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

[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.

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...

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.

[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 wrote what I think is the best take on this I've read so far.

[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...?

[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

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.

[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.