Military deception and propaganda

[Entropy]

I was just over at Col. Pat Lang's site and his latest post is sure to be controversial. In response to the recent truck-bombing which MNF-I says was a special groups operation, Col. Lang says this:

In recent years the idea of lying to gain a propaganda advantage has become a popular concept among some people in the US armed forces. That is a bad idea for many reasons. To begin with lying is, in itself, a bad idea. Abandonment of the truth is a corrupting and corrosive concept, a step on a path that leads to an inability to believe the statements of one's own people even within the armed forces. Armies operate on a belief in the integrity of comrades. Without that, only a fool will accept the risks involved in trusting the guidance given by one's superiors. There are other reasons. In the end the truth will normally become evident and when it does, the trust necessary to maintain the support of one's own public for a war effort is destroyed. How foolish it is to risk that.

Nevertheless, our neocon Jacobin "friends" love the idea of deception and manipulation and their influence on the armed forces expressed through the civilian government has corrupted the basic belief in truthfulness as the best policy. Unfortunately, it is now plausible that the claim of Iranian responsibility for this attack on a predominately Shia market place in Baghdad may be a crude lie intended to support a propaganda campaign. Is the claim of Iranian responsibility true? Unfortunately, the "coin" of credibility has been spent to such an extent that the claim itself can not be believed without real proof.

Has the US government ever sought to manipulate opinion by deliberately using half truths or whole untruths? Yes, it has, but the targets have by law been limited to foreign populations. The danger inherent in doing such a thing has always been reflected in US public law. We need to return to this policy.

Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of this. I agree with him on the problems with lying and deception, but at the unit level where I work I haven't seen what he's suggesting. Thoughts?

His last paragraph has some big-picture implications. In a world where media is ubiquitous and global, is it even possible to manipulate opinion abroad without doing so at home as well?