A war of ideologies

New York Times columnist David Brooks sensibly asserts, echoing the report of the 9/11 commission, that more important than military might in our battle with Al Qaeda is cultural and ideological might.

When you see that our enemies are primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army, you see why they are in no hurry. With their extensive indoctrination infrastructure of madrassas and mosques, they're still building strength, laying the groundwork for decades of struggle. Their time horizon can be totally different from our own.
As an ideological movement rather than a national or military one, they can play by different rules. There is no territory they must protect. They never have to win a battle but can instead profit in the realm of public opinion from the glorious martyrdom entailed in their defeats. We think the struggle is fought on the ground, but they know the struggle is really fought on satellite TV, and they are far more sophisticated than we are in using it.

I disagree that "they" are more sophisticated in using technologies like satellite TV than "we" are. Who invented it? Who can use it to buy clothes or movies on demand? But I understand his point: that Al Qaeda has been more effective in using that particular medium to recruit for their cause. Would Al Qaeda programming work in America? No, and namely because Americans are more sophisticated media consumers. "I'm not watching this!" we'd cry in disgust. "I don't pay 50 bucks a month to watch some hairy asshole blabber on in a language I don't understand. And look at the video quality! Where're the tits?!?!"
But let's grant him his point: that Al Qaeda is winning the media wars. That they are communicating their message of killing Americans, Jews and insufficiently pious Muslims better than we are communicating our message of freedom, democracy, and human rights. If it is a media war, and if it is a battle to be fought on screens big and small, who does a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 help? Who does it hurt? Who, to use Brooks' phrase, "profits in the realm of public opinion?" Does a slickly produced movie that appeals more to the gut than to the mind, and that promulgates conspiracy theories about wars for oil, racist imperialism and heartless targeting of civilians help Al Qaeda or America? Does it help oppressed Muslims understand the rule of law, freedom of speech, a volunteer military, Elvis, gay marriage, free markets, or voting? Or does it help oppressing Muslims spin lies to their fiefs about bloodthirsty Jews, wars of familial revenge, crony capitalism, raping and pillaging, stolen elections, and crushed dissent in a hypocritical Amerikkka?

But before everyone who saw F9/11 pitches a fit, telling me that I'm saying they're helping Al Qaeda by supporting Michael Moore...I'm not saying that. Indeed, for his film to be helpful to Al Qaeda, potential Muslim recruits would have to see it, wouldn't they?
What I am saying is that this kind of film should have no shelf space in the marketplace of ideas, where good ideas sell and bad ideas fall to rest in history's 99-cent bin. That this movie has sucked nearly $100 million out of our economy proves that the damage it does is to our own citizens. Because we are better at tv, music and movies, we've become more sophisticated consumers of them. We can doubt and dismiss. We are more sophisticated, but we are not immune to it.
The movie uses lies, half- and quarter-truths to disparage our country and our President. One can almost hear Michael nasally and snearlingly quoting James Ellroy: "A whore cut to look like a movie star is still a whore." To which I'd reply: "A movie star cut to look like a whore is still a movie star."
If we're serious about winning the war on terrorism, and if we think that might does not always make right, than it's time to embrace the opposite side of the coin, and start communicating what America has to offer, not what it's come to take away.