US General Accused of Using "Psyop" on Americans in AFG

[Brett Patron]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223?page=1

This is going to be a mess. Or an awful lot of fun.

BJP

[Entropy]

No, it's not going to be fun at all. If there is any truth to this article, heads will need to roll.

[BayonetBrant]

One thing that jumped out at me was the desire of the info on the congressional reps: voting records, campaign stances, etc.

If some S3 flunky had been tasked for that instead of the psyop team, would we still be wringing our hands over this?
If the psyop team got the tasker because there wasn't enough psyop work to do to keep them busy, and the general thought they were capable of handling it, does that make it an inherent psyop mission?

Now, there seem to be enough other concerns elsewhere in the article to be worth investigating more deeply, but some of the 'issues' that Hastings/RS raise are not (to me) worthy of the level of hype they're being given, in part b/c I think the authors/editors lack some context on how those taskers get assigned and how regularly those sorts of things happen in other places with other functional specialties.

Hell, it happened w/ us in '95 in California during the Apache Longbow trials. We were briefed on the incoming VIPs that were there to see what we were doing, including whether or not they were hostile to the program and its funding.

[slapout9]

No, it's not going to be fun at all. If there is any truth to this article, heads will need to roll.

It should be the Senator's heads that roll. There is a bunch of them that need to have their head gear flushed out by some proper Army thinking. General Caldwell should be promoted!

[Entropy]

It should be the Senator's heads that roll. There is a bunch of them that need to have their head gear flushed out by some proper Army thinking. General Caldwell should be promoted!


Slap,

While the Congress certainly has many warts I don't see how your sentiment is compatible with the necessity of military subordination to elected officials in our democracy.

[slapout9]

Slap,

While the Congress certainly has many warts I don't see how your sentiment is compatible with the necessity of military subordination to elected officials in our democracy.

Because they (US Military) were sent to fight a war without the proper resources to win it. That is a political failure not a military one. Why should the Military pay the price? I am very biased by the way,I don't see much difference between politicians and crooks these days.

[Van]

What was done is "ops normal"; a VIP (of any stripe) is coming, you find out their position on relevant issues, special requirements, their favorite beverage, etc. You'll see this done by competent staffs anywhere, for any visitor who can influence the destiny of an organization. Failure to do so is negligence, possibly incompetence. I've watched the same sort of thing done for O-6s, so a Congressman is a no-brainer.

The point of a "dog and pony show" is to gain support, both tangible and intangible, for a unit, from people who may not understand the unit's role and requirements.

To have a MISO (Military Information Support Operations; the new name for Psyops [unless doctrine has been rewritten... again]) unit doing this job, even an otherwise underemployed MISO unit, shows a lack of forethought. You have to procede from assumption that it will hit the front page of the NY Times, and ask yourself, as a leader, "How will this look?"

One of the things the Army needs to learn from the Air Force is to explain this to junior officers. Honorable young Army LTs are routinely horrified at the basic realities of the budget process and appear to feel that basic courtesy and protocol is "brown-nosing", deceitful, and pretty much beneath them. When they make major, there can be significant trauma from exposure to the basics of getting funding for the LTs fundamental needs. An LT doesn't need to learn the entire five year budget process, but should understand that funding doesn't 'just happen' (no matter how hard and honestly you work), and that the process for getting funding doesn't always meet with their standards of conduct.

[Ken White]

Nothing at all funny about it.

I'd be willing to bet it's pretty accurate and this item:
"It’s not illegal if I say it isn’t!" Holmes recalls Breazile shouting.rings true to me because I've heard too many Colonels and a random General or two say the same thing or close to it. The 15-6 also rings true because I've seen that kind of stupidity pulled before. We all have. :mad:

Hell hath no fury like a General scorned. :rolleyes:

Caldwell did some flaky stuff while CG of the 82d and got away with it. He IMO did not need to be promoted and certainly does not need to be further promoted even without this incident if true.

Bayonet Brant:
If some S3 flunky had been tasked for that instead of the psyop team, would we still be wringing our hands over this?I dunno about wringing hands -- I'm not doing that, I'm sharpening my Headsman's Axe -- but I know it would've been wrong and should not happen.
If the psyop team got the tasker because there wasn't enough psyop work to do to keep them busy, and the general thought they were capable of handling it, does that make it an inherent psyop mission?As I told all my sons when they went in the Army, "Once you get promoted above Corporal, you not only can't do much that's wrong, you can't even give the appearance of doing things that are wrong."

Generals know that -- but their overfed egos make them think that rules do not apply to them and they try devious ways to stack the deck. They can do that in a peacetime environment (as today...) but it won't work in a war -- thus it's a bad habit to get into...
Hell, it happened w/ us in '95 in California during the Apache Longbow trials. We were briefed on the incoming VIPs that were there to see what we were doing, including whether or not they were hostile to the program and its funding.I think you just made my point... :D

The Bird could / shoulda made it on its own, trying to stack the deck -- IPB that is not -- could have put a marginal bird in service. It did not, in this case but there've been enough failures in deck stacking buying dumb stuff that we should be wary of it.

Slapout9:
I don't see much difference between politicians and crooks these days.I agree. However, while a certain amount of political savvy is properly required of GOs, attempting to stack a deck is crooked IMO. Far worse, intimidating ones subordinates that do not agree with one is flat illegal and it should be. It is also bone stupid...

However, on this point:
Because they (US Military) were sent to fight a war without the proper resources to win it.I kinda disagree, not to defend the Pols who do have problems in that regard but lets not let the military slide on their even bigger failures. Failures to plan, to buy the right gear (that other nations started buying as soon as the Wall went down...) or to spend enough money on good as opposed to barely acceptable training. Yeah, the Pols have problems but the military is too often its own worst enemy... :mad:

[Ken White]

What was done is "ops normal"; a VIP (of any stripe) is coming, you find out their position on relevant issues, special requirements, their favorite beverage, etc. You'll see this done by competent staffs anywhere, for any visitor who can influence the destiny of an organization. Failure to do so is negligence, possibly incompetence. I've watched the same sort of thing done for O-6s, so a Congressman is a no-brainer.While I agree that is often done -- too often IMO -- I also have served under a number of good Commanders who flatly refused to do that (including one who relieved a Major for doing that kind of prep work on his own volition). If one has one's act together, that kind of manipulation isn't needed. We complain about the 'politics' then we play the game? Makes no sense.
To have a MISO (Military Information Support Operations; the new name for Psyops [unless doctrine has been rewritten... again]) unit doing this job, even an otherwise underemployed MISO unit, shows a lack of forethought. You have to procede from assumption that it will hit the front page of the NY Times, and ask yourself, as a leader, "How will this look?"Yes...


One of the things the Army needs to learn from the Air Force is to explain this to junior officers ...and that the process for getting funding doesn't always meet with their standards of conduct.Think about what you wrote ;)

Maybe it would be better, easier and more honest, meeting reasonably decent standards of conduct, to change McNamara's deeply flawed PPBS which arguably is the cause of most the sort of trauma discussed in this thread -- and which certainly is the cause of disillusionment in many a Major (and which Congressional staffers exploit to their advantage...)... :D

[Entropy]

Agree with Ken completely.

To me there’s a huge difference between individuals speaking their minds in the context of their current position (ei. LTG Caldwell giving his opinion on what he thinks is necessary for Afghanistan) and tasking subordinates to create an influence campaign in order to support his opinion. That is no different than a Commanding Officer ordering his/her troops to call their representatives to advocate either for/against DADT, just to give one example. A Commander should not be ordering subordinates to engage in political activity, which is exactly what this is (or at least what it appears to be - I'm not trusting Hastings to provide a fully accurate picture). It’s contrary to long-standing tradition and such orders, if given, are clearly unlawful.

[Eden]

Before we hyperventilate over this, let's consider the source. This is the same guy that wrote the hatchet job on McChrystal, so the possibility that the facts as related in the article are skewed a bit or slightly out of context is probably high. Also, it's hard to see if any actual laws were broken, at least not to the extent that it would hold up in court. And a general would have to be an idiot to go into a meeting with congress members without getting some background or being prepared to talk about their interests.

On the other hand, definitely a bad choice to employ your PSYOP guys for the task, but I'll bet the CoS was more responsible for that. And Caldwell has written op-eds for major newspapers, which to me is a more egregious example of militarism than trying to (horrors) influence politicians.

But this is what happens when you get involved in dirty little wars - generals tend to get their skirts smudged.

[DaveDoyle]

Also - there are enough errors in the article to call into question Mr. Hastings' research methods and fact checking diligence.

[Ken White]

Before we hyperventilate over this...However, I'm not hyperventilating (50 years of Pall Malls make that inadvisable in any event...) -- I've seen, even participated in, too many cases similar to the alleged deal to even raise an eyebrow, much less a sweat. :cool:
Also, it's hard to see if any actual laws were broken, at least not to the extent that it would hold up in court.Oh, I don't think any laws were broken or even regulations disregarded (an action of which I'm usually in favor in most cases...). However, IF (note large letters) the allegations are close to correct, we simply had a General Officer either doing something you acknowledge as stupid or allowing / encouraging his subordinates to do so. I'm not prepared to jail him if that is true but I do reserve the right to question his fitness for command. Doubly so since I had occasion to do that with respect to him some years ago. That was a suspicion and this, if proven true, is simply confirmation...
And a general would have to be an idiot to go into a meeting with congress members without getting some background or being prepared to talk about their interests.I do not disagree totally with that, though I've seen several good ones who were willing to forego such background -- including the one I mentioned who relieved for cause with a relief OER an Officer for gathering such info.

If however, he endeavored to find ways to manipulate them or the situation, that, IMO was ethically wrong. GO, leadership, example and all that...
On the other hand, definitely a bad choice to employ your PSYOP guys for the task, but I'll bet the CoS was more responsible for that.I agree and also note that if Caldwell didn't select him, he's tolerating him...:rolleyes:
And Caldwell has written op-eds for major newspapers, which to me is a more egregious example of militarism than trying to (horrors) influence politicians.Also agree with that, adding the caveat that a while I believe it is permissable, even desirable, to outthink politicians, attempting to influence them -- while a game played by many in the service -- is ultimately self defeating. That's a bit of a semantic play but I take your 'influence' usage to accept a bit of pandering to them or using their known weak points to achieve an advantage. That may be smart gamesmanship but I've seen it roll back to bite the overly slick all too often...
But this is what happens when you get involved in dirty little wars - generals tend to get their skirts smudged.True dat...;)


Dave Doyle:
Also - there are enough errors in the article to call into question Mr. Hastings' research methods and fact checking diligence.True. However, the basic premise is that an unwise effort may have been attempted and that equally unwise efforts to quash disagreement are possibly being employed. Did I miss anything?

FWIW, I've been around long enough to know that the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I've also been around long enough to have had a number of Generals tell me to do certain things that were shady. A few of them I did generally because they were harmless, on most I demurred -- and only one guy out of about a couple of dozen tried, briefly, to get stupid over a demurral. Most Generals will try stuff on for size but they're usually too smart to push dicey stuff when the diceiness is mentioned. This one may -- just may -- not be all that smart. We'll see....

[AdamG]

Can you imagine the casualty counts, if any of these geniuses who have floated to the top of the bowl are leading Pax Americana's Legions when we (eventually?) go up against a competent enemy?

[82redleg]

Was LTC Holmes the PSYOP, or a PSYOP officer assigned as the IO officer- there is a distinct difference.

NTM-A is a JMD manned command, not a TOE unit, so anyone could be the IO, and IO addresses all audiences, not just opposing audiences.

I wonder what LTC Holmes beef with LTG Caldwell and the command is? IME, a LTC isn't going to just run to Rolling Stone and spill his guts about something. Especially not after what happened to GEN McChrystal.

My bet- LTC Holmes was a waste of oxygen who got hammered by the command (he was investigated, and it seems like it wasn't just over his raising this issue, but other conduct that is at least questionable) and this is his method to pay back. I could be wrong- its happened before, but that is my guess on what happened.

As noted by DaveDoyle, the article leaves lots of loose ends for someone who understands how things work.

[Steve the Planner]

I'm one of those dumb ass naive patriots that simply believed that Ollie North should be shot for treason, then if he wanted to do a talk show---go for it.

The military's recent practice of crafting stove-piped and impractical short-term missions that exceed possible national resources available, then believing that resources will follow, is just impractical.

Reality is that even if resources were granted for training a substantially greater Afghan force, the resources to sustain that level of forces does not exist.

Anyone charged with this mission who thinks their job is simply to stuff funding demands into a pipeline until it clogs up is not doing a service to his country.

Covering these gaps up by influence peddling doesn't fill the gap.

Slap is right about the under-resourcing, but, there is another answer beyond just sending unlimited resources.

[Agent of Influence]

used interchangeably, they are in fact two separate disciplines that work "together".

I would like to highlight that LTC Holmes is not a PSYOP Officer; he is assigned to a Theater Information Operations Group.

Information Operations is by design a coordinating function - designed to synchronize and link the effects of associated capabilities of IO - MISO being one of them. There are varying degrees of descriptions of what a Theater Information Operations Group does - including one that stated that they conduct "mind warfare" - I have never heard of this type of warfare, ever!

I have to question that following an IG Complaint (in which LTC Holmes did not receive whistleblower protection), a 15-6 investigation, and legal counsel - this article was crafted by the same reporter who "brought down McCrystal". Sounds a little strange to me - perhaps a little approach and "want a good story?"

That being said, the opening comments by Brett and Entropy are correct - this is going to be a mess. Heads will roll, efforts will stall, and shakeups will happen.

I find it hard to believe that a General, (regardless of who he is) would actually consider asking a person even remotely affiliated with Influence efforts to conduct such an action.

As a MISO professional, who believes in the possibilities of influence (if done correctly and legally), I am cowering a bit in the preparation of of a potential Tsunami of finger pointing and allegations that will in fact weaken the Army.

I will be watching from the sidelines with caution.

[Ron Humphrey]

:confused:

I realize there's a lot those of us in the cheap seats don't know it seems counter to everything I've seen from Caldwell that he wouldn't be aware of all the concerns that have been brought up here. So that makes it pretty hard to buy that it an oop's rather than the more likely mis-representation of the facts by those on the offense. Guess I could be wrong, been there before:wry:

But before Ken's gets a hold of me with that freshly sharpened Axe of his-

Steve,
Although your right about the cost in the long term being infeasible
Isn't that the very point behind insuring that VIP's and purse holders are all made uncomfortably aware of it long before it happens. In order to do that you have to understand what they think and what their concerns are so you can make sure they don't miss the important pieces like the finance bit.

[IntelTrooper]

Not that anyone asked my opinion, but I'm going to give it anyway...




Dave Doyle:True. However, the basic premise is that an unwise effort may have been attempted and that equally unwise efforts to quash disagreement are possibly being employed. Did I miss anything?

Agreed, this is the most disturbing aspect of the story to me, especially because it was done in this same command (different commander) to friends of mine. The resolution was very unsatisfying but at least no innocent people had their careers ruined for having legitimate concerns.



Most Generals will try stuff on for size but they're usually too smart to push dicey stuff when the diceiness is mentioned. This one may -- just may -- not be all that smart. We'll see....
Agreed with Ken, of course -- Either he knew that there was something potentially questionable about what he was asking them to do and went ahead with it anyway (too aggressive) or he truly didn't see how someone might misinterpret what he wanted and then got mad when his orders weren't followed (too... something else).

And by the way, I think going to the press was a perfectly legitimate course of action for an officer who was about to (if the story is true) get steamrolled.

[Steve the Planner]

Ron:

I am fine with accurately reporting conditions, when asked, during a VIP visit.

It is hard to believe, however, that in the scope and role of DoD budgeting, it is the job of a field implementer to directly pursue, sell, manipulate the appropriators. The reported conduct is quite a bit beyond showing your efforts in the best light, or even "puffing" them.

The problem of lack of resources is a matter to be brought by a field implementer to his higher-ups.

Otherwise, everybody is a Matthew Hoh and/or every program/project manager would be out hunting his own private earmarks from a handful of senators. The system cannot function effectively like that.

Forget about the military thing for a minute.

There is a very specific relationship between Legislators and Administration that is being under appreciated here.

What if the same conduct was undertaken by an FBI Intel Unit? Let's use our wiretap and research tools to see how many senators we can influence to support our program.

Isn't it supposed to be Hoover's role to manage and apply the "blackmail" files, and not every spook group in the joint?

[82redleg]

Ron:
It is hard to believe, however, that in the scope and role of DoD budgeting, it is the job of a field implementer to directly pursue, sell, manipulate the appropriators. The reported conduct is quite a bit beyond showing your efforts in the best light, or even "puffing" them.

The problem of lack of resources is a matter to be brought by a field implementer to his higher-ups.

If that is your issue, then your issue should be with the Senators making the war tourist visits to Afghanistan, not with the command for hosting them. The Senators choose to make the trips, they aren't forced. Once they are there, you have to deal with them.

I've read other places that LTC Holmes wasn't even a PSYOP officer (37A) but an Info Operations officer (30A), which are two very different things. If that's true, either RS did a hatchet job, or he misinformed them. Either way (whether he was a 37A or not) he was not assigned as a PSYOP officer, but as the IO. I think that he didn't want to do his job, and was more interested in (1) fooling around with his girlfriend and (2) getting things set for his company start up to do his job, and running to RS was his response to being called on his failure to do his job.

[Entropy]

Gulliver over at Ink Spots (http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/2011/02/some-thoughts-on-ltg-caldwells-probably.html) wrote what I think is the best take on this I've read so far.

[slapout9]

Gulliver over at Ink Spots (http://http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/2011/02/some-thoughts-on-ltg-caldwells-probably.html) wrote what I think is the best take on this I've read so far.

Entropy, is there a better link? The one you posted dosen't seem to work.

[Entropy]

Entropy, is there a better link? The one you posted dosen't seem to work.

Sorry slap, I hosed the link, try it now.

[BayonetBrant]

I've read other places that LTC Holmes wasn't even a PSYOP officer (37A) but an Info Operations officer (30A), which are two very different things. If that's true, either RS did a hatchet job, or he misinformed them. Either way (whether he was a 37A or not) he was not assigned as a PSYOP officer, but as the IO.

I would chalk this up to a difference between journalism (which frequently uses synonyms to make the prose more elegant) and military doctrinal terminology (in which synonyms are verboten as each term is expected to have a distinct meaning). I've had to deal with enough journalists who don't get that the military doesn't deal in synonyms, and enough LTs/junior CPTs who didn't quite get it, either.

Now, it also makes for sloppy journalism to not recognize the difference between the terms as the subject of your article understands them and uses them. But this isn't one I'd chalk up to maliciousness, but rather to incompetence. Unless someone knows Hastings well enough to confirm a contrary opinion...?

[Brett Patron]

Now, it also makes for sloppy journalism to not recognize the difference between the terms as the subject of your article understands them and uses them. But this isn't one I'd chalk up to maliciousness, but rather to incompetence. Unless someone knows Hastings well enough to confirm a contrary opinion...?

The media is confusing various aspects of the military? Really? This is news?

Most of those cats don't know the difference between a squad and a batallion. We expect them to understand the difference between an "IO" guy and a "Psyop" guy? Hell, I wonder if IO and Psyop guys know the difference!

Having said that, why do we use the word "journalism" with salicious tales like this? We elevate the weak on the backs of the few who actually still (at least try) to practice the craft.

[Big.Palook]

As a MISO professional, who believes in the possibilities of influence (if done correctly and legally), I am cowering a bit in the preparation of of a potential Tsunami of finger pointing and allegations that will in fact weaken the Army.

I will be watching from the sidelines with caution.

Think the tsunami will come when they begin looking at what doctrine LTG Caldwell used. As noted, he has a joint command and should have been guided by JP 3-13 and it's supporting pubs. But as the CAC Commander, LTG Caldwell was very heavily involved in the 2008 version of FM 3-0 which articulated how the Army conducts information operations through the Army information tasks. The words are correct, but in the figures it appears the Army blurred the lines between informing and influencing by binning PSYOP with PA.

Lines have been further blurred by FM 3-0 Change 1 which hit the streets this week. Replaces the information tasks with Inform and Influence Activities and Cyber/Electromagnetic activities. As with the 2008 version, believe the words are correct, but the figure blurs the lines between inform and influence by having MISO (formerly PSYOPS) spanning both lines of effort.

If this quote from the second to the last paragraph is true, my bet would be he was operating IAW the 2008 version of FM 3-0.


Effective immediately," the memo read, "the engagement in information operations by personnel assigned to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan is strictly prohibited." From now on, the memo added, the "information operation cell" would be referred to as the "Information Engagement cell." The IE’s mission? "This cell will engage in activities for the sole purpose of informing and educating U.S., Afghan and international audiences…."

This will all be under a microscope shortly and the FM 3-0 change may be very short lived. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[82redleg]

"Holmes was not trained in psychological operations per se. According to U.S. military officials he never graduated from psy ops training at Fort Bragg, though he was in "information operations" which can include a psychological component."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/25/military-officials-dispute-claim-army-unit-directed-manipulate-senators/#content

He was not a PSYOP officer. If he claimed he was (when he talked to Rolling Stone) and its not the reporter misunderstanding, then LTC Holmes is a liar, and deserves to be punished for that (Conduct Unbecoming). This whole deal just makes my Army and my officer corps look bad, and that is a bad thing. One bad apple, and all that.

Gulliver's commentary (linked above by Entropy) is cogent. I disagree on the point that GOs should not influence politicians, however. At the 3* and 4* level, GOs are either strategic leaders (operating in the strategic domain- for example, the CJCS, CSA, CSAF, CNO, and their primary staffs) or operational leaders, who have to link strategic decisions and objectives with military/tactical ways and means. This is the level LTG Caldwell is operating at. An example of this is GEN Luck telling President Carter that war with North Korea would cost a billion dollars and a million lives, informing the political/strategic decision of how to respond to NK nuclear activities in the 90s (see pg 43 of this book http://books.google.com/books?id=xwwAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=clinton+a+million+lives+and+a+billion+dollars+n orth+korea&source=bl&ots=eV1InCVu0-&sig=wTYz9wGYoLiMmpcEap0D93yRxvI&hl=en&ei=cDloTavHGY6osQP3udC8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=clinton%20a%20million%20lives%20and%20a%20billio n%20dollars%20north%20korea&f=false). This is the same thing LTG Caldwell is "accused" of doing.

[Ron Humphrey]

albeit somewhat painful due to the very fact that once DOD started to actively become more effective in the information environment there was always a guarantee that the "real" influence peddlers would be upset by its ability to hold its own in conversations with its leaders.

That does not however equate to the same thing as abuse of "influence" capabilities.


Ron:

I am fine with accurately reporting conditions, when asked, during a VIP visit.

It is hard to believe, however, that in the scope and role of DoD budgeting, it is the job of a field implementer to directly pursue, sell, manipulate the appropriators. The reported conduct is quite a bit beyond showing your efforts in the best light, or even "puffing" them.

While stating it that way basically sets the stage for anyone to reasonably agree with you , Is that really what we're talking about here, or is it more explicitly the current accusations which seem to have been crafted to give one exactly those impressions?



The problem of lack of resources is a matter to be brought by a field implementer to his higher-ups.

Otherwise, everybody is a Matthew Hoh and/or every program/project manager would be out hunting his own private earmarks from a handful of senators. The system cannot function effectively like that.

Are the finances the Higher ups responsibility, hmmm yes I guess I can buy that- of course there is the fact that that Higher up has to be getting their heads up from somewhere:wry:


Forget about the military thing for a minute.
Ill try, no guarantees though:)



There is a very specific relationship between Legislators and Administration that is being under appreciated here.

What if the same conduct was undertaken by an FBI Intel Unit? Let's use our wiretap and research tools to see how many senators we can influence to support our program.

Isn't it supposed to be Hoover's role to manage and apply the "blackmail" files, and not every spook group in the joint?

I'll grant you all that but raise you an open source, common sense approach-
Take all the hearings over the last 10 years on CSPAN/PentagonChannel/Newspaper OPed's from all those administrators, bills passed, Think tanks Rep's produced, lessons learned rep's from past, etc

Who needs wire taps to do what any joe with a computer, tv, and a library card can come up with.

Long and short I agree with most of your concerns, might even have experienced some of those things in my own life, but in the end unless you see and know that Real assets were/are being pointed where they shouldn't be, or manipulation in the true sense(not merely well prepared urging) Then just like me your probably fighting more of a sense of injustice rather than a real one.

Just seems to me we owe those who we give impossible missions to at least the respect to withhold judgments of their moral clarity to a higher standard then RS or some pissed off ex-employee

[anonamatic]

I suspect Rolling Stone has a bad case of Assange-envy going on. They seem hell bent on whatever smears they can create or mine. I'm biased I'll admit though.

[MisoMan]

on American Congressional Leadership, MisoMan asks the following questions:

1). What was the actual task presented to the Information Operation Field Support Team?

2.). Where is the target audience analysis to ascertain what behavior was exhibited, and what was the desired behavior to achieve?

3). Why is LTC Holmes the sole voice in this story? What does MAJ Levie and the other two mystery members of this team have to say - with regards to the illegal IO Campaign?

4.). What is the parent unit (71st Theater Operation Group) position and interpretation with regards to the employment of the FST? After all, they are the subject matter experts in IO.

5). Finally, why now? Why wasn't the complaint filed through NTM-A, ISAF, and CENTCOM? Why not follow correct procedure and even address the investigation as potential retribution within military channels?

Too many questions and scenarios to suggest that this sensational story was a ploy to address a subsurface agenda.

That is all.

[jmm99]

This situation reminds me of George Romney's "brainwashing" snafu, George Romney presidential campaign, 1968 - Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Campaign _development) (emphasis added):


The "brainwashing" reference had been an offhand, unplanned remark that came at the end of a long, behind-schedule day of campaigning. By September 7 it had found its way into prominence at The New York Times. Eight other governors who had been on the same 1965 trip as Romney said no such activity had taken place, with one of them, Philip H. Hoff of Vermont, saying Romney's remarks were "outrageous, kind of stinking ... Either he's a most naïve man or he lacks judgment." The connotations of brainwashing, following the experiences of American prisoners of war (highlighted by the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate), made Romney's comments devastating, especially as it reinforced the negative image of Romney's abilities that had already developed. The topic of brainwashing quickly became newspaper editorial and television talk show fodder, with Romney bearing the brunt of the topical humor. Senator Eugene McCarthy, running against Johnson for the Democratic nomination, said that in Romney's case, "a light rinse would have been sufficient." Republican Congressman Robert T. Stafford of Vermont sounded a common concern: "If you're running for the presidency, you are supposed to have too much on the ball to be brainwashed." After the remark was aired, Romney's poll ratings quickly nosedived, going from 11 percent behind Nixon to 26 percent behind.

So, one of the factual issues today is whether a thorough brain scrubbing or a light rinse was given out.

Jack Goldsmith writes at Lawfare, Psy-ops Against Congress - Count Me as Skeptical (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/02/psy-ops-against-congress-%e2%80%93-count-me-as-skeptical/) (emphasis added):


First, Congress exercises a lot of control through appropriations over military operations, especially COIN operations that require throwing around a lot of U.S. dollars. It is commonplace for soldiers in the field to try to present an attractive picture on the ground for visiting congressional delegations in order to persuade them to continue or increase funding for missions. It is also commonplace to frame the pitch to address the interests, pet projects and peeves, inclinations, concerns, and the like, of visiting officials. Doing so requires research.

Second, as far as I can tell, the factual charges against General Caldwell come from a single source, Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of one of Caldwell’s information operations units. Hastings states that Caldwell and his subordinates asked Holmes to “conduct an IO campaign against” visiting officials. But the facts offered in support of this supposed operation are thin. Holmes was (by his account) ordered to research and provide background assessments on the visitors, and prep the General for his meetings. When Holmes complained about the order, it was clarified to specify that he should “only use publicly available records to create profiles of U.S. visitors.” Holmes colors this seemingly innocent tasking in dark shades. He says that Caldwell sought a “deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds” and claims that Caldwell asked: “How do we get these guys to give us more people? What do I have to plant inside their heads?” The “plant inside their heads” phrase conjures up an image of Caldwell asking Hastings to help him play psychological tricks on the visiting congressmen. But at bottom the story says only that Holmes was asked to do backgrounders on visiting dignitaries and to advise General Caldwell about how to brief the dignitaries in a persuasive way.

Third, as the Washington Post notes, Hastings’ article “did not cite evidence of false or misleading information being provided to the senators and other visitors.” Nor does Hastings provide much support for his claim that Caldwell acted illegally. Holmes apparently believed that what he was asked to do violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. I believe this law, as amended, prevents the State Department, not DOD, from directing foreign propaganda at domestic audiences. (Hastings says as much.) But I also believe that there are laws, presidential directives, and military regulations that prohibit DOD from using true psychological operations against members of Congress. (Hastings mentions, but does not cite or quote, prohibitions in Defense Authorizations.) Whatever the law might say, Hastings’ only support for the assertion that Caldwell acted illegally comes from Holmes himself, who is apparently not a lawyer. Hastings also cites an email from a JAG to Holmes, which stated: “Using IO to influence our own folks is a bad idea . . . and contrary to IO policy.” The JAG did not state that what Holmes claimed Caldwell asked him to do was illegal.

Fourth, Hastings throws out so many unsupported and unfair zingers against Caldwell that it makes me question the credibility of the entire story. There are too many to list, but one of the most egregious (already noted by Andrew Exum (http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/02/stay-classy-michael-hastings.html)) is when Hastings says that Caldwell “seemed more eager to advance his own career than to defeat the Taliban.” The evidence for this charge is Holmes’ claim that Caldwell “seemed far more focused on the Americans and the funding stream than he was on the Afghans.” But this unsupported assertion, even if true, does not mean that Caldwell cared more about his career than about the Afghanistan mission. The reality is that keeping Congress informed and on board is a vital element both of American democracy and success in Afghanistan.

Fifth, Hastings notes that Holmes was subsequently subject to an AR 15-6 investigation for “going off base in civilian clothes without permission, improperly using his position to start a private business, consuming alcohol, using Facebook too much, and having an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with one of his subordinates.” Hastings makes the investigation seem like retaliation. But on the evidence presented, it is also possible that Holmes’ feeding of the story to Hastings was retaliation for the 15-6 investigation. The Hastings story does not provide enough information to permit us to decide.

Jack's five general points need to be resolved - or the contested factual positions laid out - before anyone can analyze whether what went on was "legal" or "illegal" (which does not necessarily equate to "terminal dumbness"). Like Jack, I'm not an SME in this legal area.

Regards

Mike

[anonamatic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030304229.html
By: Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, is a member of the panel.

They start off calling it "now discredited". Man I'd say... You folks tore this thing up with good information & good arguments right off. No weaseling around about it either.

This thing didn't pass the smell test for me right off because of some of the characteristics that the guy had, that the journalist had, & because of similarities to this kind of behavior I'm more familiar with in different circumstances. Piled onto that was my own experiences & observations about dealing with people in the military. It just didn't match up with what I've seen. Besides that a more rational context for what was being requested seemed to be a lot more in keeping with what happened. Occam's razor & and all that. However this isn't a job I knew details about, so I wanted to see what people who actually knew about this sort of thing had to say. At this point, I feel rather safe in saying that it was very educational for me overall to do that. That's the case a lot with topics on the site for me. I know sometimes it might seem like some of the debates beat dead animals, but if you're like me and need to learn a whole lot of stuff you didn't know, it's very useful stuff.

[ilots]

.....I'd be willing to bet it's pretty accurate and this item:rings true to me because I've heard too many Colonels and a random General or two say the same thing or close to it.

May very well be true.. but from the article:


Holmes believed that using his team to target American civilians violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was passed by Congress to prevent the State Department from using Soviet-style propaganda techniques on U.S. citizens. But when Holmes brought his concerns to Col. Gregory Breazile, the spokesperson for the Afghan training mission run by Caldwell, the discussion ended in a screaming match. "It’s not illegal if I say it isn’t!"

It's not illegal under Smith-Mundt, not because a COL or General says so... but rather, because it ISN'T illegal under the Smith-Mundt act!
A PSYOP'er (MISO....er?) would know that.

[Fuchs]

I suspect Rolling Stone has a bad case of Assange-envy going on. They seem hell bent on whatever smears they can create or mine. I'm biased I'll admit though.

They only appear to be unnormal because investigative journalism has dwindled away in the U.S. and because the people aren't used to it any more.

[82redleg]

They only appear to be unnormal because investigative journalism has dwindled away in the U.S. and because the people aren't used to it any more.

If the load of bull$hit that RS published in the LTC Holmes story passes as "investigative journalism" to you, then I'm sorry.

The idiot author obviously didn't investigate anything, there were so many half-truths, misconstructions and misconceptions in that article, it hurt to read it. Critiques of the article have been posted- I'm not going through them again. I'm just arguing with your characterization of the article as "investigative". It read more like a semi-retarded junior high student puked back up whatever crap LTC Holmes fed him, after spinning it in the worst possible way.

[Ken White]

I doubt Fuchs thinks that's a paragon of investigative journalism. Doubt anyone does. I sure don't -- but I do agree with
Fuchs that the genre is virtually non-existent in the US today -- what now passes is for it amounts, like the subject article, to a supermarket tabloid sort of expose.

Thus you get the Assange's etc. out looking for some muck to rake. We started out with sensationalist news media, finally got real in the 1940s and 50s but it's been back down the hill pretty much since. It's really pathetic...

[Fuchs]

My take is that Rolling Stone at least attempts to do some investigative journalism. I don't like this to be termed 'Assange envy'.

I recently read how some newspaper praised itself for exposing that presidential wannabe despite his denials. It took them months and apparently a huge amount of work hours. This kind of effort has become rare in a media landscape that hires pundits for partisan brawling, sends its reporters into war zones as embeds (cuz it's so cheap), uses viewer-made videoclips fished out of Youtube or even directly asked fro in shows (CNN) and and and...


Regrettably, the German media landscape hasn't much investigative journalism either, but at least we have a bit less of the other superficial stuff.


We started out with sensationalist news media, finally got real in the 1940s and 50s but it's been back down the hill pretty much since. It's really pathetic...

40's? Really? Weren't three years of that decade soaked in wartime propaganda?
50's? Really? Weren't three or four years of them soaked in McCarthy's media whoring?

[Ken White]

40's? Really? Weren't three years of that decade soaked in wartime propaganda?Well, 3/10=30%. that means the vast majority were at least somewhat journalistic (which is not the same thing as totally accurate...). :D
50's? Really? Weren't three or four years of them soaked in McCarthy's media whoring?Nah, less than one and a half -- that's only 10-15%, thus >85% was reasonably sensible most of the time... ;)

In the 60s things started downhill, fairly slowly, continued to decline slightly in the 70s and 80, took an abrupt downturn in the 90s as the entertainment industry bought all the TV news guys -- who in turned adversely influenced the print media.

Maybe, hopefully, it's cyclical; and they'll have an epiphany. :wry:

[Pete]

Investigative journalism is a double-edged sword and at times can be downright pernicious. After Watergate a generation of reporters thought they too could be superstars if they played their cards right and found some dramatic and shocking story. Most news is boring and shouldn't be jazzed up to make it seem to be more dramatic than it really is. The other night I reread stuff about the Janet Cooke affair at the Washington Post in 1980; she was an attractive African-American woman reporter in her 20s hired by the Post who fabricated a story about an 8-year-old heroin addict in Washington DC. When she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize the Toledo Blade contacted the Post and said there were falsehoods in the canned biography of her that the Pulitzer people were publishing. After that Bob Woodward and another Post editor confronted her and after questioning she admitted that her news story and the educational credentials she claimed to have were fakes.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

"Investigative journalism," "muckraking," "agit-prop" and "opposition research" all seem to attract more writers of words than doers of deeds. The premise of the "investigative journalist" starts out with a problem that can be spun into a controversy, then a scandal, then a resignation or indictment and show trial, essentially a psychological operation to gin up lawfare to nonkinetically decapititate ideological enemies.