<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Embedded in the &#8220;War of Ideas&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/17/glassmans-gloss/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/17/glassmans-gloss/</link>
	<description>The World Affairs Blog Network</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:20:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roy Schmadeka</title>
		<link>http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/17/glassmans-gloss/comment-page-1/#comment-2765</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Schmadeka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/17/glassmans-gloss/#comment-2765</guid>
		<description>Mark, you are very correct in many of your points, but most particularly when you state, "If Glassman&#39;s approach is also to seek to discredit radicals who foment terror, well enough, but perhaps this is best done by those who have greater credibility with the target audiences."  Yes, yes and yes.  This is perhaps one of the more misunderstood factors behind our (USA) past &amp; current PD approaches.  

The well-intentioned US diplomatic corps professionals are attempting to replace the appeal of the terrorists' cause with "selling America and American values."  The problem with this approach is that one has little or nothing to do with the other.  Terrorism and violence must be discredited in and of itself -- and there are plenty of Islamic Key Figures who are actively disavowing AQ and similar Muslim terrorist groups.  The trick is to capitalize upon the actions of these highly credible anti-terror Figures in order to support US objectives and goals -- namely, to realize a marked decrease in terrorist support and activity in selected regions, and to engender an environment that is, at the very least, compatible with The American Way.

Activities to "distract" actual and potential terror supporters is, however, an idea not completely without merit.  I believe what Glassman is proposing is that "idle hands" must be given alternative activities (and, above all, Hope) to fill the void in the target&#39;s life -- a void currently filled by the lure and appeal of terrorist groups.  Once again, the value lies within the approach taken.  For instance, a US-sponsored youth soccer (football) clinic with a primary theme of "AQ Sucks, Isn&#39;t America Neat?!" would not be nearly as effective as a Host Nation-sponsored soccer clinic (discreetly funded with USA PD dollars) with the primary theme of "Terror Groups are No Threat; Government Security Forces Provide a Safe, Stable Environment for Our Children to Play," or variations thereof.  The key factor is, as you've already identified, the low susceptibility of targeted audiences to a USA anti-terror message.  

America&#39;s task should be to ascertain how best to assist currently active Islamic anti-terror activities.  They have the credibility.  What they may lack are items or capabilities that the USA can provide.  Funding?  Communications reach?  USA PD efforts could enable and expand these Islamic activities to maximize effectiveness.  A collaborative effort would be optimal, but even this is not necessary.  Working separately yet in parallel, identical objectives and goals can be realized.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, you are very correct in many of your points, but most particularly when you state, &#8220;If Glassman&#39;s approach is also to seek to discredit radicals who foment terror, well enough, but perhaps this is best done by those who have greater credibility with the target audiences.&#8221;  Yes, yes and yes.  This is perhaps one of the more misunderstood factors behind our (USA) past &amp; current PD approaches.  </p>
<p>The well-intentioned US diplomatic corps professionals are attempting to replace the appeal of the terrorists&#8217; cause with &#8220;selling America and American values.&#8221;  The problem with this approach is that one has little or nothing to do with the other.  Terrorism and violence must be discredited in and of itself &#8212; and there are plenty of Islamic Key Figures who are actively disavowing AQ and similar Muslim terrorist groups.  The trick is to capitalize upon the actions of these highly credible anti-terror Figures in order to support US objectives and goals &#8212; namely, to realize a marked decrease in terrorist support and activity in selected regions, and to engender an environment that is, at the very least, compatible with The American Way.</p>
<p>Activities to &#8220;distract&#8221; actual and potential terror supporters is, however, an idea not completely without merit.  I believe what Glassman is proposing is that &#8220;idle hands&#8221; must be given alternative activities (and, above all, Hope) to fill the void in the target&#39;s life &#8212; a void currently filled by the lure and appeal of terrorist groups.  Once again, the value lies within the approach taken.  For instance, a US-sponsored youth soccer (football) clinic with a primary theme of &#8220;AQ Sucks, Isn&#39;t America Neat?!&#8221; would not be nearly as effective as a Host Nation-sponsored soccer clinic (discreetly funded with USA PD dollars) with the primary theme of &#8220;Terror Groups are No Threat; Government Security Forces Provide a Safe, Stable Environment for Our Children to Play,&#8221; or variations thereof.  The key factor is, as you&#8217;ve already identified, the low susceptibility of targeted audiences to a USA anti-terror message.  </p>
<p>America&#39;s task should be to ascertain how best to assist currently active Islamic anti-terror activities.  They have the credibility.  What they may lack are items or capabilities that the USA can provide.  Funding?  Communications reach?  USA PD efforts could enable and expand these Islamic activities to maximize effectiveness.  A collaborative effort would be optimal, but even this is not necessary.  Working separately yet in parallel, identical objectives and goals can be realized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: COMOPS &#187; Three Unasked Questions for Glassman</title>
		<link>http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/17/glassmans-gloss/comment-page-1/#comment-2745</link>
		<dc:creator>COMOPS &#187; Three Unasked Questions for Glassman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/17/glassmans-gloss/#comment-2745</guid>
		<description>[...] In his statements so far, Glassman has been pushing a heavy dose of realdiplomatik, saying that public diplomacy (PD) is not the solution to American&#8217;s terrorism problem, and that our best hope is to help poison the well of the Bad Guys&#8217; PD efforts.  Though that message is not well received by some commentators, I agree&#8211;especially from the point of view of what Glassman can accomplish in six months. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In his statements so far, Glassman has been pushing a heavy dose of realdiplomatik, saying that public diplomacy (PD) is not the solution to American&#8217;s terrorism problem, and that our best hope is to help poison the well of the Bad Guys&#8217; PD efforts.  Though that message is not well received by some commentators, I agree&#8211;especially from the point of view of what Glassman can accomplish in six months. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
