The whisper in the middle of the noise – Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
In moments of great tension, Washington appears to be an open theater for unofficial information: nothing is completely said, and nothing is completely hidden. The agencies of the countries of the world, and the media, shop in this open space, capturing from a small movement, a fleeting image, or a calculated leak, which may reveal the direction of events before they turn into major headlines.
Washington knows how to speak with absolute silence, sell signals before issuing statements, and allow intentions to be read before announcing decisions to the nation. Washington’s wars are rarely declared before they begin, and even rarer by direct speeches.
Eyes and ears are on alert in the hours or days before a military strike, trying to capture scenes that appear to the average observer to be natural coincidences, such as a president suddenly cutting off a foreign trip, a close advisor publishing a photo of an aircraft carrier at sunset, a general entering a security facility at an unusual time, or a social event that is canceled without fanfare. As for those who know the rules of strategic communication, they are not fleeting details, but complete phrases in an ancient language that governments are fluent in. It is the language of deliberate ambiguity, and it may have a stronger impact than any direct press conference.
When a head of state suddenly changes his agenda, the world’s intelligence agencies take notice, and when the account of an official close to the decision-making center is filled with pictures of naval operations or fighter planes, the intended audience is not only inside the country, but the message is read in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow, as well as in the allied capitals, which monitor Washington’s behavior moment by moment. It is what is known as a “strategic signal,” and it is a simple and dangerous signal at the same time. The state indicates its intention, without bearing the cost of the official announcement, and the political, diplomatic and legal obligations that follow. The opponent who reads these signals well will have the opportunity to retreat or modify his behavior, but if he misunderstands them or ignores them, he will be ruined.
Before the Gulf War in 1991, the public military buildup was a message in itself. It was not just military preparation before the outbreak of Desert Storm, but rather a direct speech addressed to Saddam Hussein. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, diplomatic leaks and military positioning revealed the direction of the decision weeks before the bombs fell. This tradition is not specific to wars, but even in secret operations, the pattern remains clear in the movement of assets, the high frequency of communications, and the observers’ feeling of the tremor that precedes the earthquake.
Hints and leaks are used to prepare domestic public opinion for what may come, without immediately entering into the cost of direct advertising. In this way, the government can mobilize the popular mood, mobilize the national spirit, and mitigate the impact of the shock. In the age of social media, this path has become faster and more exposed. A single photo published by a high-ranking official on one of the platforms may reach millions of people within minutes, without the need for a traditional media intermediary, an official statement, or a government spokesman. However, it can be easily disavowed, as it is neither an official declaration, nor a decision, nor a binding document, but at the same time it reaches and achieves its goal.
The game is not completely safe, but it is fraught with risks. Strategic ambiguity only succeeds if the opponent understands the signal as the sender designed it. There is a great deal of controversy in communication science. But if he underestimates its importance, or exaggerates his interpretation, the result may be worse than silence and more dangerous than directness. In 1950 AD, the speech of the then US Secretary of State was understood as excluding South Korea from the US defense umbrella in Asia, so he gave the green light to North Korea and the Soviet Union, and the Korean War broke out a few months later. Saddam Hussein also misunderstood the statements of the US ambassador in Baghdad about the US-Kuwaiti defense arrangements, and by August he was invading Kuwait. In the opposite direction, excessively hostile signals may lead to panic in the opponent and push him to launch a pre-emptive strike that he would not have carried out had he not felt that the attack was imminent. When a country announces, even with a hint, that a strike is coming, it may withdraw from the other party the incentive to wait.
In a world where any official, close source, or even an anonymous defense contractor can publish a clip of military movements or a photo from a sensitive location, the burden on journalists and citizens has become greater than ever before. Reading signals does not require paranoia, but it does not tolerate naivety and indifference either. War is the most dangerous thing a state can undertake, and the signals that precede it are no less important than the moment the war breaks out. Before the cannons roar in its own language, messages have already been said, but in another language, and when the speeches end, the only thing left for the world to do is history to try to explain what was intended from the beginning.
