Propaganda
Video: ISAF Media.
Over the last few weeks, I have been studying the US military's use of social media for propaganda and community building purposes. Facebook now has fan sites devoted to ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), USFORA (US Forces in Afghanistan), the new US embassy in Kabul, EUCOM, USO, FORSCOM, CENTCOM, etc.
The target audience for these sites appears to be the loyal families and friends of soldiers and diplomats. What interests me is the characteristics of the community that posts responses to the news items.
The majority of comments are simply wishes and prayers for the success of the various missions and the safe return of their loved ones as well as expressions of gratitude for the service of the soldiers. (There are also regular posts by new comers seeking to locate a family member and/or the activities of a particular platoon, which cannot be revealed for security reasons). In other words, the majority of those who comment are relatively apolitical well wishers. However, I have noticed some interesting patterns among those who post comments more frequently:
1. Many of those who post frequently seem to be frustrated that the type of "good news" and "good works" covered by these fan sites are not featured more frequently in the main stream media (MSM) in the US and the media in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others believe that the MSM at home and abroad is simply unfair and biased against NATO forces. For example, here is a comment from a story reporting that ISAF evacuated a child injured by a roadside bomb:
GR: "When we kill, by mistake, civvies there are frequently protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is the populace continually informed of civilian casualties caused by Islamic terrorists ?"
There is no attempt to ascertain why a professional newspaper editor might refuse to run media content produced directly by the military. In essence, there seems to be little awareness that the fan sites are disseminating propaganda. (In the comment above, there is also an assumption that occupying forces only kill civilians by mistake rather than as part of a deliberate strategy to shift risks onto the civilian population in order to limit harm to occupying forces. The believe that US forces are paladins is usually accompanied by the characterization of the enemy as unconstrained and ruthless.).
2. There is a deep distrust of the people of Afghanistan. The most racist and insensitive comments are quickly deleted by moderators (one racist comment I saw called the Afghans "sand niggers" before it was deleted by moderators). However, there is a rather constant stream of comments which seek to imply that the people of Afghanistan are ungrateful and likely to switch sides or back stab the coalition in the future. For example in response to the comment above, a different individual wrote:
CMVF: "To me Civves there are just future terrorists so no biggie."
It should be noted that there is occasional push back against the repeated slurs about the occupied population. For example, in response to CMVF's post, we see:
KRN: "That's asinine [CMVF]. Those civilians are a large part of the reason we're there in the first place- so they can be free and safe to run their country without Taliban and other terrorist influence. Shame on you."
Another commenter adds:
TM: "Wow [CMVF], pretty sure you don't have any loved ones serving or you might not have made that comment. My son, a Marine, when asked about how he feels about possibly killing someone, said the "bad guys" don't weigh heavily on the mind but killing or injuring an innocent does. Obviously the Taliban have no such discretion. A child is always an innocent. And the Taliban could be saying all of our kids will grow up to be racist or the part of the KKK or whatever other looney group is ascribed to America......and you'd be the first to argue against that."
3. There is a general confusion between the category of insurgent and terrorist (or the more frequently used label on these fan sites: "Islamic terrorist"). There seems to be a pervasive belief that all of the enemies of the occupying forces are ipso facto terrorists. Even if an insurgent uses standard guerrilla tactics against military targets, they are labelled as terrorists or Islamic terrorists. (The attempt to forge a link between one of the largest religions in the world and terrorism generally goes unchallenged.)
4. There seems to be a general confusion as to why the US and NATO forces are involved in the war. For example, in a discussion of a video showing basic training for the Afghan National Army, one commentator noted:
JE: "[LB], its not about toleration, its about history. People need to want help to help them. We gove [sic] them "democracy" They vote for who their Trinal [sic] leader tells them to, blindly. I talk to them every day. Our nation is in a financial meltdown. we have spent so much money in Iraq nad [sic] now here, but we have a massive forclosure [sic] and unemployment rate to deal with. We give their Police a bonus to come cover the election in the south, after they get the bonus, one quarter defects out of the south and keeps the money. You read media shit about this place, I am here. That is how it works here."
This is the rhetoric of the white man's burden. The commentator (a US soldier in Afghanistan) does not understand that the mission of the US in Afghanistan was to impose regime change with bayonets. When the local population does not accept an alien and imposed form of governance, they are viewed as hostile to the generous, enlightened, and good natured occupying forces. There is an assumption that a rejection or reworking of the imposed form of governance implies a retreat towards blind obedience rather than an attempt to syncretically adapt an instrument of liberal democracy to more familiar modes of governance.
The commentator is not critical of the claim that US forces are there to give the gift of democracy (much less the idea that democracy can be given by an occupying army or the conflation of elections with democratic governance more broadly). Of course, even a cursory investigation into the initial appointment of the head of state after the Taliban were overthrown should pose sufficient questions about the relative importance attached to democracy by the US.
There is also frustration expressed about the unwillingness of the local people to "want to help themselves." The commentator does not understand why the Afghan soldier or police officer is not sufficiently motivated by an economic bonus to risk his life implementing a form of government desired by the occupying forces. The assumption here is that the American soldier is benevolently risking his life to give the gift of democracy. There is no attempt to question why the Afghan soldier or police officer who is paid a pittance should not be paid the same salary and lifetime benefits as the US soldier for taking the same risk. When I engaged this commentator and informed him that in fact the ANA and ANP take greater risks and have suffered much higher casualties than coalition troops, he replied that his main concern was about the waste of money in trying to train individuals who will do things their own way anyway.
It seems that for those who come to believe the propaganda they are fed by the military, their world becomes increasingly frustrated. Like the Han Chinese who are occupying Tibet and Xinjiang, the Russian Soviets in Central Asia, or the Indian armed forces in the vale of Kashmir, the occupiers cannot understand why the local population resents and resists their will. While the propaganda may sustain the morale of family and friends, it generates increasing hostility (and/or paternalism) toward the occupied population.
Labels: afghanistan, homefront, south asia, us