An American Millennium?

Since September 11, 2001 and America’s declaration of a “War on Terrorism,” there have been repeated declarations that the battle is as much for hearts and minds as it is for military or economic security. Even if the War on Terrorism is a new organising or rationalising concept for US foreign policy, the battle for hearts and minds began long before the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. Both the projection and study of US diplomacy and power has been bound up with such declarations, from Manifest Destiny to Wilsonianism through to Kennedy’s New Frontier, all encompassed the notion of “America” as the embodiment of universal values. Indeed, less than two years before the events of 9-11, President Clinton spoke of the American Century moving seamlessly into an American Millennium. In the wake of the attacks of September 11, many questioned the continuing validity of such a sentiment. However, the idea of an American Millennium was not abandoned in the wake of the Al-Qaeda assault; rather, the attack served as a catalyst for a reinvigorated, arguably more “fundamentalist” campaign for Americanism around the world.

As Liam Kennedy has demonstrated through his study of Joel Meyerowitz photography and 9-11, projection is much more than Presidential speechmaking. The power of the “image” is repeatedly used to embody and project an American freedom that has survived recent traumas to renew itself. The two methods can become blurred however and it is that blurring that this paper intends to address.

The blurring between policy and image is clear to see on the State Department’s web site. The department is a vital arm of the American Government and as such projects the official US policy of a War on Terror. However the site is also features the photographs of Ground Zero taken by Joel Meyerowitz, which it demands are not to be utilised for propaganda purposes. And yet here they are on a political web site.

The US State Department has been utilised to advance the cause not only of America, but also of American tolerance, both at home and around the world. The department’s web site is at pains to stress the all-encompassing nature of American society; one open to followers of all faiths, and where the only absolute, is the Constitution. American values it claims are compatible with Islamic values, and it produces testimony to this fact. The department is determined to demonstrate the spread of Islam, from sea to shining sea, pinpointing the location of mosques across America. To demonstrate American benevolence, the State department has presented the Tagouris family of Maryland as living embodiment of Muslim life in America. After highlighting the family history and their anxieties after the attacks of September 11, they declare that “we can practice our religion more freely here than probably anywhere else in the world. It is a blessing to be in a country where there is freedom of expression, justice, and the Constitution is applied to everyone. We feel truly blessed to be living in America.” To highlight the need for tolerance and compassion, the State Department has also sponsored an initiative to encourage school children around the world to produce Internet based projects to teach others about the importance of international affairs and diplomacy; The Doors to Diplomacy project.

The President has himself gone out of his way to promote America as a friend to peoples of all faiths and of Muslims in particular. “We do not fight a religion,” the President has declared, and his government has used all the tools at its discretion to demonstrate this. One of the tools used has been the medium of advertising. The administration decided that what was required was an experienced media expert to help promote the US overseas, to better explain the philosophy of the United States in the far flung places that the glow of American sunshine had so far failed to reach. With this in mind, Charlotte Beers, chairman of J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, was hired as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

Beers was renowned for her campaigns for Uncle Ben's rice (“Perfect every time”), Head and Shoulders shampoo (“Helps bring you closer") and American Express ("Don't leave home without it”), She claimed she would “really connect with the hearts and minds of those people,” after all, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, “She got me to buy Uncle Ben's rice.” The “mascot” of Uncle Ben’s rice is a smiling, elderly African-American man who, for some, is a stereotyped Uncle Tom figure. Beers told NBC News about her plans to sell America to the Muslim world: “This is definitely the most elegant brand I've ever had to work with, and I have a lot of facets of the brand. First it's President Bush and Secretary Powell embodying the brand. That's a pretty inspiring place to start.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the appointment of Charlotte Beers was an attempt  “to change from just selling the U.S. to really branding foreign policy.” That would be done, he added, by “branding the department, marketing the department, marketing American values to the world, and not just putting out pamphlets.” Adverts have been produced offering an updated interpretation of the “Loose lips sink ships” campaign of World War Two, which suggest ways in which American citizens can help the fight against terrorism. The appointment was not without controversy however. Almost immediately, questions were raised as to whether the advertising industry should play a role in shaping world opinion about the United States. It was an odd question in many ways, since America has long sought to promote itself and its policies abroad. This however was perceived to be something new. To some it was a bold new step, to others, an admission of failure. Twelve months on, the verdict is still open, with many still uneasy about the appropriateness of the appointment. It was suggested however that, “If we can't effectively fight anthrax, I guess it's reassuring to know we can always win the war on dandruff.” Yet he questions and doubts run deep. “How is it that the country that invented Hollywood and Madison Avenue has such trouble promoting a positive image of itself overseas?” asked Rep. Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee. However others, such as Lee McKnight, of the Edward R. Murrow Centre believe America’s inability to understand Arab thinking is preventing the USA from winning the propaganda war. “We can't convince anyone we're right if we don't understand their point of view,” he said. Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News, however feels that America lost the battle for hearts and minds long ago. “They could have the prophet Muhammad doing public relations and it wouldn't help.”

The State Department has not been the only organ of government to be utilised in this fashion. Across the Potomac River, the Pentagon was assigned the task of producing false news stories for release at home and around the world. Based out of a newly created department, the Office of Strategic Influence, the policy was to extend America’s tradition of information warfare by involving news organisations not just in the Middle East and Asia but in also in Western Europe. “The small but well-financed Pentagon office, which was established shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, was a response to concerns in the administration that the United States was losing public support overseas for its war on terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries.”  The Pentagon is keeping the department strictly under wraps and Brigadier General Simon P Worden, the head of the new office, is reported to have suggested the running of "black" information campaigns that use misinformation and covert activities. A senior Pentagon official has said: “It goes from the blackest of black programmes to the whitest of the white.”

Intriguingly enough, the Pentagon has actually gone on record in its declaration of intent: to “influence the hearts and minds of the opposition.” The department will continue the policy of information operations during the War on Terror, with radio broadcasts by Commando Solo airplanes; the U.S. Air Force's airborne radio and TV broadcast mission, and extensive airdropping of leaflets.  Broadcasts that have been received on short-wave radio in the United States indicate that the messages included suggestions to Taliban supporters that it was hopeless to continue fighting. The signals also gave explicit instructions on how to surrender. Under law, the Pentagon operation can only work outside the United States. Sources said that it might involve targeting international media but not U.S. media outlets. However, the department has hired a firm of consultants run by John W Rendon Jr, a former campaign aide to President Jimmy Carter, which The New York Times claims has been involved in covert propaganda campaigns in Arab countries.

The use of The Rendon Group (TRG) highlights the existence of the State-Private Network in the United States. The Rendon Group was formed over twenty years ago and has developed a close alliance with world governments and organizations. This has been achieved, “through admiration and respect for cultural diversity. The Rendon Group helps clients identify and achieve their desired outcome by understanding their goals and objectives, and provides comprehensive and personalised communications counsel. TRG seeks to empower people with technology and concepts that give them opportunity and vision.” Headed by John W. Rendon, Jr, who describes himself as “an information warrior, and a perception manager,” the group’s Pentagon contract was awarded due their previous experience in running overseas propaganda operations. Rendon assisted the CIA in its attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. In May 1991, President Bush authorised the CIA to engineer Hussein's removal, ideally through a military coup. The CIA hired The Rendon Group to run a covert anti-Saddam propaganda campaign. Rendon's post-war work involved producing videos and radio skits ridiculing Saddam Hussein, a travelling photo exhibit of Iraqi atrocities, and radio scripts calling on Iraqi army officers to defect.

Such actions are not new. In October 1949, the US Policy Planning Staff drafted plans for “Political Warfare against the USSR”, which would constitute balloon drops of propaganda.  In the Third World, the US sought to convert he perception of pro-American authoritarian regimes into that of “free” Governments. To do so in without contradicting the ideology it was promoting, the US government sought to utilize “free” individuals, who were seeking to promote freedom. Therefore the Government initiated the State-private network, building upon the close connections between the Government, business, labour, media, academia, and other sectors that had developed in World War Two. The National Committee for Free Europe was just the first in a line of organizations that would provide a private cover for official US actions. By the 1980s, Reagan had established the National Endowment for Democracy as an organization to combat the malignancy of communism the world over. The Rendon Group were not the only one’s involved in Afghanistan however. The United States Army's 4th Psychological Operations (Psyops) group designed leaflets and radio broadcasts inside Afghanistan “to persuade enemy fighters to quit, and to convince civilians that U.S. bombs raining down on their country will result in a better future for their families.” Psyops however are not only operating abroad, but have also been involved with the American media and CNN in particular.

If CNN has been targeted, it can rest assured that it is not alone in receiving the government’s attentions. Hollywood executives have also joined the White House brain trust, conferring with administration officials on ways to help spread the U.S. message at home and abroad. “It's possible the entertainment industry could help the government formulate its message to the rest of the world about who Americans are, and what they believe,” said Bryce Zabel, chairman of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Two months after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, more than forty top Hollywood executives met for two hours with Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s chief political advisor, at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills to discuss ways in which the film industry could contribute to the “war on terrorism.” Present were some of the most powerful figures in the motion picture industry and corporate figures whose holdings include entertainment companies. All the major studios were represented, as were the US television networks, and the film industry unions. Despite the contentious relationship between the worlds of entertainment and politics, "there was a seamless web of unity that was really quite affectionate to behold," said Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, in a news conference after the meeting.

During the two-hour meeting Rove reportedly outlined seven themes: that the US campaign in Afghanistan is a war against terrorism, not Islam; the government’s call for “community service” should be publicised; US troops and their families need to be supported; the September 11 attacks were global attacks requiring a global response; the US campaign is a “war on evil”; the government and the film industry have the responsibility to reassure children of their safety; propaganda should be avoided. After the meeting, everyone involved hastened to assert that the Bush administration was not attempting to dictate in any fashion the content of Hollywood’s films. “The industry decides what it will do and when it will do it,” Rove told reporters. Apparently lost on the media commentators was the obvious redundancy of reassurances that the government would not impose its views in an arena where its policies find absolutely no opposition: Sherry Lansing, Paramount Pictures chairwoman, told the media following the meeting, “All of us have this incredible need, this incredible urge to do something.”

Hollywood of course has not exactly been a hot bead of rebellion or descent, as far too much money is on the line to make truly revolutionary motion pictures.  There do appear to be cycles however and it seems clear that a more conservative period was underway long before the descent of the twin towers.  From Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, Air Force One, Independence Day, to the television shows “Band of Brothers” and “The West Wing,” Hollywood is projecting a constant stream of images that portray a benign power and an American goodness. This contrasts with films of the 1960s and1970s such as Dr. Strangelove, Chinatown, The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, All the President’s Men and The Parallax View, and Seven Days in May.

Sylvester Stallone in particular was interested in assisting the administration, offering as he did to breathe new life into the moribund Rambo series. The Italian Stallion has been discussing ideas of reviving Rambo and taking on the Taliban, skydiving into Afghanistan to challenge terrorism in a creatively titled, Rambo IV. Of course in the last Rambo adventure, the third in the series, Rambo III (1988), Stallone fought against the Soviet army in Afghanistan alongside the Mujahedin, in other words, as an ally of Osama bin Laden.

If Stallone appeared a little over eager to prove his heroics, one true champ was also recruited to fly the flag in the war on terrorism. As America’s most famous, living Muslim, Muhammad Ali was recruited to appear in an advertising campaign promoting American to the Muslim world. A group of Hollywood film companies is putting together a short film in which Ali will reassure Muslims that the US is not engaged in a war on Islam. Ads showing Arab and Muslim Americans standing alongside George Bush and the American flag will begin appearing on TV over Christmas accompanied by a voiceover calling for an end to racial stereotyping. All the major cable operators have agreed to air the campaign free of charge and it is hoped it will reach more than 70 million households across the US.

However the first fictional show to address the events of September 11 did so without the input of the administration and before the meeting between studio heads and Karl Rove. NBC’s The West Wing had been an Emmy winning show for its first two seasons and depicted a liberal President presiding over identifiable times and situations, often with the names changed to protect the guilty. The first episode of the third season was intended to follow directly from the final episode of the previous series. However the show’s creator, Aaron Sorkin, decided that the events of September 11 were of a scale that warranted comment from the nation’s most popular President, albeit a fictional one. Within days of the attacks, the show was being written, in preparation for the season premier on October 3. Sorkin insisted that the two-hour premiere be delayed so that this new one-hour episode could run first. The changes that Sorkin demanded would cost NBC $10 million in lost advertising revenue.

Entitled, “Isaac and Ishmael,” the title refers to two sons of Abraham, who was told by God to sacrifice his son as a test of faith. While the Bible states that Isaac, the son of Abraham's wife, Sarah, was the one to be sacrificed, most interpretations of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of Islam, say that Ishmael, son of his slave-woman, Hagar, was to be sacrificed. The production was extremely rushed by normal television standards. An NBC executive said, "This will be the fastest production of an episode in television history." Standard West Wing production times result in a six-week delay from the start of script writing to the broadcast date. In this case, the time scale was just ten days. Without offering specifics, the executive said the episode would deal less with the direct facts of what happened last week than with broad issues raised by the terrorist attacks.

The story line's emphasis was anti-Muslim sentiment after terrorist acts, and fictional White House staffers express "tolerance for other ideas and cultures.” An NBC source maintained that whatever viewers think of the episode, Sorkin deserves credit for having the courage to address a topical issue at a time when other programs are for the most part rushing to excise references that might recall the attacks from upcoming programs. NBC president Jeff Zucker had promised "an important hour of television," but West Wing fan George Stephanopoulos said he was not expecting a healing experience. "You can't have catharsis over a tragedy of this scale with a TV show," said the ABC political commentator, who served as a top aide in the Clinton White House. Legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, called Aaron Sorkin “courageous” for tackling the subject, but cautioned, “I don't see where the episode has any special importance. It's written by a playwright, not a historian.”

Ultimately, the show was “critically blasted,” and even the writer was forced to admit he didn't think the show was very good either. But he said that's beside the point. “Some respect had to be paid to the event that just happened,” he said. “We couldn't just do a regular West Wing. I don't think that it was a good episode of The West Wing. I don't even know if it was good television. It was well intended, it was never meant to teach anything, to be preachy.”

The West Wing aside, one of the major targets of the administration was the portrayal of America on national television and two of the first shows to be affected were JAG and Military Diaries. On April 30, 2002, the Paramount TV show JAG (Judge Advocate General) broadcast an episode in which the main protagonists prosecute a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist accused of being the chief architect of the attack on New York City. The Pentagon briefed the programme makers on the intricate rules governing such tribunals two weeks before Defence Secretary Rumsfeld announced them at a news conference on March 21. Whilst the show’s creators stress that the Pentagon has no editorial control over any them, the military have come to view such shows not as harmless fun, but as militainment, an effective way to get its message across, free of the filters of a critical press corps. The shows creators can hardly complain either, since the popularity of JAG has soared, to the 10th most popular prime time show this year from the 28th last year.

Donald P. Bellisario, a former staff sergeant in the Marines and creator of the popular 1990s show Quantum Leap, produces JAG. He has gone on record as saying he believes that military tribunals, not a proposed international court, were the appropriate forum to try terrorists, echoing the sentiments of the administration.

The "JAG" show comes as the Pentagon is working closely with network entertainment divisions. The Pentagon is also cooperating with VH-1, a cable television network, for a documentary called Military Diaries, in which 60 soldiers were given digital video cameras to record their daily activities in Operation Enduring Freedom. Rather than attempt to create a drama out of the raw material, VH-1 has produced a series of personal stories that examine the military in a contemporary environment. The filmmakers are clearly very touchy over suggestions that they are pawns of the military. ”We're storytellers. We work with people who have stories to tell. But we're not propagandists for the military, and we never said we were. Our goal is to ask a lot of questions and find out what the experience is like.”

This idea of "Militainment" however, is not without its critics, and paramount amongst them has been one of America's foremost newscasters, Dan Rather of CBS. The anchorman had declared that fear of offending politicians “keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions” and does not fail to exempt himself from this. Rather's anger is particularly directed at militainment; entertainment programmes about the military, produced with the co-operation of the Department of Defence. Rather argues that reality TV doesn't always reflect the truth. But Rather's fundamental concerns are with government accountability and journalistic integrity. "There has never been an American war, small or large, in which access has been so limited as this one," says Rather. News divisions appear to be carrying on as usual but journalists find it extremely difficult to verify information provided by the US Government, he contends.

Not all media sources were as accommodating in their support of the President and his message. In particular, the Internet provided a forum for debate and dissent as the administration attempted to convey its message across the globe. Alter Net provided a series of articles that were critical of the administration’s stated aims and questioned the necessity of war in Iraq to help defeat terrorism. The Internet of course is no stranger to the ramblings of deranged minds. However this site appeared to be more credible than most, featuring as it does the musings of journalists as opposed to conspiracy theorists who have run out of episodes of The X- Files to watch. On a more partisan basis, few have been able to match the Democratic Underground for sheer consistency of its resistance to the Bush message. With articles deriding the administration and its attempts to monopolise patriotism, the site has been a thorn in the flesh of the White House, along with others such as the Smirking Chimp and Bush Watch.

Besides the Internet, one of the administration’s most ardent critics has been Michael Moore. As the creator of the renowned documentary, Roger and Me, Moore has been a constant reminder that America still retains the Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. And he has certainly used it.  His book, Stupid White Men has become the largest selling non-fiction book in the US for the year 2002 and is little short of a full on attack on the administration. In an on-line chapter, Moore suggests that the administration removed cigarette lighters and tobacco from a list of items prohibited from being taken aboard a plane after receiving pressure from the Tobacco Lobby. 

Of course, most mainstream American media has been only too happy to play safe and line up behind the President. Lining up to follow the TV’s lead is the glossy publication, Vanity Fair. Better known for glossy covers detailing the pregnancy of Demi Moore, Vanity Fair published a 54-page tribute to those who died in the New York terrorist attacks on October 12. The special edition included a portfolio of photographs including images of fire fighters and civilians who lost friends and relatives in the World Trade Centre attacks. The issue also included an essay from contributing editor David Halberstam on the character of the US and a poetic eulogy to the dead of September 11 by Toni Morrison. The magazine's editor, Graydon Carter, said the attacks had created a "seismic shift" that would bring to an end the culture of celebrity. Carter promised that the magazine would dedicate at least 60% of its coverage to serious subjects.

The aftermath of September 11 has seen an exercise in censorship, regardless of the denials from the White House. This censorship however has been imposed not only by the government, but also by the production companies themselves. Unwilling to risk financial losses, production companies have with-held or altered products to avoid offending the American public with images or references to September 11. The negative reaction to the episode of The West Wing that strove to address the issues raised by the attacks will not prompt many to follow suit. Better instead to shut up and delay the release of contentious movies until the storm has passed. Which it has remarkably quickly: Bond is back, Arnie is back, and even Spiderman is back, albeit with the twin towers removed from the Manhattan skyline. Rambo IV however, remains thankfully on the drawing board.

It is clear that the Bush Administration was able to exercise a degree of control over the American networks and this was utilised in the days and weeks following the attacks. Less clear however, was its ability to control the output of news organisations and television channels the world over. The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite channel proved to be biggest headache in this area. The Bush White House was concerned that Al-Jazeera's programming was unbalanced and anti-American, particularly in the aftermath of September 11. To alleviate the situation, the White House took two initial steps. Firstly, they attempted to discourage news organisations, such as CNN, from running material provided by al-Jazeera, claiming they could carry coded messages from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Secondly, the administration applied direct pressure on the Qatari government to influence the news coverage of Al-Jazeera. On October 2, the U.S. Embassy in Qatar filed a formal diplomatic complaint with Qatari authorities regarding Al-Jazeera's coverage.

When such efforts failed to produce the desired effect, the Americans tried a less diplomatic approach. On November 12, 2001, the Kabul offices of Al-Jazeera were destroyed in a missile attack. Suggestions that part of US war policy was to deliberately target news organisations drew attention from the Newsworld conference of media executives, meeting in Barcelona. Reflecting the broad concerns amongst journalists, BBC World correspondent Nik Gowing told the conference, “It seems to me there is some evidence to be put to the Pentagon about the targeting of news organisations, al-Jazeera has been providing some material that has been very uncomfortable.” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted the growing impact of satellite TV in the region: “From the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, Arab governments are worried they have lost control of information, one of the key means they have used to stay in power in the past. Diplomats in the region have dubbed the phenomenon ‘the al-Jazeera effect’.”

When direct measures failed to influence the material being broadcast, and in light of criticism for its attempts to influence editorial control of an independent news organisation, the administration briefly attempted a charm offensive. Secretary of State Colin Powell granted Al-Jazeera a face-to-face interview on November 8, 2002 ostensibly to discuss Iraq. Of all the members of the administration that could have appeared, Powell was the most interesting; a minority male espousing the virtues of America and of its benevolent foreign policy. As a sign of its benevolence, the United States has delivered a daily airdrop of 37,000 humanitarian aid packets in Afghanistan. Each yellow plastic package contains about 2,200 calories of vitamin-enriched food, which in itself is fine. Except that many have questioned the rationale for supplying peanut butter and jelly in these packages, the decision to scatter the deliveries from the air and the possibilities of killing civilians with heaven sent food aid.

Not all has been doom and gloom, as with all incidents humour has been able to finally raise its head and point to some unlikely contributors to the terrorist attacks. One individual highlighted for attention has been the Jim Henson creation, Bert. Now thought to be the root of all evil, the Bert is Evil  site have confirmed long held suspicions that Bert was Osama bin Laden’s partner in terror. By all accounts the Muppet is actually an informant for Bin Laden, and is guilty of numerous crimes against the United States. It is not clear however, who was pulling his strings.

One question that few are prepared to ask anymore is who is pulling Bush’s strings? Indeed the President seems torn between his dove, Colin Powell and his considerable number of hawks, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In his speeches and in his comments, President Bush has painted a world of black and white, of good guys and bad guys. Needless to say the good guys are wrapped in the flag and carry with them the overwhelming power of American sunshine. The bad guys of course, are wearing black, unless it is bin Laden, who seems to prefer white. By establishing a clash of civilisations, Bush has removed the all-important middle ground and in a world of grey, black and white may be bold but will always be viewed as extreme. In this campaign, there is no middle ground, no possibility of disagreement on detail with the US strategy, for such disagreement would be interpreted as a betrayal of “good” ideology. As Bush declared in January, 2002, “If...you don't hold the values we hold dear true to your heart, then you, too, are on our watch list.”