The Military’s Media Problem

[skiguy]

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.

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?

[Cori]

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

[oblong]

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.

[120mm]

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.

[RTK]

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

[ilots]

. 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."

[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."

[SWJED]

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

... 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)...

[120mm]

>>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????

[VinceC]

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.

'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.

[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.

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.

[Nat Wilcox]

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.

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.

[marct]

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?"

[Nat Wilcox]

"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.

[marct]

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

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 ?

[Nat Wilcox]

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

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.

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.

[marct]

Hi Nat,

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.

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 .

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.

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

Marc

[Nat Wilcox]

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.

[MattC86]

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

[marct]

Hi Matt,

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 ), 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 .

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