The war on terrorism that is under way is being fought on many fronts. Among these is the war of words or the war of ideas aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the public across the world, particularly that of the Arab "street". (Note: the term propaganda will be used through the rest of this article, to distinguish the war of words from the military action) The fundamental aims of this propaganda battle are to frame the situation as a war against terrorism, and to then gain support for the military war and the methods being employed in prosecuting the war. This propaganda war also needs to be fought on many fronts utilizing different methods depending on the context in which the engagement is taking place. For example, in Europe it is generally accepted that this is a war against terrorism so that propaganda efforts need to focus on maintaining a high level of support for the military action. Conversely, in the Muslim "street" the propaganda effort necessary is to ensure that this is seen as a war on terrorism and not a war on Islam as is argued by many enemies of the U.S.

The administration has seen the need to vigorously prosecute the propaganda battle and so has put together a team (Karen Rove, Charlotte Beers, etc.) to craft a consistent message for foreign audiences, especially in the Islamic world.  Though this is a positive development improvements need to be made in the propaganda battle. This article is intended to proffer a few small suggestions as to how the propaganda war can be improved.

The first change that needs to be made involves a change in the rhetoric employed by our leaders. President Bush has been framing this as a war to save civilization. Prime Minister Blair has also been using similar apocalyptic terms. In his speech to the nation November 9^th President Bush said "Our nation faces a threat to our freedoms, and the stakes could not be higher" and "We wage a war to save civilization, itself" Usama Bin Laden and his ilk are terrorists - criminals and murderers. The scope of their crimes may be immense, but they remain criminals and murderers. American civilization, Western civilization, our civilization is not threatened by their actions. To continually frame this as a war to save our civilization is to concede Usama Bin Laden a stature that he does not deserve, a stature that exists only in his fevered vision of the world. Our leaders need to stay on message - we are after criminals and mass murderers. This is how Usama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization should always be referred to. Prime Minister Blair needs to stop traveling the world foolishly building up Bin Laden among the disaffected of the Islamic world by giving him the stature he aspires to.  We also need to continually emphasize that while Bin Laden needs to pay for his crimes, that if his aim is to demolish our civilization his efforts are futile. Neither he, nor his organization, nor any other country or combination of countries can destroy our civilization!

Second, since we especially want the Islamic world to understand that this is a war against terrorists - criminals and murderers - and not a war against Islam we need to be sensitive to how some of our actions might appear to those inclined to this belief.

• When members of the administration speak of terrorism and terrorists they shouldn't appear to equate terrorism only with Islam. Currently every mention of terrorism is accompanied by mention of  Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc., giving the incorrect impression that the US only cares about  Islamic terror groups. Occasional mention of the many other terrorist groups (the LTTE, the IRA, the FARC, or any of the other dozens of groups that span the globe) that engage in criminal activities that effect the U.S. would help dispel this misconception.
• Similarly when the FBI came out with its list of the Top 22 terrorists and the government published its first list of individual and groups whose financial assets were to be frozen these were exclusively Arab and Islamic. How hard would it have been to have a Top 25 with a few non-Islamic targets? Subsequent to the first list other non-Islamic individuals and groups have been added to the list and have had their assets frozen, why could they not have been on the initial lists?

Third, as mentioned above, the propaganda war needs to fought on many fronts. With former advertising executive and Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Charlotte Beers having been assigned by the State Department to the task force that is coordinating communications and the propaganda war, presumably this will happen as marketing techniques  (market segmentation, etc.) will be used to target the U.S. message. However, this needs to be supplemented with cultural understanding so that the message and the medium work in concert with and reinforce each other for maximum effect. An example of this would be the use of  Al-Jazeera to broadcast our position to the "street".  Several administration officials have appeared on Al-Jazeera shows to explain the position of the U.S. government e.g. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, former Ambassador to Syria Christopher Ross, etc. While to us Condoleeza Rice represents a triumph of the American spirit (first woman in this prestigious position) to the majority of the intended audience in the Middle East she represents a facet of America that they hate, hardly conducive to having the audience get beyond the messenger to listen to the message. The messenger and the message need to complement each other if either is to have an effect.

Finally, we also need to use as many non-U.S. messengers as is possible to supplement the message. Examples could include Bosnian Muslim leaders e.g.  Alia Izetbegovich, Muslim Kosovar leaders, etc. who could speak to the fact that the U.S. has fought on behalf of Muslims, relatives of Muslims that were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center, Muslim clerics that will speak against violence, etc.

• Con: Iraq's known stocks of anthrax were mostly in liquid form (for easy dispersal via shells and missile warheads). Pro: A large part of Iraq's estimated volume of anthrax was never accounted for.
• Con: Iraq's anthrax was generally of the more virulent Vollum strain, bioengineered to be resistant to most antibiotics. The strain used in the recent attacks is an Ames strain which is susceptible to common antibiotics e.g. penicillin, doxycycline, etc.
• Pro: The anthrax in the Daschle letter has been described as "weaponized" (though this seems to be the subject of debate) - spores milled to a 1 to 5 micron size, mixed with a filler to minimize clumping and promote dispersal, capabilities claimed to be possessed "...only by the U.S., Russia, and Iraq..." Con: New and used machinery for pharmaceutical manufacturing capable of this grade of milling is readily available for purchase from multiple sources (including via the Internet) without any special permission. No aluminum has been found in the anthrax sample (usually present in the bentonite used by Iraq for filler). Pro: Claims that it is possible to manufacture bentonite without aluminum. (Note: Bentonite is fairly common and has multiple industrial uses e.g. since bentonite clumps when wet it is used in the manufacture of kitty litter ;-)
• Con:  Iraq did not use biological weapons during Desert Storm even when facing the complete destruction of its armed forces by the allied coalition.  Pro:  Saddam Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons before (against his own people - the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north - and against others e.g. against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war).
• Con: Knowing that many members of the current US administration are itching to extend the anti-terror war to Iraq, Saddam would not do anything to provoke this or justify any attacks. Pro: Saddam Hussein has a pathological need to strike his enemies even if the costs turn out to be extremely high.

My theory:

A U.S. based domestic group (this does not exclude the possibility of foreign assistance and involvement) has for some time been developing anthrax and experimenting with its dissemination via the mail. The trace amounts of anthrax found at multiple postal facilities are also from these past instances and are not all linked either directly to the 2 letters, or indirectly to them via leakage and cross-contamination as is thought. The "higher grade" anthrax of the Daschle letter represents the fruition of their research and development, earlier attempts at dissemination were either unsuccessful in causing disease (as in Japan, where the Aum Shinrykio cult was found to have spread anthrax in a Tokyo suburb with no know negative effects), or may have caused disease that was not recognized as having been due to infection by anthrax. The identity and motivations of this group is at present unknown. Since this has been going on for some time additional tests in various possible target locations will identify more areas with trace anthrax.

Two possible indices:

Every time a bacterium divides it creates a new copy of its DNA. As this happens there are instances of  genetic errors that occur. The Ames strain of anthrax has been found to be very stable (in experiments a sample was grown and after doubling 100,000 times resulted in only one genetic change).. By an analysis of the anthrax sample in the Daschle letter the government can find if this anthrax exhibits genetic differences. If a significant number of differences is found this would indicate that the anthrax had been grown in large enough quantities to be an indicator of the involvement of a state-sponsored biological-weapons program..

A way to confirm if suspected terrorists are involved with the anthrax attacks - testing of suspects to see if they have been vaccinated against anthrax (possibly they inoculated themselves to minimize the handling risks...)