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

[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.

[slapout9]

Gulliver over at Ink Spots wrote what I think is the best take on this I've read so far.

Entropy, is there a better link? The one you posted dosen't seem to work.

[Entropy]

Entropy, is there a better link? The one you posted dosen't seem to work.

Sorry slap, I hosed the link, try it now.

[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...?

[Brett Patron]

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...?

The media is confusing various aspects of the military? Really? This is news?

Most of those cats don't know the difference between a squad and a batallion. We expect them to understand the difference between an "IO" guy and a "Psyop" guy? Hell, I wonder if IO and Psyop guys know the difference!

Having said that, why do we use the word "journalism" with salicious tales like this? We elevate the weak on the backs of the few who actually still (at least try) to practice the craft.