The Pentagon's office of special information
From salon.com's "War Room"

War room noted earlier today that there's talk in Washington about further restricting media access to battle zones in Iraq -- a prospect that seems even more worrisome in light of today's LA Times report that the U.S. military has been exploiting American media to disseminate misinformation to insurgents:

"On the evening of Oct. 14, a young Marine spokesman near Fallouja appeared on CNN and made a dramatic announcement. 'Troops crossed the line of departure,' 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert declared, using a common military expression signaling the start of a major campaign. 'It's going to be a long night.' CNN, which had been alerted to expect a major news development, reported that the long-awaited offensive to retake the Iraqi city of Fallouja had begun.

"In fact, the Fallouja offensive would not kick off for another three weeks. Gilbert's carefully worded announcement was an elaborate psychological operation -- or 'psy-op' -- intended to dupe insurgents in Fallouja and allow U.S. commanders to see how guerrillas would react if they believed U.S. troops were entering the city, according to several Pentagon officials."

According to the Times, the false start was just a small part of a much broader psy-op campaign, and reflected a new arrangement by the Pentagon to control the flow of information:

"One recent development critics point to is the decision by commanders in Iraq in mid-September to combine public affairs, psychological operations and information operations into a 'strategic communications' office. An organizational chart of the newly created office was obtained by The Times. The strategic communications office, which began operations Sept. 15, is run by Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, who answers directly to Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

"Partly out of concern about this new office, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, distributed a letter Sept. 27 to the Joint Chiefs and U.S. combat commanders in the field warning of the dangers of having military public affairs (PA) too closely aligned with information operations (IO)."

If that sounds at all like the kind of consolidation of control of say, the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, then maybe it's no coincidence who's ultimately in charge: "The strategic communications programs at the Defense Department," the Times further notes, "are being coordinated by the office of the undersecretary of Defense for policy, Douglas J. Feith."

Winning the propaganda war in the Middle East is no doubt a key to success in Iraq, especially in light of the 24-hour news cycle and the influence of Arabic satellite TV stations, as advocates of the new policy point out. "Information is part of the battlefield in a way that it's never been before," one senior Bush administration official told the Times. "We'd be foolish not to try to use it to our advantage."

But critics of the new arrangement say that exploiting America's own news outlets to do so may take a toll on the military's reputation. "'The movement of information has gone from the public affairs world to the psychological operations world,' one senior defense official said. 'What's at stake is the credibility of people in uniform.'"

"'Pretty soon, we're going to have the 5 o'clock follies all over again, and it will take us another 30 years to restore our credibility,' said a second senior Defense official, referring to the much-ridiculed daily media briefings in Saigon during the Vietnam War."

-- Jeff Horwitz

Links in article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20041201/ts_latimes/prmeetspsyopsinwaronterror&printer=1

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/16/intelligence/print.html

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-526322.php

Once again a situation of blatant misstatement of fact and the use of a tragic news story to create a hero-myth by the Pentagon comes to the forefront. The real story of Pat Tilman's death is now being exposed. At the time the Army issued this statement:

"He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near the enemy's location," the release said. "As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire ... Tillman's voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces."

they in fact had fourteen sworn statements that he was killed by our own troops, and this entire account is complete fabrication. Given this and all the other stories recently, I can't help but feel that this documentary was correct - The Pentagon is running a major propaganda operation, directed at us, The American People.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6656846/

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TILLMAN_FRIENDLY_FIRE?SITE=MABOC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

More rightwing media consolidation:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&u=/ap/20041206/ap_en_tv/clear_channel_fox_3&printer=1

Oh, for God's sake. Clear Channel radio is bad enough already. I guess it's time to completely tune it out.

__________________
'83 240D with 617.952 and 2.88
'01 VW Beetle TDI
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD
'89 Toyota 4x4, needs 2L-T
'78 280Z with L28ET - 12.86@110
Oil Burner Kartel #35

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...oD/bioclip.jpg

This is from one of the links provided above (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-526322.php)

"So far, senior military officials seem willing to stick to their agreement with the media to “embed” reporters, photographers and film crews with combat units.

At a Nov. 17 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee was asked if he thought embedded reporters should be removed. He said he thinks having media representatives in combat units is a good thing.

“In my personal opinion, embedded reporters have actually worked very well,” Hagee said. “They inform the American public about what these great young Americans are doing over there, and a large, large majority are doing … a tremendous job.”

The media are “an important part of getting that information out,” Hagee said. “I personally … would not want to do away with something that’s working very well. I would like to focus on the part that we might be able to do better and correct that rather than doing away with the entire embedded reporting process.”

Jones isn’t alone in raising the issue of embedded media. Vietnam veteran Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, first raised the subject at the Nov. 17 hearing.

Among those also expressing concerns about media combat coverage was Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga. “No news is better than news which is unfairly balanced toward the bad,” Marshall said.

Gee, with all that embedded media running around, its amazing that the only way we can get what is really going on in Iraq is via leaked CIA cables:

Report: CIA paints bleak Iraq picture
Tuesday, December 7, 2004 Posted: 8:33 AM EST (1333 GMT)

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration's portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper.

The classified cable -- sent last month by the CIA's station chief in Baghdad after the completion of a one-year tour of duty there -- painted a bleak picture of Iraq's politics, economics and security and reiterated briefings by Michael Kostiw, a senior CIA official, according to the Times.

The station chief cannot be identified because he is still working undercover, the Times added.

The cable, described as "unusually candid," cautioned that security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy, the paper said.

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA told the Times that they could not discuss intelligence matters and classified documents.

In general, folks who divulge classified material should go to jail.

But a document like that shouldn't be classified in the first place. There's way, way too much classification of policy/political docs because some dimwit thinks it will be embarrassing. I wish that Congress would take a new look at the process of classifying material. They did under Bush I and resulted in the release of an awful lot of policy info and all manner of spook files and imagery under Clinton. Then Clinton tightened it up a bit toward the end of Clinton II and Bush II continues at that level.

IMO an awful lot of it is CYA by upper echelons who think they're smarter than voters. Things that should be held in secret are material, methods, and manpower of spying and military capability. Policy stuff should be out there for all of us to review and squabble over.

B

There are plenty of people who disagree with the second part of that sentence. Henry Waxman (my favorite member of the House) has published a convincing report showing that W's administration is the most secretive we've had in a long time.

I should have been more descriptive. In terms of secrecy, I think the present admin wins over most recent ones, though I doubt it is in the top five of all time.

I was writing in reference to the law--Bush I changed the labeling procedure for secrecy to make fewer things secret but those fewer things were more stringently protected. Clinton in his second administration expanded the secrecy to protect assets beyond previous time limits--thus expanding control significantly for some things. Bush has not changed the rules. But he has enforced much more Executive Branch discipline to the rules than previous recent presidents. I think he has also locked-down lots of things under executive privilege and similar controls than his recent predecessors.

Thus, Bush, did not expand authority, he has enforced it. That goes directly to my criticism of gov that protects controversial and/or embarrassing policy debates from public scrutiny. I think that is way wrong. But it is within his legal prerogatives.

It goes back to one of my central themes of government--Congress is occupied by constitutional cowards.

B

Bush has moved governmantl secrecy to Police State proportions.

http://www.bushsecrecy.org/

one example:
http://www.bushsecrecy.org/blogindex.cfm?startrow=1&maxrows=10#189

Objective analysis, right?
B


about bushsecrecy.org
BushSecrecy.Org is a project of Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts. Public Citizen has long fought for openness and democratic accountability in government; for the right of consumers to seek redress in the courts; for clean, safe and sustainable energy sources; for social and economic justice in trade policies; for strong health, safety and environmental protections; and for safe, effective and affordable prescription drugs and health care. With BushSecrecy.Org, Public Citizen seeks to advance these goals by documenting, on an ongoing basis, the Bush Administration's efforts to draw a cloak of secrecy over the operations of government; by informing the public of the efforts of those who are attempting to contest the government's secrecy initiatives; and, we hope, by stimulating public interest in secrecy issues and rallying public support for the kind of open government that is consistent with the best traditions of our republic.

Poblic Citizen has an excellent reputation. Their studies are cited often in the news, and their lobbying is taken seriously in Congress. I am sure they have their bias, but they are not an organ of the Democratic Party. There are also a number of Libertarian websites that voice the exact same concerns:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese103.html

http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000354.html

What they all seem lack is a sense of proportion. I loose interest in single-issue advocates when they loose or improperly provide context. For example, I twice mentioned the relaxaion and reimposition (to a much lesser degree) of national security procedures concerning secrets. This has been an evolving problem since John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Presidents, especially in wartime, invoke stronger security measures. Its an historical fact. We are at war now. Increased security is probably necessary for some things but not all things.

But these groups, including my own, are tragically myopic. The voters obviously don't care--having recently re-elected the major proponent of teh USA Patriot Act. And there's your answer, by the way. The people generally accept the Act as it is currently enforced. But I suspect if the gov goes any father, the squealing will become unbearable to politicians and they will suddenly discover the virtue of liberty.

The problem is much greater than just this president. Presidents come and go and their secrecy interests differ with circumstances. But unless Congress does its constitutional duty and holds the Executive to account and finely circumscribes its offical secrecy laws, the laws will always be enforced at the discretion of the executive.

Pet Peeve ALERT!!! Loose is not the same as Lose. Please pay attention to the context and meaning.

What "war"? The whole "war" is a phony Orwellian invention.