JOURNAL: FVM + Media = Success

Iraq's global guerrillas tried an interesting application of fear vector management (which was explained in my brief on the topic last week, I will shorten the name to FVM for brevity). Three suicide vehicles were used to attack the Palestine hotel in downtown Baghdad. The Palestine, if you remember, is at the heart of the US media effort in the country since many reporters, cameramen, and photojournalists live there. It is also the Iraq HQ of the Associated Press.

The first car bomb destroyed the blast wall that surrounds the Palestine. Several minutes later, another car bomb exploded outside a government ministry on the other side of the square (which drew away the security forces). Once the recovery effort was fully underway, a third vehicle (a cement mixer packed with explosives) drove through the breach in the wall and detonated just outside the Palestine hotel.

The entire event was staged for the benefit for the western reporters who have become virtual prisoners of their hotel rooms in Baghdad (since they couldn't go to the war, the guerrillas brought the war to them). The incident was in clear view of the AP's mounted video camera (which recorded the entire event) -- footage that will be replayed in endless loops in newsrooms across the globe. Also, the third bomb in the cement mixer may have been targeted at reporters who went to their windows to investigate (courtesy, Chris Allbritton, Time's correspondent in Baghdad).

The effect desired from this highly orchestrated event (which is synergistically much more potent than a single event due to FVM) was to radically magnify the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust (all of which are aspects of moral conflict) of those in the media. It was also intended to bring those same feelings, by extension, to the public the reporters represent. It is yet another example of tactical innovation by Iraq's open source insurgency (which unfortunately for us has been happening with increasingly frequency lately). This attack will set the expectations of the media -- re: this conflict -- for months.

UPDATE: The attack was claimed by an group affiliated with al Qaeda (Lions of Braa Bin Malik). Again, the decentralized community structure of the OSW plays a part in rate of innovation.

Comments

[Richard1]

They failed to blow the building, which was their goal.

[Chris, TX]

Richard,

That wasn't their goal, although it might have been nice.

Remember, the Tet offensive was an unmitigated military disaster for the VC, yet it convinced the American public that the war was unwinnable. Score, VC 1, American Forces 0.

Terrorism like this works because it convinces people that they, or their forces, are not secure, not in control, and will continue to be suckerpunched. And, they have three extremely visible explosions (the visual impact exacerbates the overall impact immensely.) at a heavily protected message generation center to prove it.

And, everyone and their cat is talking about it. Pretty good for an investment of 4-7 lives and some easily obtained vehicles and explosives.

Seems like they achieved quite a bit, even if it wasn't their goal.

[Brad]

Hold on, Chris, what do you normally do with a bomb? That's right, you use it to blow things up. Somehow I don't think they meant to scare anyone. They meant to kill lots of reporters because killing lots of reporters would have scared the hell out of the rest of them. Actually, that's alot like the method, failed btw, of trying to get the Shia and Sunnis to a civil war by stepping up atrocities.

I'd guess that this partial success has been more valuable than a misguided victory, as that would have rippled through the media organizations and probably caused a PR atrocity for the terrorist's cause. But you don't get much more stupid than attacking a 'neutral' party such as the media especially when that party represents the sole hope to win against the US.

[Brad]

So you don't confuse me with a contradiction there; it is the result, the specific mass-casualty result, that will create the desired end. This will have created several hundred reporters who have suddenly fallen out of love with or neutrality for the 'insurgents' who will go home to their respective countries. That doesn't help them. I can't think of a single effect, in the short run, long run and all runs between where this helps the insurgency.

[jamie]

"several hundred reporters who have suddenly fallen out of love with or neutrality for the 'insurgents'"

What does that have to do with anything? The vote on the constitution was also partly a media event, designed to convey the message that Iraq had reached the latest in its endless twilight of new dawns. The bombing was a press release stating the opposite, fairly cogently.

[John Robb]

Jamie, you are right on. This is pure moral combat. The attack was aimed at the press to ensure that the effects of the vote (on them) were cast aside and replaced with a menace. Many will consider leaving (some for the first time like Chris), which is a reflection that they think the situation is hopeless.

In terms of the tactics of the attack, while it wasn't aimed at fleeing populations, it did and will have an outsized effect (ala EBO). The moral effect of a coordinated series of bombs in a targeted attack is much greater than a single seemingly random attack (the effect is synergistic).

[Brad]

Okay, they fear you...and then, what? How's the coverage change? What, no patriotic stories from the front anymore? At best the insurgents have flipped several hundred reporters against them, where before they might have been neutral, and the visibility of the attack. If the reporters leave Iraq, bonus points.

Anyone here remember Fallujah I and Jenin, where the sensationalist media hyped up atrocities, that didn't happen, and compare it to Fallujah II where the military outsped the media cycle (except, of course, for that fabulous expose that almost convicted a Marine)?

The military will NEVER convert the media, and maybe they shouldn't, so getting the media against the terroristas, is not a victory, moral or otherwise, for 'open-source guerrillas.'

[Brad]

Jamie, the press release was a (scary) failure. It's failure is the only blessing for the insurgents as they are effectively devouring the only resource left to them.

Listen, you guys said it yourselves, this is 'moral combat,' and its fought directly through the media into our homes. Okay, so the smart thing to do is attack the one international institution that might allow them to win, an institution that is hardly against them?

It is a bone-headed move, maybe for a short-term gain, and probably for nothing at all. If it sets the note for the future, media coverage will shift irrevocably against the insurgency, because, duh, people generally tend to disagree with other people trying to murder them. But, whatever, maybe this boned-up failure is actually a great success, because people fear the increasingly isolated, impotent insurgency ;).

[Marcello]

"Listen, you guys said it yourselves, this is 'moral combat,' and its fought directly through the media into our homes. Okay, so the smart thing to do is attack the one international institution that might allow them to win, an institution that is hardly against them?"

Well, it becomes a bit difficult to sell the "progress" meme to the home front when you can see multiple car bombs going off on TV against what is supposed to be a very well protected area in the capital city.
Judging from the public opinion polls "getting desperate" or "in the last throes" was not selling too well even before this.

[jamie]

"If it sets the note for the future, media coverage will shift irrevocably against the insurgency, because, duh, people generally tend to disagree with other people trying to murder them."

That's not the point. The information contained in the attack is that thge insurgents can pull off a multiple car bomb attack in the best defended part of Baghdad, apparently at a time of their choosing. This doesn't even have to be reported. The mushroom cloud rising over the green zone tells you that.

[dan]

Considering that there have been over 50 journalists/media workers killed in Iraq already, and that the Palestine hotel has actually been targetted before, the attack is, per se, nothing new. The international media will stay and continue to report as best they can - because this story is not going to go away any time soon, and is the key geopolitical story of the present.

Considering that kidnappers, insurgents and the US military have all been responsible for the deaths of journalists, and in some cases, their rescuers, I would imagine that bombing the hotel changes little in the dynamics of media sympathies.

BBC analyst Frank Gardner summed it up very well: "it reinforces the fact that there is no safe real estate in Iraq".

Obviously, the day that the results of the referendum get announced the "opposition" put out a very powerful counter-statement. And for those of you trying to spin this as a failure - well, a 3-pronged coordinated attack in the secure heart of Baghdad, which, if the Channel 4 pictures shown on Monday night are accurate, also took out a Bradley, is the kind of failure that the insurgency can live with.

They failed to actually demolish the building - so what? These people aren't throwing in the towel any time soon, have plenty of materiel and plenty of manpower. There's precious little to prevent the insurgents from trying again, and eventually, if they choose to take it down, they will.

[Marcello]

"Hold on, Chris, what do you normally do with a bomb? That's right, you use it to blow things up. Somehow I don't think they meant to scare anyone."

Just because you choose to assume so, that does not make it true.Bombs can and have been used by terrorists for purposes other than creating the maximum possible amount of damage and loss of lives.Placing bombs and tipping the police before the explosion to reduce civilian casualties has been a standard tactic for terrorist organizations in Europe.They may have intended to kill a lot of reporters and failed.And then again maybe not.Did you ask them?

[Brad]

Yeah, okay. My last word:

They may have intended to kill a lot of reporters and failed.And then again maybe not.Did you ask them?

So they took out the barrier, why? And the second bomb was more likely than not prematurely detonated (entire incident happened within 4 minutes, half of that with the concrete truck dicking around). AND then, why use a cement mixer in the first place but to drive through the debris of the barrier. Finally, a suicide bomber is going to just off-himself for PR? That seems pretty willfully blind to the facts.

But do tell me, of this "success," if it 'works' once, it would be a great thing, for the insurgents, to happen again and again and again, right? Give it a half thought on what a direct-action media campaign of this sort will accrue to the insurgents. Answer: it will backfire.

[marcello]

"So they took out the barrier, why?"

Physical barriers like that are a standard protection for high value targets in the area.They have eloquently demonstrated that they can overcome our defenses if they choose to do so.I may be wrong of course but it seems a possible explanation.

"AND then, why use a cement mixer in the first place but to drive through the debris of the barrier."

Well, it certainly made a lot of smoke.
Good for TV.

"Finally, a suicide bomber is going to just off-himself for PR? That seems pretty willfully blind to the facts."

Excuse me, people there have blown themselves up just to kill a few people lining to join the police.An action like that is worth much more for their war effort.

"But do tell me, of this "success," if it 'works' once, it would be a great thing, for the insurgents, to happen again and again and again, right?"

Why? As yourself note it would be a dumb thing to do.They may be that dumb but I would not bet on that.Time will tell.

[Marcello]

As I see it, it was a demonstrative action which achived its goals.A lot of dramatic footage which goes in the face of all the talks about progress from the Coalition.
An all out terroristic offensive aimed specifically against the press is not a good idea for the reasons which have been noted.
It is of course possible that they are making precisely that mistake but so far they have played their cards well.

[am]

Brad is not very bright. the insurgents are not trying to get the media to cheer for them (what an outlandish idea). the media will now simply report huge bombs going off right in fron their noses, right in the 'heavily secured' green zone after over two years of combat and after 2000 dead soldiers. folks at home will start to ask themselves 'how the hell ist it possible that the insurgency is still so strong?'. that is the goal. not getting the media to do positive reports on the insurgents.
people at home will lose hope in this moronic war. their patience is very thin anyway, since it is obvious that bush and gang lied their asses off to get this war started in the first place.

[Steve]

Journalism is an interesting example of network warfare, and those who aspire to be in power or remain in power are reinforcing its importance.

Let's reiterate the point made previously, primarily western media types operate out of these hotels. Capitalizing upon the 'if it bleeds, it leads' mentality the opposition attempted to change the focus of the current conversation. The leading western media stories prior to the attacks were on the consitution and saddams upcoming trial, both of which are potential coalition success stories. If this attack had gone as planned the opposition's success against the west/coalition would instead be used to sway the masses.

So lets check on:
The masses
http://www.linktv.org/mosaic
'Joe-Iraqi'
http://www.brooking.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
'Joe-America'
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[John Robb]

Chris Allbritton is now reporting that the attack was aimed at a PMC that operated out of the hotel (Triple Canopy or Aegis?).

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1122849,00.html

It looks like the insurgents went for the overrun scenario as a follow up to the attack (assault teams were on the ready to rush in if it had taken down the hotel). If it had succeeded in doing so, the entire incident would have been covered by the global press in amazing detail (with a 12-24 hour hostage stand-off etc.). This was very close to a war changing debacle.

I posted last week that the current situation was ripe for an overrun scenario (I deleted the post due to a variety of concerns). Unfortunately, I was right on. Expect more of these rapid swarms in the future (potentially including an overrun of a US military garrison).

[Adam]

John,

Just to point out that there is a symbolic element here too. Firdaw square is where Chalabi's supporters (the US army) pulled down the statue of Sadaam. The upshot is that the journalists and PMC might just have been "collateral damage".

The guerillas have symbolically demonstrated to everyone that the US military cannot claim to control the square where their most important triumph occured, or indeed anything else in Iraq except the Green Zone.

[nudedude]

Having every news organization play video of that giant explosion in Firdaw Square on their nightly news was a victory.

It would be a defeat if that was the last resistance attack in the country, but posting this weeks after the attack: it appears the resistance has not yet been defeated.