The Military’s Media Problem

The Military’s Media Problem by Max Boot at Contentions (Hat Tip Zenpundit).

Quote:

---

I’ve been traveling around Iraq for more than a week, spending time with U.S. forces. One constant is complaints about the news media. “Why doesn’t the press show the good we’re doing?,” soldiers ask. They wonder why the coverage seems so slanted.

Part of the answer is that the soldiers’ tactical successes may not be adding up to strategic success. Another part of the answer is undoubtedly the bias of the press—not only against the war but also in favor of negative news. But another important factor is the ham-handed reticence with which the military makes its own case.

The conventional military mindset sees the media as a potential enemy to be shunned at all costs. Officers who get quoted too much are derided behind their backs as “glory-seekers” or “self-promoters.” The focus is always supposed to be on the team, not the individual, and there is a general assumption that good deeds will speak for themselves. General George Casey, the former U.S. commander in Iraq (now about to become Army chief of staff), exemplified this point of view. He seldom spoke to the media and tightly limited who could speak on behalf of his command.

The result of such caution is to cede the “information battlespace” to critics of the war and even to outright enemies such as Osama bin Laden and Moqtada al Sadr, who have shrewdly manipulated press coverage. General David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, wants to engage more actively in what are known as “information operations,” and he’s off to a good start...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWJED

The Military’s Media Problem by Max Boot at Contentions (Hat Tip Zenpundit).

---

Some interesting suggestions in the article. I was intrigued by this one:

Quote:

---

Some officers I met with earlier this week at Task Force Justice in the Khadimiya neighborhood of northwest Baghdad offered useful suggestions for what should be done: (1) require all battalions to set up a secure, comfortable room where reporters can stay and file stories; (2) contact media organizations to invite them to send embeds; (3) distribute lists of media contacts down to battalion and even company level and encourage officers to contact the press directly, bypassing the ponderous public-affairs bureaucracy; (4) grade battalion, brigade, and division commanders on how well they engage the press.

---

Part of my reaction was to cheer - after all, this may well have some good effects on the main stream media's reporting. Anther part of me, however, was sitting back and shaking my head thinking - "Wow, new TTPs for cavalry to attack entrenched machine guns!".

I'm going to have to think about this one for a while.

Marc

Let me quickly respond only to the post, reserving time to go through the entire article when I'm not rushing off to grade -- this is excellent news. I've briefed about press critiques to military audiences on a number of occasions, and I've decided that I need to radically readjust the tone and outline of those briefings to make clear that while it's important to be able to critique press coverage (so as to be able to engage it critically) that is no excuse to avoid the press or to deal with them in a hostile way. The press is the military's conduit to the American people, period, end of story, and it is absolutely essential that the military find a way to create a good working relationship with as many members of the press as possible. It is, in that vein, also necessary that the military recognize that the relationship is a two way street and that some of the coverage problems lie with the military and can be fixed by the military.

I have heard the complaint over and over that the press, for ex, does not cover school openings. If they haven't covered the first hundred, why do you think they'll cover the hundred and first? At some pt the military needs to recognize that their are certain templates to the way the press operates and figure out how to work within those needs, procedures, routines, etc etc etc. What can you do to change the way the hundred and first opening is presented to the press? Or, in the alternative, since the story, realistically, is the way the fight is going, how can you work with the press to make sure that story is presented in a way which reflects your vision of "ground truth?"

Preliminary thoughts, but I find these suggestions tremendously encouraging.

I'm of the opinion that we in the military need to embrace the media, invite them to stay with you and your soldiers, and let them see it all, the good and the bad. Nothing upsets me more when officers set a standard of either "no comment" or "I hate the media". This quickly filters down to the troops who then possess the same disdain for reporters. I find that an open and honest policy to media members benefits both them and us. Should there be some rules for the media to protect OPSEC and the safety of our soldiers? Abosolutely. Is it necessary to hand hold media around your JSS/FOB/COB? I say no. Let them go out and talk to the soldiers. The soldiers, even if they complain, gripe, etc about the war/equipment/food/extensions are still putting an American face on the war and sending a message back to the folks at home: WE ARE HERE. DO NOT FORGET US.

All troops need to have a basic knowledge of how to work with the media and how to interact with them. We'll never get our message out or our side of the story to the American people back home without them. Officer especially need to practice dealing with the media, just like we train for combat operations. I personally have a great deal of respect for Max Boot, have met him several times and was interviewed by him about my time in Iraq. I think his article hits the nail on the head. We continue to lose the information battle as both a military and the government. Embracing reporters who actually leave the green zone to be out with the troops needs to be one of the first (and easiest) steps to winning back some of the important informational high ground.

Quote:

---

I have heard the complaint over and over that the press, for ex, does not cover school openings. If they haven't covered the first hundred, why do you think they'll cover the hundred and first? At some pt the military needs to recognize that their are certain templates to the way the press operates and figure out how to work within those needs, procedures, routines, etc etc etc. What can you do to change the way the hundred and first opening is presented to the press? Or, in the alternative, since the story, realistically, is the way the fight is going, how can you work with the press to make sure that story is presented in a way which reflects your vision of "ground truth?"

---

Excellent points all of which point to the central isse that you must learn to deal with the media as you do any other factor/element on the battlefield.

Tom

Sadly, part of the answer is to train all soldiers in marketing. Consider the media an IO weapons system, with messages as munitions. If any soldier might find him or herself servicing this tricky and powerful weapons system without notice under the most adverse situation, does it make sense to cultivate a culture of 'media aversion' within the services?

Like a kinetic weapons system, the primary IO weapons system has certain caveats for safe handling (OPSEC, for example), and misuse can have devastating collateral effects (PVT Englund....). All the more reason to train our people with this weapon.

The S/G/J3 should be developing and supervising the distribution of a 'key message', and the messages should nest up and down the chain of command. The 'key message' should be an underlying theme or themes for the media, so snuffy doesn't have to waste time trying to think one up on the fly, and so commanders shouldn't be scared of the thought of a journalist talking to one of their privates.

You know, Van, that's not a bad idea in a COIN fight. I know that when I'm thinking about COIN I draw on both my Anthropology and my Marketing background. Still and all, Sully is spot on - if for no other reason that we have to avoid the image of the military being composed of Herb Tarlich clones :eek:!!!

Marc

Cautionary note: you can take the idea of "marketing," and of "talking pts" too far. The troops are always the best good news story the services have, and you just don't need to be that worried about what they're going to say. Coaching, to be sure, always -- you don't put anyone, much less a nineteen year old, in front a microphone without some coaching -- but you don't want ever to give the impression that a reporter is dealing with automatons, or kids who are scripted. Let the troops be the troops.

I may have told this story before, but I pulled some strings a few years ago and arranged for a tour of a submarine for some faculty colleagues. The absolute best thing that happened was when the Cdr. was pulled away unexpectedly just as he was about to explain the sonar room. On no notice he grabbed the one junior petty officer in view and yelled, "SULLIVAN -- TAKE OVER FOR ME!" and this young kid had to quickly jump in and present his area to a group of DVs -- and all they could talk about the whole way home was how impressive that kid was and could you believe how little this country was paying our junior enlisted?

Cori is right to caution folks about marketing. In the army and government generally. marketing falls under the Psychological operations rubric. Military PSYOP correctly operates under a never lie rule - but there is no requirement to tell the whole truth. Public Affairs, by definition, tells the whole truth - good, bad, and ugly. Although there is a distinction between these fields, that doesn't meant they shouldn't talk to each other and try to help the cause in their respective areas. A complete divorce is not only unhelpful but downright counterproductive.

This is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I'm a master's student in journalism and I am also a reporter. I have specialized in covering military affairs. Media-military relations can be improved on both sides.

I have been stunned by the access the military has provided me with in the past. Almost always the military will do everything possible to get me the access and information I need to write my stories. Also, the military personnel I have interviewed have been extremely polite and professional.

I see a change in attitude of field grade officers. They have moved beyond the post-Vietnam blame the media attitude that was pervasive in the past. They understand the media are like the weather-they must be factored into operational considerations. I would advise military leaders to trust their enlisted ranks. When I was with CJTF HOA last summer, even the specialists I interviewed did an excellent job in reiterating the command message.

We as the media have many problems. One is the business model of journalism. All media outlets are cutting staff and cutting costs. Those journalists who are left are supposed to perform more work, while somehow maintaining the quality of our work. Often times there is no time for fact checking that should happen. Many reporters who cover military issues are military illiterate and this broadens the rift between the military and the media instead of bridging it.

We do damage to the relationship between ourselves and the military. I remember one officer at Ft. Leavenworth telling me how a national media somebody came through the Command and General Staff College and observed an exercise that was war-gaming for Iran. This person then wrote an article about how the military was preparing to invade Iran. Utter idiocy that stemmed from being ignorant about what goes on at CGSC. My comment, yeah right, a bunch of Majors at a generally open access school are planning for the invasion of Iran. Needless to say, this sensationalism and inaccuracy damaged the relationship between the military and the media.

All too often many reporters aren't balancing their stories. I know I carry my own bias to every story, so I try to show balance in my stories to mitigate my personal bias. Even today, Iraq is not all bad news.

Building relationships enhances trust. My advice to reporters and members of the military is to cultivate a relationship with each other. When you have a relationship, every reporter has the ability to influence editors and push stories. Maybe the reporter can squeeze a few positive stories through when it otherwise would not happen without the personal relationship.

Finally, I agree with Max Boot's points.

Menning, I am really glad you posted that. I'm a Field Grade Reservist and I carry two very large scars on my posterior region that were put there as the result of Media Malfeasance. In both cases, media types with an axe to grind managed to lie their collective asses off in order to present the story the way they wanted, and then lied their asses off again to cover them when their "facts" turned out to be in error.

The Jessica Lynch media circus still burns my butt, and the largely media- propagated myth that the military lied about it has caused me not to trust the media. I started OIF I very pro-media, but now if a media type told me the sky was blue, I'd call them a liar and go outside to check, first.

The Jessica Lynch example is particularly interesting. For information on the specifics, I checked Phillip Knightley's The First Casualty. Before telling Lynch's story, he prefaces his statement with, "both stories [the toppling of Saddam's statue and Jessica Lynch] were manipulated by propagandists, and the war correspondents must accept some responsibility for colluding in that manipulation."

Although Lynch was actually quite safe at her location in an Iraqi hospital and receiving excellent care, her dramatic "rescue" was an excellent feel good story about never leaving a comrade behind. In reality, the Iraqi doctors had tried to return her to U.S. forces several days earlier but were fired on by coalition forces when they approached a roadblock.

Knightley maintains the slickly edited video showing her rescue was a propaganda tool of the U.S. military. I'm sure there was some truth to this. The media's blame in the incident is two-fold. One, they should have independenly verified the story before they ran with it, hook line and sinker. Two, according to several sources, Jessica Lynch was not the story of the day. Although her rescue was nice, other battlefield events eclipsed her individual story.

As the media are so good at doing, they created a media storm around her which detracted from their coverage of other events. I'm not sure what to write about this phenomena. I'm sickened by the 24-hour news coverage of Anna Nicole's death, but as a media outlet, what choice do you have if you're competition is covering the event? I would suspect the only thing a company could do would be to have a more compelling story to air, changing the dynamic with your competition.

The other thing I always keep in mind is that television is closer to hollywood than journalism. Video lends itself to dramatics in a way print does not. The other thing I try to keep in mind is the intense pressure a correspondent is under when in the field to produce compelling stories. The correspondent's employer is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions to keep them in the field and the expect return on their investment.

The sad thing is newspapers generally make 20-25% profit annually. Television stations perform even better, making 40-45% profit. If Wall Street's shareholders weren't so greedy, profit margins could be reduced, supplying additional funding for editorial staff, increasing the number and quality of stories. Generally, the economic model of today's news should bear the blame for a majority of faults within journalism.

The Jessica Lynch "story" was not fed to the media by the military. The "media" fabricated the "story" and then blamed the "military" for trying to invent "propaganda". Except for one highly excitable medical corps Captain, who was later slapped down hard by the military, the ONLY official word by military sources was "we don't know the status of Lynch, and that she isn't the only POW we are concerned about".

The media propagated myth that they were somehow misled by the military is part of the problem. When the media gets caught in a lie (my impression is that reporters played a version of the game "telephone" where they kept doing a "did you hear?" until they had completely distorted what had happened. Then, when it became obvious that they had been caught in a lie, they blamed the military, knowing that the military couldn't effectively defend themselves.

I don't know where Knightly got his information vis-a-vis Lynch, but I got mine by being the guy who briefed the V Corps Deputy Commander and the V Corps PAO on the subject. I vividly remember getting my ass chewed (along with the PAO) for not having the detailed information that the media was reporting. Of course, I didn't have the luxury of being able to make #### up like the media did. And to make things even better, I got the honor of being the dog that got kicked when Grandma farts when the media accused the military of misrepresenting the Lynch case. It mattered not a whit that we had NEVER asserted the alleged "facts" as misreported by the media.

So, until the media quits being able to excuse themselves of their own mistakes, I will consider them to be the "real" enemy and not trust them. I am a huge fan of conducting operations without publicity, instituting media black-outs, and considering media on the battlefield as spies. As long as we have an ignorant and apathetic American public, I think domestic I/O is a hugely over-rated field.

Hi Guys,

Interesting debate - I suspect that both of you are, actually, fairly close in your positions vis-a-vis the professionalism of the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Menning

....As the media are so good at doing, they created a media storm around her which detracted from their coverage of other events. I'm not sure what to write about this phenomena. I'm sickened by the 24-hour news coverage of Anna Nicole's death, but as a media outlet, what choice do you have if you're competition is covering the event? I would suspect the only thing a company could do would be to have a more compelling story to air, changing the dynamic with your competition.

The other thing I always keep in mind is that television is closer to hollywood than journalism. Video lends itself to dramatics in a way print does not. The other thing I try to keep in mind is the intense pressure a correspondent is under when in the field to produce compelling stories.

---

I think you've raised a really accurate picture of the environment the media operates in. I think that the environment has also deteriorated as a result of so many new channels appearing, so you end up with a form of hyper-specialization going on - we certainly saw that in the case of certain genres of news reporting (e.g. Shock News).

This raise some interesting issues about the profession as a profession. For example, are all reporters "journalists" since many appear to abrogate the accepted codes of ethics of the profession? Does the profession have a way of disciplining members who contravene professional ethics?

Another point that needs to be made is that the argument about "compelling stories" relies on a particular model of the audience - one that assumes the audience is a) passive and b) stupid (not ignorant). "Compelling" relies on the use of emotional arguments / imagery rather than rational argument or descriptive reporting and I think you are quite right to point out that this type of presentation ("dramatics") is more likely to appear in television. Compare it, for example, with the Australian Broadcasting radio report on COIN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Menning

The sad thing is newspapers generally make 20-25% profit annually. Television stations perform even better, making 40-45% profit. If Wall Street's shareholders weren't so greedy, profit margins could be reduced, supplying additional funding for editorial staff, increasing the number and quality of stories. Generally, the economic model of today's news should bear the blame for a majority of faults within journalism.

---

Honestly, I don't accept that. It is certainly true that the profit motive is one of the reasons for why the industry is in its current form, but that does not abrogate the responsibility of individual journalists to act unethically. In effect, it is a "I was just following orders" excuse that no self respecting journalist would accept from any person they were interviewing, so why should we accept it from journalists? I suspect that this is one of the things that leads 120 to say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

So, until the media quits being able to excuse themselves of their own mistakes, I will consider them to be the "real" enemy and not trust them. I am a huge fan of conducting operations without publicity, instituting media black-outs, and considering media on the battlefield as spies. As long as we have an ignorant and apathetic American public, I think domestic I/O is a hugely over-rated field.

---

Marc

To 120mm: Thank you for commenting. This site has allowed me to check facts with people who had boots on the ground several times and I am thankful. I cannot speak for other journalists, only for myself. The only thing I want is the truth, whatever it happens to be. Why would a person go into this profession otherwise? We don't get paid worth a damn, when you do your job correctly, you never hear anything, most people dislike us for one reason or another. Perhaps I am a bit naive, thinking that journalists aren't out for glory and fame. In my view it is inexcuseable to make up a story, lie or distort facts. We are the public's conduit for information--we must tell the story as accurately as possible. It is our duty, our calling, the raison d'etre a journalist.

I'm sickened when I think about the damage interaction with the media has cost both the military and the media. As journalists, we're not all alike. If I came into your AO, I would have to fight the perceptions of us all being a bunch of creeps and it would hinder my ability to tell the story.

I will disagree with your statement concerning domestic IO being unimportant. Dwight Eisenhower said, "Public opinion wins wars." Marshalling support for or against a war in a democracy is absolutely vital.

As for journalists and ethics, that's a good one. There are professional ethics standards for journalists. Professional journalism societies all have codes of ethics. If I lose my credibility, I have nothing and I should change careers. Discipline for journalists who stray the path usually comes from their peers. Media organizations will shun them and they will not be taken seriously. As in the case with the military, perhaps access will not be granted in the future.

It is my belief we're in a long war the military is not fighting alone. Therefore journalists need to forge working relationships with the military. Period.

Interesting piece on Petraeus looking to reduce "barriers" between IO and PAO. My take is they somehwat miss the point; the real friction is between PAO and PSYOP. Most IO types I deal with look at PAO and IO as a linked subject--as do I.

Tom

Quote:

---

Los Angeles Times
April 18, 2007

Pentagon Weighing News And Spin

The top general in Iraq seeks to pierce the wall between public affairs and efforts that attempt to sway foreign populations.

By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Since the end of the Vietnam war, the military's public affairs officials have tried to rebuild the Defense Department's credibility by putting distance between themselves and Pentagon efforts that use deception, propaganda and other methods to influence foreign populations.

A 2004 memo by Gen. Richard B. Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, codified the separation between public affairs, which communicates with the press and public, and "information operations," which attempts to sway people in other countries.

But Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has asked for changes that would allow the two branches to work more closely. His request has unleashed a debate inside the Pentagon between those who say the separation has made the Defense Department less agile and those who believe that restructuring the relationship would threaten to turn military spokesmen into propaganda tools.

A senior military officer close to Petraeus said the memo now in place prevents coordination between the information operations officers and public affairs officers.

"The way it is written it puts a firewall between information operations and public affairs," the officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the internal debate. "You shut down things that need to be done."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Interesting piece on Petraeus looking to reduce "barriers" between IO and PAO. My take is they somehwat miss the point; the real friction is between PAO and PSYOP. Most IO types I deal with look at PAO and IO as a linked subject--as do I.

---

This seems to be a rather limited view of IO. The following is lifted from JPub 3-13 (www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf)

"Information operations (IO) are described as the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to
influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own." (emphasis added)

IO is a combat multiplier under the purview of -3 shops. The last time I checked, PAO was a special staff officer of the commander's, like the Chaplain, the IG, and the JAG. Seems to me that any friction between the two stands squarely in the directions given to the two staff sections by that commander. If the PAO story and the IO plan are at odds, someone is not synchronized and requires operator head space and timing realignment by the appropriate commander. PAO work falls under "specified supporting and related capabilities" IMO.

The funny thing about that LA Times piece is that it refers to a 2004 CJCS memo while the JPub I quoted from is from 2006. Who's reading the doctrine and where does it stand as authorizing action vis-a-vis a memo from an ex-Chairman?

All good questions and I have the answers for none.

I also agree it (it being what the LA Times calls IO) is a very limited definition.

And that is why I found this article and the supposed debate to be curious; I am somewhat sceptical that Petraeus' IO staff--including his 3--would take the connection between what a PAO does and part of what IO does as verboten.

That aside the Joint definition itself is inadequate in describing IO at the operational and certainly the tactical levels. Commanders look to their PAO and their IOs for assistance in developing and delivering the correct message.

Best

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

That aside the Joint definition itself is inadequate in describing IO at the operational and certainly the tactical levels. Commanders look to their PAO and their IOs for assistance in developing and delivering the correct message.

---

Concur that the JPub definition is only the tip of the iceberg for those guys at the pointy end of the spear. But Petraeus HQ is more at the strategic end of the spectrum where the JPub is very germane, is it not?

Decades ago when I tok the Psyops Officer correspondence course, the coursework made the point that PAO and Psyops probably had a lot in common and ought to work closely together.

Quote:

---

Concur that the JPub definition is only the tip of the iceberg for those guys at the pointy end of the spear. But Petraeus HQ is more at the strategic end of the spectrum where the JPub is very germane, is it not?

---

Agreed and that is why I find this supposed intiative rather strange.

And also agree on the logical connection between PAO and PSYOP--the disconnection/prohibition is emotional/political. FDrankly if you look at the Hollywood supported news machine in WWII as well as that of the Brits that connection was open because it was important get the message out. That was then, however, and I stronly doubt we will ever go back to that era.

Best

Tom

Hi everyone. This is my first post here and I'm very impressed at what I see. I'm not in the military, although I would be interested in being a part of a PRT if I get some experience or the education necessary.
You guys are very intelligent and interesting. If any of you are or have served, thank you.

With that said, I'd like to comment here because the media and propaganda is such a huge aspect of this GWOT. As a civilian, I'm not happy about what I'm seeing reported. I'm not a professional in the media field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullygoarmy

Is it necessary to hand hold media around your JSS/FOB/COB? I say no. Let them go out and talk to the soldiers. The soldiers, even if they complain, gripe, etc about the war/equipment/food/extensions are still putting an American face on the war and sending a message back to the folks at home: WE ARE HERE. DO NOT FORGET US.

---

Is that all that's expected from the media? To let the public know "we are here"? I'd like to see more "support our mission" which is severely lacking in most MSM outlets.

I agree they should go out and speak with or interview the Soldiers, even if they do complain. But so many reporters will only print the complaints. What about the others who don't complain or what about the accomplishments they are proud of?
In the US, reality is, a majority of the public watches the big 3, CBS, NBC, or ABC. There is no denying they are one-sided "Iraq the quagmire" "Iraq the civil war", etc.
How could the military counter the obvious Leftist agenda of MSM?

This is my first post, so I should say before anyone misunderstands me, I like President Bush, I support the GWOT completely, and the mission in Iraq (which is part of the GWOT), but, IMO, the Bush administration and the Pentagon are failing in getting the story out there. Some of the Generals are poor public speakers. MG Caldwell is one they should use more. He's matter-of-fact, right to the point, and he doesn't stumble when asked difficult questions.
He wrote an excellent article in the WaPo a few months back, but I haven't seen other articless from him and I think there should be. He has good writing and public speaking abilities. Caldwell is just one example. Petreaus does well wth that too.

I'm writing this strictly from a civilian POV. I have to dig somewhat to find reports of schools built, sanitation facilities, and electricity or anything about the new hydrocarbon law. Why is that? Why is this not getting out there?

If I may, I believe the incoherence in the LAT article stems from an imprecision in the term "IO." (Although in fairness we all do it.) Doctrinally, PA has to do with the military's interest and responsibility in keeping the American people informed regarding its activities, via both the press and outreach. Psyops has to do with attempting to influence hostile and neutral foreign audiences and only foreign audiences. In my experience Psyops folks will barely even discuss questions regarding domestic public opinion with interviewers b/c it is so rigidly beyond their purview. IO involves the umbrella level "deconfliction" of messages as well as issues like ensuring OPSEC through computer security, electronic warfare, so on and so forth.

The problem is that we've all sort of casually begun using "IO" as a vernacular term to refer both to what are really Psyop operations and to questions regarding domestic public opinion, when the question of whether and how the military should attempt to influence American domestic public opinion is doctrinally closed, the answer being that it is an inappropriate role for the military.

So the debate the article is really referring to regards whether or not the military should take advantage of opportunities to influence domestic opinion. Is that appropriate? If it is, when is it? When is it a question of merely drawing the public's attention to something (such as the example in the story, using little kids to get a VBIED through a checkpoint) and when is it credibility-destroying spin? If the military only answers enemy propaganda, is that a strong enough and clear enough line to draw?

A number of PAOs believe the firewall b/w PA and IO (meaning efforts to actually influence US opinion) must be absolute, or PA's credibility will be irreparably damaged. Others argue that there are ways and times to go beyond merely answering questions that might be legitimate. The question is how and where the line can and should be drawn.

Hope that's useful.
-- Cori

The American Journalism Review ran this piece last year by the former press attache at the American embassy on how they viewed the media's efforts in Iraq.

http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4071


I found this passage especially interesting:

The most persistent critics of the media in Iraq have argued that reporters ignore the good news. Of course, it is axiomatic in the profession that good news is no news. But in Iraq, I would argue, good news was news and, to be fair, the media did cover much of it. When Iraqis went to the polls in January of 2005, their ink-stained fingers became an international symbol of courage and defiance. The story led newscasts and dominated front pages. The election was an astounding success, and the media reported it as such. But what of the smaller, daily triumphs, the reopening of schools and clinics, the rehabilitation of water plants and the training of Iraqi security forces, the billions spent on reconstruction, reform and civic education? Where were these stories, the critics would ask, why only blood, mayhem and failure?

Well, the media did run positive stories, perhaps not as many as we would have liked, but again the situation in Iraq often made it difficult, impractical or counterproductive to get coverage for the good news. For example, we stopped taking reporters to the inaugurations of many reconstruction projects because, as we quickly learned to our dismay, publicity might invite a terrorist attack. On several occasions, one involving a school, terrorists struck the site and killed innocent people the day after an article or television story appeared. We concluded that good publicity simply wasn't worth the cost in lives and damage, and we stopped advertising them. It was frustrating, to be sure, but prudent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Menning

To 120mm: Thank you for commenting. This site has allowed me to check facts with people who had boots on the ground several times and I am thankful. I cannot speak for other journalists, only for myself. The only thing I want is the truth, whatever it happens to be. Why would a person go into this profession otherwise? We don't get paid worth a damn, when you do your job correctly, you never hear anything, most people dislike us for one reason or another. Perhaps I am a bit naive, thinking that journalists aren't out for glory and fame. In my view it is inexcuseable to make up a story, lie or distort facts. We are the public's conduit for information--we must tell the story as accurately as possible. It is our duty, our calling, the raison d'etre a journalist.

I'm sickened when I think about the damage interaction with the media has cost both the military and the media. As journalists, we're not all alike. If I came into your AO, I would have to fight the perceptions of us all being a bunch of creeps and it would hinder my ability to tell the story.

As for journalists and ethics, that's a good one. There are professional ethics standards for journalists. Professional journalism societies all have codes of ethics. If I lose my credibility, I have nothing and I should change careers. Discipline for journalists who stray the path usually comes from their peers. Media organizations will shun them and they will not be taken seriously. As in the case with the military, perhaps access will not be granted in the future.

It is my belief we're in a long war the military is not fighting alone. Therefore journalists need to forge working relationships with the military. Period.

---

Sorry for "snapping" at you. I had a bad day yesterday, and mention of the J. Lynch thing is a red flag I have to learn to quit charging. But you bring up some good points.

I've mentioned the idea that domestic I/O and public support of a "small war" is overrated before, and I think it might merit further examination without me going "over the top" in my argument. Frankly, DDE was correct, in his place and time. But in an America where barely 25% of the people can be bothered to vote, just how important is public opinion?

If, for example, in the cases of the COIN conducted in S. America during the 80s, or the current conflict in the Horn of Africa, public apathy allows the polity to conduct any policy they could possibly wish, with the entire net result being a handful of smelly hippies beating a drum outside the White House. And as the US populous correctly despises hippies, even that works in the favor of the polity.

I submit that public support of a "total war" is crucial, while public apathy is much more important than public support in the case of "small wars." Public support implies engagement by the populous, and that engagement means that the enemy's I/O campaign can be used to much greater effect, especially with a neutral or "enemy" domestic press.

The first time there is an "operational pause" or a military setback, a popular war becomes a "morass". In the case of a long war, it is impossible to sustain public support, without big, flashy operations and managed success. I know it is slaying a sacred cow to suggest that public apathy is much more important to a "long war" than public support, but the more I read and see, the more I believe this to be true.

I'm sorry for not being able to put it forward more succinctly.

Quote:

---

The most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq will appear next Wednesday, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called "Buying the War," which marks the return of "Bill Moyers Journal." E&P was sent a preview DVD and a draft transcript for the program this week.

While much of the evidence of the media's role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

---

Review here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

. Military PSYOP correctly operates under a never lie rule - but there is no requirement to tell the whole truth.

---

While I agree that collaboration should - and does- happen, PSYOP does not operate under a "never lie rule," rather an always be credible rule. While collaboration does occur, it has always been a very cautious relationship for a variety of reasons ranging from their distinct objectives, to the before mentioned "rule," to associated legalities (Smith-Mundt Act, etc).

Cori - Overall, great points! Although I would ammend your comment to read "PSYOP folks will barely answers questions regarding anything with interviewers." :)

>>The Jessica Lynch "story" was not fed to the media by the military. The "media" fabricated the "story" and then blamed the "military" for trying to invent "propaganda". Except for one highly excitable medical corps Captain, who was later slapped down hard by the military, the ONLY official word by military sources was "we don't know the status of Lynch, and that she isn't the only POW we are concerned about".<<

Hello. I'm new to this forum, having just found it through a link via MountainRunner. I've had several careers -- soldier, journalist and, most recently, am in communications with the U.S. goverment. In 2003, I was a Pentagon reporter for Army Times and the other Military Times newspapers.

The Lynch story grew the way many modern news stories grow. I recall seeing a story in the Washington Post shortly after her capture, showing her Basic Training picture, and not thinking much of it. My wife, more in tune to pop culture than I've ever been, immediately grew fascinated and said something to the effect, "she's got such a girl-next-door look, this will be a big story."

The Defense Department played a strong and pro-active role in feeding the media hunger that grew over Lynch. Late on April 1, 2003, General Vince Brooks put out a terse news release saying she had been captured, followed by more in-depth information. The next day, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke aired the video in the Pentagon news briefing. Here is a quote from the transcript:

Presenter: Victoria Clarke, ASD PA April 02, 2003 1:00 PM EST
DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. McChrystal
(Also participating was Maj. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, vice director for Operations, J-3, Joint Staff. Slides from today's briefing are available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...2-D-6570C.html

Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. Progress continues in the war to end the Iraqi regime. As we close in on Baghdad, U.S. forces continue their attacks on enemy forces near Karbala, Al Kut, and An Najaf. Our forces air and ground are performing superbly and continue to degrade the Republican Guard significantly. While we're moving forward we want to underscore again that some of the toughest fighting may well lie ahead.

Yesterday, as you know, coalition Special Forces rescued Army Private Jessica Lynch from captivity by the Iraqi regime. PFC Lynch was taken from a hospital where she was being guarded near Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. She's in good spirits and being treated for injuries. I think we have a video clip. (Pause .. Clip show.)
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=2236

Here are links to official Defense Department releases by the American Forces Press Service related to the Lynch rescue, which depict how it was being officially portrayed, to include inuendo that some of Lynch's companions may have been tortured to death. AFIS is the Pentagon's in-house news and informaton service, co-located with Pentagon Public Affairs. Please also note the links to DoD-produced television programs related to Lynch.

American POW Rescued From Iraqis (April 1, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29181

More Details on Lynch Rescue, 11 Bodies Found (April 2, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29178

Lynch Family Overjoyed by Rescue (April 2, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29173

Lynch Recovering From Captivity in Landstuhl Hospital (April 4, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29162

Iraqi Family Risks it all to Save American POW (April 4, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29160

Lynch to Rescuers: "I'm an American Soldier, Too" (April 5, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29157

Lynch Gets Family Visit in Germany (April 8, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29143

Finally, here is an interesting article by the British newspaper The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html
An excerpt says:
In the early hours of April 2, correspondents in Doha were summoned from their beds to Centcom, the military and media nerve centre for the war. Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top figure there, had stayed up all night. "We had a situation where there was a lot of hot news," he recalls. "The president had been briefed, as had the secretary of defence."

The journalists rushed in, thinking Saddam had been captured. The story they were told instead has entered American folklore. Private Lynch, a 19-year-old clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was a member of the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed. Nine of her US comrades were killed. Iraqi soldiers took Lynch to the local hospital, which was swarming with fedayeen, where he was held for eight days. That much is uncontested.

Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.
And...
A military cameraman had shot footage of the rescue. It was a race against time for the video to be edited. The video presentation was ready a few hours after the first brief announcement. When it was shown, General Vincent Brooks, the US spokesman in Doha, declared: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."

30 April National Review commentary - The News Stew in Iraq by W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Quote:

---

... I can’t speak for Petraeus, but from my own experience, none of this begins to suggest that there is not a very bloody guerrilla war taking place in Iraq: There is, to be sure. And as I mentioned in “The Tank,” there are good and bad things happening “that don’t make the nightly cut.” Let me add, there are also skewed things that are making the cut...

No media company can accurately or completely report a war this way. But it is the way the Iraq war is being reported by most of the major newspapers, wire services, and television network; the threat of being captured by terrorists has quashed nearly all freedom of movement for Westerners.

The good news is: There is indeed infrastructural progress being made. It’s strange but true, which is a testament to both the resiliency of the Iraq people and the performance of American troops. Much of the country is relatively secure. And no one knows this better than the soldiers on the ground in Iraq, which is why the vast majority of them are willing to see the war through to its completion (though many are understandably less than pleased with the rate of progress)...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VinceC

>>The Jessica Lynch "story" was not fed to the media by the military. The "media" fabricated the "story" and then blamed the "military" for trying to invent "propaganda". Except for one highly excitable medical corps Captain, who was later slapped down hard by the military, the ONLY official word by military sources was "we don't know the status of Lynch, and that she isn't the only POW we are concerned about".<<

Hello. I'm new to this forum, having just found it through a link via MountainRunner. I've had several careers -- soldier, journalist and, most recently, am in communications with the U.S. goverment. In 2003, I was a Pentagon reporter for Army Times and the other Military Times newspapers.

The Lynch story grew the way many modern news stories grow. I recall seeing a story in the Washington Post shortly after her capture, showing her Basic Training picture, and not thinking much of it. My wife, more in tune to pop culture than I've ever been, immediately grew fascinated and said something to the effect, "she's got such a girl-next-door look, this will be a big story."

The Defense Department played a strong and pro-active role in feeding the media hunger that grew over Lynch. Late on April 1, 2003, General Vince Brooks put out a terse news release saying she had been captured, followed by more in-depth information. The next day, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke aired the video in the Pentagon news briefing. Here is a quote from the transcript:

Presenter: Victoria Clarke, ASD PA April 02, 2003 1:00 PM EST
DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. McChrystal
(Also participating was Maj. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, vice director for Operations, J-3, Joint Staff. Slides from today's briefing are available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...2-D-6570C.html

Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. Progress continues in the war to end the Iraqi regime. As we close in on Baghdad, U.S. forces continue their attacks on enemy forces near Karbala, Al Kut, and An Najaf. Our forces air and ground are performing superbly and continue to degrade the Republican Guard significantly. While we're moving forward we want to underscore again that some of the toughest fighting may well lie ahead.

Yesterday, as you know, coalition Special Forces rescued Army Private Jessica Lynch from captivity by the Iraqi regime. PFC Lynch was taken from a hospital where she was being guarded near Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. She's in good spirits and being treated for injuries. I think we have a video clip. (Pause .. Clip show.)
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=2236

Here are links to official Defense Department releases by the American Forces Press Service related to the Lynch rescue, which depict how it was being officially portrayed, to include inuendo that some of Lynch's companions may have been tortured to death. AFIS is the Pentagon's in-house news and informaton service, co-located with Pentagon Public Affairs. Please also note the links to DoD-produced television programs related to Lynch.

American POW Rescued From Iraqis (April 1, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29181

More Details on Lynch Rescue, 11 Bodies Found (April 2, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29178

Lynch Family Overjoyed by Rescue (April 2, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29173

Lynch Recovering From Captivity in Landstuhl Hospital (April 4, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29162

Iraqi Family Risks it all to Save American POW (April 4, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29160

Lynch to Rescuers: "I'm an American Soldier, Too" (April 5, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29157

Lynch Gets Family Visit in Germany (April 8, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29143

Finally, here is an interesting article by the British newspaper The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html
An excerpt says:
In the early hours of April 2, correspondents in Doha were summoned from their beds to Centcom, the military and media nerve centre for the war. Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top figure there, had stayed up all night. "We had a situation where there was a lot of hot news," he recalls. "The president had been briefed, as had the secretary of defence."

The journalists rushed in, thinking Saddam had been captured. The story they were told instead has entered American folklore. Private Lynch, a 19-year-old clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was a member of the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed. Nine of her US comrades were killed. Iraqi soldiers took Lynch to the local hospital, which was swarming with fedayeen, where he was held for eight days. That much is uncontested.

Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.
And...
A military cameraman had shot footage of the rescue. It was a race against time for the video to be edited. The video presentation was ready a few hours after the first brief announcement. When it was shown, General Vincent Brooks, the US spokesman in Doha, declared: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."

---

Nothing in the above post even remotely contradicts what I have been saying, and know to be accurate. As precise and meticulous as journalists claim to be, there are a lot of vagueness over who said what, where and when. The "Guardian" article in particular makes some tremendous leaps in incomplete reporting.

Don't forget that the military was reacting also, to what they were seeing on TV, vis-a-vis these events. The E-5 reporter who reported the "insinuated torture" appears to be accurately quoting the Iraqi Lawyer. If he did not, I think it is up to "The Press" to prove that the EEEEVIL Karl Rove and G.W. Bush were telling that young marine what to write in his article.

Which is what journalists and political types are "insinuating". So, why is it "okay" for the press to insinuate and dissemble, but not for military PAO types?

Hmmmm????

Still, it's worth noting that the "Lynch as Rambo" scenerio was not reported until overnight April 2-3 for the Washington Post morning paper.

Quote:

---

'She Was Fighting to the Death'


Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier's Capture and Rescue


By Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb


Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 3, 2003; Page A01


Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.


Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said. The ambush took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.


"She was fighting to the death," the official said. "She did not want to be taken alive." Lynch was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her position, the official said, noting that initial intelligence reports indicated that she had been stabbed to death. No official gave any indication yesterday, however, that Lynch's wounds had been life-threatening

---

So the Defense Department's pro-active participation in reporting Lynch's rescue preceded the erroneous Rambo report, when she was still accurately understood to be a "girl-next-door" Army private. Yes, there was a television media frenzy surrounding her capture and repatriation. Public affairs professionals could have served the public interest by reminding people, in these early days as the story was taking shape, that Lynch was among several soldiers in the 507th Maintenance Company and that another female soldier, Pfc. Lori Piestewa has also been wounded, captured (and later died of wounds). Public affairs is less credible when it joins in media frenzies. It is more credible when it seeks to place "hot" stories in context, for example, by reminding people that the 507th reflected the modern Army and therefore modern American society.

The other issue that is not often kept in mind is which audience are we trying to affect and the limits of doing so. As we see in this thread, there's a great bit of concern about affecting U.S. public opinion--which sorely could use some "other side of the story" treatment. But there's also the message to the indigenous people of Iraq. I am not as familiar with what is going on in this realm beyond what gets reported in the U.S. news. Surely there's a huge effort being mounted here.

The conundrum will be, however, that despite a good message or the best of intentions of the messenger, the audience may not have much in common with the ruling entity whom the messenger represents. So despite our best "Madison Avenue" polling and message packaging--and our training of those who must deliver such messages--they do not resonate with some (possibly significant) segments of the populations.

I am particularly concerned about this given what Eric Bergerud wrote in his outstanding book, The Dynamics of Defeat: The Vietnam War in Hau Nghia Province, regarding how well we performed pacification yet were ultimately ineffective given how the Saigon government was perceived. We could do everything right, but if the central government did not earn the loyalty of the people or--as Bergerud points out--they would rather die for the enemy than for a government they had no kith or kin or stake in when both sides put them under duress/coercion, it ultimately doesn't matter.

Iraq is not Vietnam, but this point is worth remembering as we survey the population and determine how they regard the government in Baghdad...and any potential local opponents of the central government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericmwalters

The other issue that is not often kept in mind is which audience are we trying to affect and the limits of doing so. As we see in this thread, there's a great bit of concern about affecting U.S. public opinion--which sorely could use some "other side of the story" treatment. But there's also the message to the indigenous people of Iraq. I am not as familiar with what is going on in this realm beyond what gets reported in the U.S. news. Surely there's a huge effort being mounted here.

---

This seemed a suitable observation at the end of an existing thread to put this in and ask what y'all think about it:

Taliban in rare frontal assault.

Quote:

---

Coalition forces spokeswoman Capt Vanessa Bowman said: "This attack shows the desperation that the Taleban must be experiencing in their attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan."

Remote bases like Anaconda are often staffed with only a few dozen troops.

"The inability of the insurgent forces to inflict any severe damage on Anaconda, while being simultaneously decimated in the process, should be a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of their fighters," Capt Bowman said.

---

Now, when I first read this, I thought to myself that it was pretty ham-fisted and over-the-top. But then, I began to wonder exactly what Eric was wondering above: Is it really for someone else? Is Captain Bowman actually talking to Afghanis? Is a sort of stagey kind of speech correct here for that audience? Or perhaps more subtly: Suppose you know your English will be translated into another language and you want the thing to have its maximum effect so translated. Would you end up sounding ham-fisted and/or stagey to your own people who speak your language?

Anyone know anything about this? I'm well aware this is a pretty difficult question, perhaps requiring some substantial linguistic and cultural sophistication to answer well. But maybe y'all know enough about information operations in general to at least say something general about it. It's of course possible to be too clever by half, and maybe the conventional wisdom for a Captain Bowman is "four beats to the bar", that is, keep it plain and straightforward and don't try to be too clever...but maybe not.

Hi Nat,

I'm just not sure - it reads right, in terms of boasting, but it's not quite florid enough. If it was aimed as a psyops type of statement, then I would have expected harsher language - "They came at us like the storm, and now that storm waters our gardens while we relax in them" type of thing. If I was writing it with a psyop strike in mind, I would have phrased it as something like "They came at us four to one and, in the fullness of time, achieved their goal of self death. Unlike the irhabi, their only victims - two young girls, died with honour. How long will the false prophet of the Taliban hide behind brainwashed young boys and wash themselves in the innocent blood of virgins?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

"They came at us four to one and, in the fullness of time, achieved their goal of self death. Unlike the irhabi, their only victims - two young girls, died with honour. How long will the false prophet of the Taliban hide behind brainwashed young boys and wash themselves in the innocent blood of virgins?"

---

Quantitative social science has seriously warped my perspective of what is over-the-top. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Wilcox

Quantitative social science has seriously warped my perspective of what is over-the-top. :D

---

Well, that was the mild version...

How about "Wine-bibber, with the face of a dog and the heart of a hind, you never dare to go out with the host in fight, nor yet with your chosen men in ambuscade. You shun this as you do death itself. You had rather go round and rob the prizes from any man who contradicts you. You devour your people, for you are king over a feeble folk; otherwise, son of Laden, henceforward you would insult no man." That's a good old Western insult (Illiad, Book 1 paraphrased)

Shakespeare has some good ones too, to say nothing of the Mabinogian, the Eddas, parts of the Old Testament or the Mahabharata . See what you missed by staying on the quant side of the force :D?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

...parts of the Old Testament...see what you missed by staying on the quant side of the force :D?

---

Actually, I have a habit of beginning papers with an Old Testament quote. (My parents were humanist intellectuals with strong interests in religion, though atheists.) This irritates the hell out of my fellow quantoids, who are almost uniformly secular humanist to the bone. Which is probably why I do it. :rolleyes:

Most recently, I used this from 2nd Chronicles:

"They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance..."

Oh I know it isn't the really good stuff (I am a big fan of the Theophany in Job) but you'll get packed off to the asylum if you use that stuff in Econ. :eek:

Hi Nat,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Wilcox

Actually, I have a habit of beginning papers with an Old Testament quote. (My parents were humanist intellectuals with strong interests in religion, though atheists.) This irritates the hell out of my fellow quantoids, who are almost uniformly secular humanist to the bone. Which is probably why I do it. :rolleyes:

---

LOLOL. I am always in favour of making my colleagues "uneasy". I once did a conference paper analyzing the use of Thomas the Rhymer in modern neo-pagan witchcraft - it was presented in a chapel, of all places, and I used Christian exegetical homiletics as part of the methodology. Then again, I once wrote a paper on the gnostic interpretation of the "I am" statements in the Gospel of John while I was in a trance state induced by listening to "Joan of Arc" by Leonard Cohen :eek:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nat Wilcox

Oh I know it isn't the really good stuff (I am a big fan of the Theophany in Job) but you'll get packed off to the asylum if you use that stuff in Econ. :eek:

---

Oh, I suspect you could do it in a paper analyzing the economic model of the Shepherding Movement.:D

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

I once wrote a paper on the gnostic interpretation of the "I am" statements in the Gospel of John while I was in a trance state induced by listening to "Joan of Arc" by Leonard Cohen.

---

In most of Texas that would get you 8 to 15 with a chance of parole after 5, but in Houston you could perform it on a flatbed in the Art Car Parade, no problem. :D

Perhaps I'm completely oversimplifying things (wouldn't be the first time) but when people debate how the military should handle the media and public relations, my response is just "be honest."

That's why I am worried we are doomed in Iraq - there's been so much dishonesty that the "credibility gap" with the public is very real. Many, both on the left and in the middle, just will not believe that we're making any sort of progress, because they've been lied to for so long. They were lied to about how easy this would be, how much it would cost (in money and sacrifice), and how long it would last, plus constant "we're on the right track" comments when clearly we were not.

I'm not trying to be political or nasty, but to me the solution is simple. We have to be honest, at the political and operational levels. Admit mistakes (within reason), be up front about expectations, and just be honest and open with the people when you are expecting them to sacrifice for a cause. As I said, that's both a political and military issue.

I would contend that's the obvious lesson (the details, are, of course, far more complex) from Vietnam, Iraq, and even Afghanistan perhaps.

Matt

Hi Matt,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattC86

I'm not trying to be political or nasty, but to me the solution is simple. We have to be honest, at the political and operational levels. Admit mistakes (within reason), be up front about expectations, and just be honest and open with the people when you are expecting them to sacrifice for a cause. As I said, that's both a political and military issue.

---

Actually, I agree with you. The problem, in some ways, is defining what is "honest". In a lot of cases, what we have are differing perceptions. Let's take one example - Did President Bush know here were no WMDs in Iraq? If we are honest with ourselves, then we will have to admit that we do not, with even a 95% accuracy, "know". We do know now that there weren't any by the time the actual search was underway, and we also now know that a number of the reports he based his argument are were decidedly "off" (i.e. Bravo Sierra), but we don't know what he perceived at the time.

This particular case illustrates another problem - iff ("if and only if") he knew that the reports were wrong, then he committed a treasonous act. On the other hand, iff he believed the reports, then he was acting in the best interests of the country, as he perceived them to be, and was fulfilling his role as President. The problem with these "iff" statements is that they lead to a mutually contradictory set of interpretations of his actions, one of which (the former), is grounds for his impeachment - a situation that cannot be overlooked by his political opponents. Furthermore, since the conclusion of this contradiction requires us to "know" something that is almost unknowable, it may never be resolved.

The worst part is that this is a simple case!

I think if we are going to resolve the issue of controls over military communications (I'm not going to touch politics with this one :D), then we have to distinguish between data, schema and interpretation. "Data" is what most people would call "facts" - who, what, when, where, etc. "Schema" in the "lens" through which people a) define what is data and b) interpret that data, while "interpretation" is the specific interpretation of "data". When we look at any form of communication, the first question to ask is "Is the data correct?" or "Did this happen?". Then we have to identify the schema used and, looking at the interpretation, ask ourselves "Is this a correct application of the schema?". So, two points at which we can say that something is Bravo Sierra :D.

Now we come to the tricky one, which is trying to just the validity of the application of that particular schema to a particular problem. Sometimes this is "self evident" (actually, it is culturally defined), while in other cases there may be a number of schemas that might be applicable - in effect, we have moved from a binary or incorrect-correct (i.e. data or use of schema) to a probabilistic situation for schema selection.

Now, this probabilistic schema selection is what causes us so many problems. For example, Private Smith has been trained to apply schema X in situation Y. When he sees situation Y appearing, according to his training, he acts in accordance with that training and shoots the person on the rooftop using a cell phone who has what appears to be a rifle barrel next to him. Private Smith goes back to his base, fires up his computer, and blogs about getting a sniper/lookout. Now, later investigation shows that the person he shot was a French news correspondent and the "rifle barrel" was a piece of pipe. This story is picked up by the news services and spread worldwide, including quotes from Private Smiths' blog.

Was Private Smith right to shoot this sniper - lookout? What about his blog comments that get picked up and used by the French government in an ongoing trade dispute with the US (over, let's say, California wine import quotas). What about the military that took,say 36 hours to complete the investigation and announce their findings to the press? Regardless of how anyone answers those rhetorical questions, that is one of the types of "risk" associated with this type of problem.

Honestly, I actually do agree with you about honesty being the best solution, and I am, personally, all in favour of milblogging and unrestricted access to the internet (in the sense of punish individuals who break opsec or cause problems rather than punish the collective). Still and all, this is the type of problem everyone is wrangling with.

Marc

Marc,

When we talk about honesty on the WMD issue too often we over look how we got there. Iraq was required to account for its WMD by virtue of a cease fire agreement and some 16 or so UN resolutions. It was never able to do so and was given one last chance before the war in 2003.

After we defeated Saddam's army, the US was also unable to account for all of Saddam's WMD. To suggest that the President was dishonest because of the failure of both sides to account for the weapons is to lose the plot. It is a diversion from the inarguable facts, but it has had serious political consequences in support for the war effort.

What should be clear is that if we were not able to account for these weapons with unfettered access, then it would have been impossible for the UN or Iraq to have accounted for the missing weapons given his limited "cooperation."

One of the ironies of the debate about "lying about WMD" is that those who are most likely to make that argument never challenged Iraq's failure to account for his WMD and opposed the war anyway because they thought Saddam would use the WMD.

Hi Merv,

I used that example as a case in point for of a number of reasons - mainly because of its potential as a political football. If we really want to look at it, I would make a couple of points.

First, the issue of accountability via the UN is quite interesting. Your president decided to bypass the UN after his initial appeals and go to war without UN support so, as far as using the UN as validation for the decision to unilaterally go to war, I would have to say that that is an invalid claim. On the issue of Iraq being responsible for accounting for their WMDs to the UN - sure, they were as, I would note, is Iran.

Quote:

---

After we defeated Saddam's army, the US was also unable to account for all of Saddam's WMD. To suggest that the President was dishonest because of the failure of both sides to account for the weapons is to lose the plot. It is a diversion from the inarguable facts, but it has had serious political consequences in support for the war effort.

---

Can we say "Nigerian yellowcake"?:wry: I am not and was not suggesting that he was dishonest. What I did say was that some of the claims he used for going to war have been proven (later) to be false. This has absolutely noting to do with accounting for weapons, it has to do with the establishment of a causus bellum. Furthermore, what I was pointing to was the impossibility of ever knowing, with 95%+ accuracy, what he actually believed at the time. He may well ave believed the yellowcake report, he may have thought it possible but not proven, he might have had other unpublished intel and knowingly used the yellowcake as a front even knowing it was false. My point was that we do not know what his motivations and beliefs were for using it at that time. The broader point I was trying to make was that he could be completely honest in his presentation of his beliefs and perceptions and still be wrong in fact.

Quote:

---

What should be clear is that if we were not able to account for these weapons with unfettered access, then it would have been impossible for the UN or Iraq to have accounted for the missing weapons given his limited "cooperation."

---

Absolutely true, although I would note that you did not have "unfettered access" to the situation when the claims were made. The weapons might have been smuggled out of the country (there were some rumours about that - I've no idea if its true) - it's also possible the weapons may have been dismantled and the parts shipped all over. When the US got in a position to look for them, they were looking at a changed situation from when Saddam was in power.

The entire issue is precisely so complex because of its political football dimensions. After all, what do we "know" with 95% accuracy? Well, we do know that he had used gas weapons, fire bombs and other non-nuclear non-biological weapons. So of the NBC trinity of WMDs, he had certainly used the chemical ones (NB: this does not mean that he actually had any at the time of the invasion, just that it is a "reasonable supposition). We also knew that Iraq had both the capability and the raw materials to produce certain types of biological weapons - anthrax comes to mind since I believe that the CDC mentioned four shipments to Iraqi laboratories. We "inferred" (applied a schema) that he was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Of these three, we can state with 95%+ accuracy, that he "had" chemical weapons (at least at some point in time), he may have had biological ones and certainly had the capacity to produce them, and he might have had a development program for nuclear ones.

Returning to the question of "honesty", I certainly believe that your president was honest in claiming that the Iraqis "had WMDs" - no question in my mind that he had or could easily produce, chemical weapons and had the will to use them. Did he have biological ones and a continuing program for developing nuclear? My guess, and this is all anyone can do barring further evidence, is that the answer is no. But that is speaking with hindsight - in terms of assessing the presidents honesty in his claims, it is also moot. His claims were based on perceptions, which may be true or false (as some have been shown to be) but, as far as assessing his honesty is concerned, the only valid way to do so is to prove or disprove that e actually believed those claims.

Marc