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?

[Ken White]

I visit his site occasionally, usually good for a chuckle and little more IMO.

Does he have a valid point in his question? Sure, deception or untruth is always a possibility -- and not only for propaganda purposes, which someone with his alleged background should know -- it's also possible that it is correct. Which he should also know. However, he elects to spin it. Which is why he's good for an occasional chuckle.

IOW, he knows no more than you or I but attempts to politicize an event by suggesting evil intent. That isn't professional, it's political.

He obviously isn't as old as he looks or he'd recall that in every war I can think of the US Government has tried to spin and propagandize, laws or no laws. This (LINK) is only one of the more successful examples. Bureaucracies tend to be self protective. That's far older than he or I and will still be around when our Great Grandkids are adults...

[Stevely]

How does he have any idea whether the government is lying about this or not? The fact that he offers no proof to counter the government's claim other than pointing out that a bombing in that neighborhood some time in the past was done by Sunnis. He should probably shore up his own credibility before launching on a rant about the untruthfulness of others.

[slapout9]

Reports 1 and 2 on understanding propoganda....some good stuff in here.


Report 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XULk...aynext_from=RL

Report 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H12Cnw6cMAo

[Greyhawk]

In a world where media is ubiquitous and global, is it even possible to manipulate opinion abroad without doing so at home as well?

No.

And at some point there will be claims that something demonstrably "wrong" (and arguably a "lie") in a foreign media account was in fact a diabolical attempt to circumscribe the law.

Factor in paraphrasing, misquotes, and interpretation issues and the possibilities are endless.

[Fuchs]

Propaganda reaches into the realm of psychology. You would be surprised what's possible. Some points resonate a lot in place a while you can tell the exact opposite in place b with the same success - without getting into trouble.

Politicians do it all the time. Listen to a politician in a college speech and next day in a retirement home...


The whole thing isn't completely covered by science yet, so there's still some art involved. Imagine Rove/Cheney had applied their liar talents for useful purposes...

A small (sadly kinda mediocre) teaser on the topic:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625?from=rss

[Abu Suleyman]

The whole thing isn't completely covered by science yet, so there's still some art involved. Imagine Rove/Cheney had applied their liar talents for useful purposes...

A small (sadly kinda mediocre) teaser on the topic:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625?from=rss

In both the Bush/Cheney thing and in Health Care the issues that most people refer to as being "lies" are actually projections into the future (or the present, in the case of intelligence), and not statements of fact. In otherwords, people took the information that they had, and rightly or wrongly extrapolated a conclusion from it. In the Bush/Cheney case it was the conclusion based upon limited (and apparently incorrect) intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was attempting to rebuild his WMD program. In the Health Care (the link Fuch's gives) it is, among other things, the "Death Panels" which was a dramatic name Sarah Palin gave for the government boards that she extrapolated from the incentive structure created by one of the Health care proposals.

However, strictly speaking, neither of those qualify as lies, because they were not falsifiable to the person who was saying them. Indeed, the better response to those who disagree is to show the error of their reasoning, but unfortunately in todays media, the common response is to yell "lies" and whoever is louder wins.

This, however, is an illustration of how good propoganda, which both examples above clearly are, works. Propoganda, done correctly, is not the telling of lies, but the telling of truths in such a way that allows others to extrapolate their own conclusions in a way desirable to the propogator. So for example when Al Qaeda talks about Guantanamo, it is not that they want people all over the world to care about injustice, but they want Muslims to believe that America is coming for them, too. Unfortunately, we in the west seem to have lost all sense of subtlety, which is a key factor in truly good propoganda.

[Fuchs]

In both the Bush/Cheney thing and in Health Care the issues that most people refer to as being "lies" are actually projections into the future (or the present, in the case of intelligence), and not statements of fact. In otherwords, people took the information that they had, and rightly or wrongly extrapolated a conclusion from it.

"Office of the Press Secretary
August 26, 2002

Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention
Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention "

(...) Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.(...)

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv.../20020826.html

Cheney is a liar, period. His statements were beyond interpretation.

I know that those people try to re-write history, to cover up their misconduct. It's typical after gross failure. That should not be allowed to happen.

[Abu Suleyman]

You forget that in 2002 there was no doubt on anyone's side. Not one intelligence agency in the entire world doubted the existence of WMD in Iraq. The argument in 2002 was never about whether Saddam had and was developing weapons, it was whether we should invade or not.

The best proof of his having weapons was the fact that he acted exactly as we would have expected if he had weapons. Indeed he did have 500 metric tons of non-weaponized Uranium. But the problem was that Saddam decieved us. While Vice-President Cheney has plenty of problems to criticize him over, he is no more of a liar than someone who is fooled by a magician into thinking there is a coin in his hand.