Revolution Overloads Faulty U.S. Grid

Denial is supposedly the first sign of a problem. Swimming against the revolutionary current overtaking the Muslim world, President Barack Obama has fought a dogged perception that U.S. foreign policy cannot focus on multiple areas, that he should have visited Cairo and sent his Secretary of State to Latin America. That his administration is simply overloaded.

The criticism echoed so loud that the White House is actively trying to drown it out.

“Even as the President maintains his focus on international crises in Japan and Libya, he discusses his trip to Latin America to open up markets for US products,” reads its website next to a thoughtful-looking Obama.

The sheer mass of ongoing events in North Africa and the Middle East cannot be denied as an overwhelming force. Evidence of a submerged Washington started to accumulate before the fall of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, as the White House, Pentagon, and Congress struggled to unify their policy and message. Fears of instability, often viewed through the Israeli lens, ran high and new revolutions were demanding attention before Washington could prepare.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, visibly enjoyed a sudden blackout in Afghanistan, drawing concern from the war’s opponents that Obama has completely ceded to David Petraeus’s authority. And Washington validated its distraction from Pakistan after the case of CIA spy Raymond Davis, which spanned from Egypt’s initial uprising to mid-March, ended in political chaos.

Then an 8.9 earthquake struck Japan’s coast, triggering a nightmarish spew of tsunamis and nuclear radiation. Tragedies collided: the plight of the Japanese, and the cold reality that they just diverted international attention and resources away from the Middle East. No time is good for a natural disaster, but the effects of Japan’s earthquake were literally felt around the world. Japan and Libya became a two-person show as the White House and global media shifted away from accelerating revolutions Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Clearly Washington isn’t immune to a system overload; the U.S. media fell equal victim to global demands. Already spread thin by budget cuts, structural change, geography and the political dangers of covering multiple revolutions, U.S. news organizations generally tend to follow Washington’s direction. Slow to respond to Egypt’s revolution, many U.S. journalists had no time to rest before shipping off to Libya. A ThinkProgress analysis of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News conducted from March 14 to March 18 turned up 9,500 mentions of Libya, 1,500 for Bahrain, and 600 in Yemen.

The New York Times writes, “Despite extensive coverage of Libya and Japan, the television networks have had major blind spots. Last week, none of the broadcast networks had correspondents in Bahrain, where the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based, when security forces crushed the protest movement there, nor in Yemen when forces there killed dozens of protesters. The dearth of coverage of Yemen is largely because of its government’s refusal to grant visas to journalists.”

It’s certainly true that Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, deployed a media blanket over his country by limiting entry and deporting those journalists he can catch. Four journalists were famously deported last week but others predated their exit, and Al Jazeera correspondents were deported after catching Friday’s massacre on video. Only now is the world's attention returning to the Middle East, an inevitable result given protesters’ spirited persistence against state oppression.

However the demands of a revolutionary wave only explain half of Washington’s flawed and often sluggish response. That Yemen’s revolution unfolds under a political and media blackout in America is no coincidence. The White House is supposed to block the information curtain to its best ability - and deciding to enforce it completed a system failure.

Revolution in the Muslim world exceeds the ordinary power surge, but it also struck a U.S. foreign policy grid that was outdated and unprepared for an international emergency. A unique disaster didn't overwhelm the strictest precautionary measures. Instead, a lax system built on a crumbling foundation froze on the initial upheaval and has struggled behind the curve ever since. Predicting the revolutionary wave at this particular moment is admittedly difficult, but one could easily perceive the erosion of U.S. policy at an individual and regional level. The system hadn't updated before the power surge struck - wasn't ready for change to the status quo - and needs to be overhauled before a successful reset.

Duplicity and double-standards represent the primary constants in America’s response, not an appeal for universal rights as Obama administration officials insist. And even they are beginning to admit what many others already perceive as obvious: some countries experiencing democratic upheaval are treated differently than others. Libya’s government is treated as an enemy of America and rightly so, but Bahrain's continues to enjoy a cushy blanket. In fact, every threatened government besides Libya is treated leniently by comparison, as if Libya was the only country the West had truly prepared for.

And Saudi Arabia is singled out as the kingmaker, with America as its subservient queen.

"I think we have to be very careful to treat every country differently," Joint Chief of Staff Michael Mullen recently told ABC News. "Bahrain is in a much different situation than Libya. We haven't had a relationship with Libya for a long, long time. The Bahrainis and that country has been a critical ally for decades. So we're working very hard to support a peaceful resolution there, as tragic as it has been, and we certainly decry the violence which has occurred in Bahrain.”

The same argument has been employed in Yemen despite its failure to qualify for Mullen’s description. Washington’s relationship with Saleh cannot be labeled as sincere or historical, only critical, and now U.S. policy is about to be blown out the door. A leading Hashid in Saleh’s own tribe, Sadeq al-Ahmar, joined the opposition movement after Friday’s bloody massacre left over 50 people dead.

Speaking to Al Jazeera (who else), al-Ahmar explained, "The demands of the protesters are the demands of the Yemeni people. I can no longer fool myself, it is not the custom of men or tribes to do so... I mediated with the president to bring change, but it seems that the authority was not that serious... The president's inner circle are not good people for him or the Yemeni people. They are liars, so I have joined the revolution and I support its demands."

So far Washington is still fooling itself in states like Yemen - a gem that fell into an abyss and now lures its greedy hunters to their doom. Yemen managed to make news in the White House and State Department on Monday, but only after being forced upon them by shocking violence. Obama continues to let his spokespeople do his talking and repeat the need for a political dialogue, demonstrating no policy shift over the weekend.

“I think in Yemen you saw some changes in the government that were made yesterday,” replied Ben Rhodes, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, when confronted with Sunday’s army defections and a fired cabinet. “I think our view is that there’s clearly going to have to be a political solution in Yemen that includes a government that is more responsive to the Yemeni people. That has been our consistent message to President Saleh. John Brennan actually spoke with President Saleh yesterday to discuss developments in Yemen.”

By this time Yemen's Defense Minister, Mohammed Nassar Ali, had vowed to defend “democracy” against a “coup.” When Saleh consistency rebuffs the message, it’s time for a new message.

The White House stands out all the more in Saleh’s lonely corner after a government exodus delivered its new message. Worse still, U.S. officials appear visibly uncomfortable when addressing Yemeni policy. With Obama and Clinton staying off record and Brennan limiting himself to the backroom, Rhodes and the State Department's Mark Toner were left to fend for themselves in a foreign realm. Toner’s response in particular flopped like a fish out of water.

A lengthy discussion on Libya eventually gave way to Yemen when reporters questioned the double standard: vocal and active versus silent and inactive. One journalist listed the White House's private calls to Saleh and wondered why the U.S. continues to support him when he's stopped listening. Toner essentially repeats the question before stating, “any government has to support political change that meets the aspirations of the Yemeni people," when they’re calling for his immediate exit. Toner also urged Saleh to follow through on an investigation into Friday - as if he had nothing to do with the killings.

The journalist then rephrases her question once more: “Why is the U.S. trusting someone who has committed these apparent acts of humanitarian violence against his own people? Does it come down to the assistance provided against AQAP?”

Toner mumbles something about, “Our assistance is based on trying to address the inequities that exist and trying to build a prosperous economy. Beyond that, it’s not a quid pro quo or anything.”

Except U.S. assistance only recently increased its humanitarian funds after a military-centric policy drew widespread criticism, locally and internationally. Yemen was set for $250 million in military assistance and around $150 million in humanitarian aid when the revolution struck, with talks of $1.6 billion in military funds over six years. U.S. weapons have been employed on protesters, the majority of which are protesting because no one alleviated their political and economic inequality.

Nor does Toner explain why Washington still trusts Saleh when few do in his own country. He even repeats Obama's standard phrase, “This is about the Yemeni people... it’s not about what the U.S. wants to see.” But until now the U.S. wanted to see Saleh in power, and the connection between political support and military assistance is glaringly obvious.

One reporter finally remarks “the silence is deafening,” prompting Toner to defend Obama as outspoken. This response elicits muffled objection from the involved reporters, now irritated with Toner’s non-responses. They know Obama has only issued several brief statements on Yemen, opting to hide behind counter-terrorism and national security officials who have no business delivering a political message on the current scale. Another reporter ultimately compares Yemen's silence to Egypt, and a short discussion ends inconclusively with a lead-in to Japan.

All in all, an accurate impression of U.S. policy in Yemen: contradictory, ambiguous, and fading away.

A case-by-case response appears to make some sense on the surface. People cannot be expected to behave the same among friends and enemies, and some countries may require a different remedy than other. However, this thinking contradicts the ideal of universal freedom and human rights. Varying reactions to similar crises has created an overt double standard and increased the difficulty in responding. And by removing himself under the false excuse “this is about them,” Obama has ceded whatever charisma he possesses and muddied America’s overall image.

Perceived at a deeper level, the politically effective and morally sound response takes a universal stand behind democratic movements. Simplification enables an easier response without simplifying the problem. A sharper message creates real consistency, not the false consistency preached by the White House, and would eliminate the doubt consuming its energy. Additional eyes won't correct flawed policy, and Obama only has a short time to ask himself whether he wants Saleh’s downfall to end like Mubarak’s - on the fence.

Is that the consistency he wants to be remembered for?

Winning the Information War With Al Jazeera

Hillary Clinton recently found herself providing a credibility boost to Al Jazeera, and not in a general sense.

Trying to leverage their unique coverage of revolution in the Muslim world, officials from the news organization’s fledgling English channel spent the last month pitching themselves to U.S. cable providers, including Comcast, Time Warner, and Cablevision. The 24-hour channel is only available in roughly three million households, with partial airings on Link TV (provided by Direct TV). And despite Al Jazeera’s accelerated online growth, cable companies remain on the fence as to whether the channel is viable in the long-term. Clinton’s words should help change their minds if they want to flourish in the new media age.

But the debate over Al Jazeera extends far beyond its quality versus the quality of U.S. news, as supporters of both sides tend to gravitate around. Only twenty years ago “the CNN effect” of America’s vast media apparatus was considered critical to shaping domestic and global perceptions of U.S. foreign policy. Now, as more Americans tune to international news out of necessity - not just for a wider opinion - at one point does America’s media become a strategic liability?

What about right now?

Clinton’s statements obviously didn’t play well with U.S. media officials; representatives from CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC declined comment for days after she addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. And their point of view is partially understandable from a business angle. In their eyes Clinton hit below the belt when she deemed them “fake news,” true or not.

“In fact viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,” she told Senators. “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”

The media’s collective reaction, however, reveals the exact illness plaguing U.S. news organizations and cable providers. Somewhat surprising is how quickly Clinton’s venue became an afterthought in the ensuing controversy. She hadn't sidetracked a random function or condemned America’s media before a group of journalists, but outlined national priorities to Congress. And a diamond of truth lies concealed in her remarks. “We are engaged in an information war and we are losing that war,” she warns, and information warfare is a vital component of fourth-generation warfare (4GW).

4GW, which splices the political and military, government and civilian beyond separation, also happens to be the type of warfare America faces in its current wars, proxy wars, and near-term threats. And media executives tend to make poor 4GW analysts.

Fox News Channel's Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news, provided an example of ignorance by breaking silence: "We've got leadership issues there, the safety of people, the safety of our own people. Some big issues. All of a sudden there are headlines about Al Jazeera versus the news in this country? It's just surprising. Curious more than surprising."

Spoken like someone not just on the defensive, but holding a weak grasp of 4GW and the significance of perceptions. U.S. news is consumed globally, not nationally, and should be produced as such. Like Al Jazeera.

The state of U.S. media during a historic period like the 2010s is a big issue, and finding an answer is Washington’s problem. America's mainstream media has stumbled into a business environment that it doesn’t fully understand - bad business as it is. Now executives are forced to make political decisions on the Middle East’s long-term trajectory, despite their own news organizations' struggles to keep up with events. Believing Al Jazeera English may be perceived as a “niche” channel and concerned that Americans will eventually lose interest, they ask whether the revolutionary spirit will subside over the year or surge across the decade.

“This is strictly a business decision,” says a Comcast source.

But Al Jazeera isn’t just business if the White House has to get its news overseas. Al Anstey, managing director of Al Jazeera English, argues with good reason, “we’re watched by the president, by the White House; why are we not being seen by people across the United States of America that want to watch us?”

At a time when the global information war assumes a national priority, the U.S. media has become a disadvantage in projecting America’s foreign policy at home and abroad. Al Jazeera English is no temporary fad, and the Muslim world’s monumental shift towards democracy and expression will produce far reaching effects in space and time. After spiking near CNN levels (the highest ranked U.S. news source online), Al Jazeera's website traffic in America returned to a stable level below major sites like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Time. However America still supplies 17% of Al Jazeera's online views, roughly equivalent to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria combined, placing the site within the U.S. mainstream. It has also pulled near Fox News.

If worst comes to worst, what’s so wrong with a “niche” channel that provides educational benefits? And why are capitalists suddenly afraid of a little competition? Diversity and outside opinion aren’t supposed to be negative influences in a free society.

On the up side, the Middle East and North Africa could be resetting after hundreds of years of colonial intervention, a process that might span a number of decades. And Al Jazeera is poised to capitalize on this historic period, having generated a mutual network by bridging the West and Muslim world. The U.S.'s media lag is becoming more pronounced because, even as it learns another language, it cannot surpass Al Jazeera’s inherent multilingualism and cultural awareness. This disadvantage also leaves no time for the U.S. media to delay expanding their operations, programming, and understanding of the Muslim world.

Clinton doesn’t sound any happier about the current state of U.S. media than Fox News. She isn't catering to the left; on the contrary, she believes Al Jazeera’s rise has forced America’s hand in states that conservatives wish to leave alone (Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen). Grim in delivering her assessment and repeating the phrase “love or hate it,” Clinton simplified the information war as “us or them.” America is “losing that war” - and “Al Jazeera is winning.”

This is the wrong way of thinking.

She then speaks correctly when arguing of the Muslim world, “I mean we think they know us and reject us, I would argue the really don’t know very much about who we are.” While Al Jazeera isn't free of viewing the information war as a polarity, and its parent network’s programming often targets U.S. policy, its core philosophy also aims to share information with America and Europe. This is key to why Western populaces increasingly perceive Al Jazeera English as friendly, whereas the Muslim world perceives the U.S. media as hostile.

In contrast to America's current media blanket, a diverse media and educated populace favors U.S. national interests, and Al Jazeera can assist in this regard. More informed voters elect more qualified officials, then hold them accountable, a process that theoretically translates to sounder policy at home and abroad (maybe that’s part of the push-back against Al Jazeera).

Furthermore, the U.S. media must represent a deeper portrait of American society, and encourage information and cultural exchange with the Muslim world. Although wars cannot be prevented simply by “winning” the information battle, familiarization can help reduce political and social friction that enables conflict between two cultures. The objective should be to humanize instead of dehumanize. To illuminate the unknown.

“We cannot live in a world where a story like Egypt - which has consequences for the whole world - is unfolding and your audience doesn't know anything about it or enough about it,” says Abderrahim Foukara, Al Jazeera's Washington bureau chief.

Can U.S. foreign policy survive in this world? And most importantly, do Americans want to live in it?