coneblog

We have looked at the Frame as a valuable technique for finding new solutions to intractable problems. Lets look at how re-framing has been used in the war on terror.

As initially presented, the problem statement in the war on terror was something like – “How do we keep our people safe by preventing more attacks on our country like 9-11?” And as a problem statement, that suggested many specific activities and solutions around immigration, borders, and airline security.

Through a process of asking why (see “A PM asks the Why Questions”), the problem statement became expanded into something like “How can we win the global war on terror?”, or “How can we defeat the radical Islamist movement that seeks to wound us?”. Here is where some reframing is possible.

From an ideological point of view, if we believe in the fundamental power of freedom, we might seek to show the Islamic world that a free, democratic government is much preferable to a fundamentalist Islamic government run by religious leaders. We would re-frame the problem as “How can we best create a moderate democratic state in the heart of the middle east, that will be seen as much better than a state ruled by Imams?” From this problem statement it is a short step to invading Iraq.

From a globalist point of view, you might reframe the problem as: “How can we best isolate and marginalize the radical Islamist movement, thus denying it resources, recruits and propaganda opportunities, while moving more moderate Islamic countries and cultures towards freedom and democracy?”

Framed this way, the last thing you would want to do is invade Iraq.