Propaganda wars

As pointed out by others, one key message the US and coalition forces in Afghanistan should be putting out is being totally overlooked; The Taliban and other insurgents are responsible for just as many, if not more, civilian deaths.

Yet the PR teams have generally remained on the defensive concerning civilian casualties, without bringing more public attention to the brutality of insurgents.

This could be about to change; the US forces are weighing the option of releasing a video they claim will show the actions taken in Garani, where 25 civilians died in an air strike, will justify their deaths. Even if the video clearly shows, as they claim, that the Taliban hiding among civilians, I highly doubt proving the use of human shields will have any affect whatsoever on Afghan civilians, most of whom despise the Taliban in any case.

However, if it is true that the video shows the Taliban holding civilians captive, and particularly if it also shows them killing civilians with hand grenades after the air strike, this may indeed help in the propaganda war.

Yet here again, the fact that the Taliban not only use civilians as human shields but commit unjust murders is not the focus of the message, but the justification of civilians deaths.

US General David Petraeus says the video will justify the actions of the forces and show that they successfully targeted Taliban fighters. Perhaps the emphasis should be more on the actions of the Taliban, not only hiding among civilians but forcing them into a trap and killing them to place the blame on US forces.

Perhaps the main problem is that those tasked with public relations in Kabul remain far more concerned about PR regarding their home populations than combating Taliban and Al Qaeda propaganda among local populations. (In Pakistan, the beating of a young girl by the Taliban in the Swat Valley helped to inflame public anger at the group there.)

"Recording an ongoing body count is hardly going to endear us to the people of Afghanistan," says British Royal Navy Capt. Mark Durkin, spokesman ISAF, told the Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on the arguments over the usefulness of body counts in public relations to communicate victory:

“Does it buck up the troops and the home front to let them know the enemy is suffering, too? Or does the focus on killing distract from the goals of generating legitimacy and economic development?"

I think it's become pretty clear that in Afghanistan body counts are not the point.

In fact, it seems that only the American public is interested in them, and I would be interested to see some research on how many Americans actually think high body counts communicate success, especially amid the numerous reports that we are fighting an uphill battle in parts of Afghanistan. Body counts were also touted as measures of success in Vietnam for a time.

The governments of European contributors to ISAF forces do not release body counts except in rare instances.

Indeed in the Israel/Palestine conflict, the body counts of Palestinian killed versus IDF forces are always far higher. However this has not led to any cessation in the conflict and has only radicalized more Palestinians.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have made excellent use of civilian deaths caused by Coalition forces in their propaganda, undermining the claims of the US and ISAF that they are not intent on killing Muslims. Both groups have shown in their public statements that they follow international news media and use what they find there to show that they are winning. With ideologies that rest on the willingness of numerous volunteers to either commit suicide attacks or fight to the death, as well as reinforcements from abroad, body counts have little relevance regarding foot soldiers.

The Taliban and affiliated groups have also begun warning civilians to stay away from certain areas, such as government buildings and certain markets, to reduce civilian casualties and create a perception that they do not kill Muslim civilians unless they are somehow collaborating. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have lost a great deal of support thanks to killing civilians, and these groups are pro-actively developing some of their propaganda around this key point while NATO and the US remain on the defensive.

Another interesting point the WSJ makes is that body counts are highly unreliable. The Taliban typically remove their dead after a fight. Thus US forces then must monitor funerals and communications to confirm which insurgents were killed, if any. This leaves a great deal of room for error.

The other side to this is publicizing the developmental successes to local populations and finding a way to root out the endemic corruption that has taken hold. In some areas, Coalition forces are welcomed, in others they are reluctantly tolerated.

In any case, winning the propaganda war among Afghans may be an uphill battle as long as violence and corruption persists.