviously true.

The questions about public diplomacy are valid but not especially helpful. Failure at public diplomacy is not about declining to hire the right ad men. A successful public diplomacy is not even really about leadership; to be sure, a poor leader can screw up big time, but so can a buck private with a digital camera. Rather, achieving success in public diplomacy is the responsibility of the Public. That means You. Why is this seemingly so hard to understand?

I would propose for discussion the hypothesis that no major nation is doing a particularly good job at public diplomacy. Surely our public diplomacy is more effective than that of North Korea, or of Iran. When was the last time you met a North Korean at an industry conference? Have you ever talked with a North Korean about what it's like to live in the countryside? Iran is in somewhat better shape, but the contemporary popular understanding of Iran is dominated by the actions of its President -- to a much greater extent than for the United States, I'd argue.

There is a redundant post from Neoteric not displayed in this view.
Powered By Industrial Memetics