Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Military deception and propaganda

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default Military deception and propaganda

    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?
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 08-27-2009 at 02:07 PM. Reason: fixed title

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs down No thoughts that can be written on a family site.

    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...

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA
    Posts
    150

    Default

    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.
    He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.

  4. #4
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default New Videos On Propoganda

    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

  5. #5
    Council Member Greyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    117

    Default There's the rub

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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

  7. #7
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  8. #8
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 08-31-2009 at 08:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default There was no doubt

    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.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  10. #10
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    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.
    Sorry, but you merely missed all those doubts that persisted around the world.
    The U.S. intelligence services were quite reluctant and careful as well.

    Besides; your "best proof" is no proof at all - it's at best a weak indication.

    A full discussion of Cheney would take weeks, but this is obvious to me and I fail to understand how you can disagree (albeit I've read a lot about psychological explanations for such behaviour, like cognitive dissonance):

    Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove and others wanted war with Iraq for stupid reasons, they (especially the smarter ones; Cheney and Rove) manipulated and manipulated in order to get support (thereby ruining the reality-based intelligence services into mere servants). They had no good evidence at all, used their pre-conceived conclusions and lied to the world.
    There were dozens of well-documented and proved lies.

    The Iraq war was based on a house of lies built by the U.S. government at the highest levels.

    I understand it's hard to accept if you suddenly find yourself on the team that turned out to 'not have been the good guys'.
    Most people turn to a tunnel vision and ignore all conflicting evidence once they find themselves in such a situation.
    Psychologists have done studies that show a huge percentage of people cannot change their mind that late even if faced with perfect evidence of their error. It's almost unbelievable how tricky the human mind is.

    Nevertheless, the sh** has already hit the fan, now it's time to draw lessons, to improve the understanding of other nations/people who have been, are or will be in similar situations (Serbs, for example - or even "reconcilable" Taleban) and to watch out that the real history will be remembered, not a spin doctor version.


    A bit back2topic; re-writing history is also an important part of propaganda. It's also a very powerful thing, if you've got the right levers.

  11. #11
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes, I've noticed that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    A bit back2topic; re-writing history is also an important part of propaganda. It's also a very powerful thing, if you've got the right levers.
    Lot of it going about...

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    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.
    It is certainly the case that the western intelligence community was agreed that Saddam had some chemical weapon capacity. Indeed, even some of the Iraqi regime seem to have thought they had CW, and were surprised to find out after the war that they did not.

    On the other hand, there was substantial disagreement, to some extent within the US intelligence community, and even more so between the US and its allies, as to:

    • How much CW capacity Iraq might have.
    • Whether that CW capacity was particularly dangerous.
    • Whether Iraq had any significant biological weapons capacity.
    • Whether Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.


    On these issues, many non-US intelligence services were much closer to the mark than was Washington. Part of the reason for that was an absence of political pressure to cherry-pick the data, but it was far from the only reason.

    I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which Bush, Cheney, et al believed in what they were saying. Intelligence information is often inherently ambiguous, and its all too easy to take a fragment and use it to buttress your preconceived viewpoint.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  13. #13
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Cool Call me befuddled, What else is new

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Sorry, but you merely missed all those doubts that persisted around the world.
    The U.S. intelligence services were quite reluctant and careful as well.

    Besides; your "best proof" is no proof at all - it's at best a weak indication.

    To true on that one, of course there may have been the little fact so ?how? many of those disagreeing had a (hmmm, for lack of a better term)Vested interest in us not going in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    A bit back2topic; re-writing history is also an important part of propaganda. It's also a very powerful thing, if you've got the right levers.
    It is an amazing thing, tain't it
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  14. #14
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    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.
    One of the biggest fallacies of modern times is that Saddam "had no WMD" in 2003. Fact: He had all the expertise. He had all the facilities, and he had all the resources. The fact that we found no barrels of VX is utterly irrelevant, except that it was a political disaster and the White House was utterly inept at explaining the reality.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #15
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Right on that...

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ...The fact that we found no barrels of VX is utterly irrelevant, except that it was a political disaster and the White House was utterly inept at explaining the reality.
    Both points. The Bush White house did the poorest job PR of any in my memory. That's goes back a way...

    Politicians say dumb and specious things constantly, trying to shade reality to justify everything they want to do be it a war or health care. I've never known of one in recent times who wasn't prone to do so. American politicians are worse than most, perhaps because they get more TV coverage...

  16. #16
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Are we really going to rehash the WMD arguments again? Is there a point? Bush and Chaney are out of office now. These arguments never get anywhere and unless I am totally mistaken there has been no new information on the topic in quite some time. At this point no one is going to change anyone's mind on the subject and arguing about it just doesn't make sense.

    SFC W

  17. #17
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Indeed, even some of the Iraqi regime seem to have thought they had CW, and were surprised to find out after the war that they did not.
    I remember reading that report as well, and noting that same point. I also wondered why, If Saddam really had no CW capacity, he didn't simply pull the rug out from under the invasion preparations by opening the door to international inspections. One possibility I though worth considering is that Saddam saw the belief in WMD as a deterrent, not against foreign attack but against a possible coup.

  18. #18
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    Are we really going to rehash the WMD arguments again? Is there a point? Bush and Chaney are out of office now. These arguments never get anywhere and unless I am totally mistaken there has been no new information on the topic in quite some time. At this point no one is going to change anyone's mind on the subject and arguing about it just doesn't make sense.
    Not arguing. I am merely stating it as an object lesson in how essentially correct information, that supports a policy, is grossly and ineptly handled, to the extent it casts doubt on the usefulness of information ops, propaganda and deception.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I remember reading that report as well, and noting that same point. I also wondered why, If Saddam really had no CW capacity, he didn't simply pull the rug out from under the invasion preparations by opening the door to international inspections. One possibility I though worth considering is that Saddam saw the belief in WMD as a deterrent, not against foreign attack but against a possible coup.
    Saddam made a calculation early on - he would would work to prevent any possibility of the UN/US finding a "smoking gun" to restart a war while at the same time maintaining an illusion he still had WMD.

  20. #20
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The "maintaining an illusion" wasn't really done by Saddam.

    My initial point was that Cheney/Rove had/have immense manipulation talents and imagine what could have been achieved if they had used it for a good purpose instead of for wrong fixed ideas.
    Imagine Rove/Cheney had applied their liar talents for useful purposes...
    Such talents are rare in very high level positions, even though many political systems breed such people.


    Another example: Imagine Goebbels as a proponent of environmental policies. The Dalai Lama is a huge PR talent as well, he even sticks to his strategy for decades. Mandela and Ghandhi were also great, as were Péron, Castro and the early Mao.
    Chavéz is apparently a gifted demagogue as well.

    Effective political (and to some even military) propaganda requires not only plans, analysis, doctrines - it's first and foremost about people. The same applies to political deception (military deception is rarely person-centric).

    Maybe a staff of psychologists and political scientists may develop a super-effective propaganda and deception campaign based on doctrine, planning and science, but I assume that a single talent could do it better. It's still quiet much an art.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •