Pentagon Nixes Proposal: Surprised, Chris?

Today 2/21/02 the Pentagon scrapped a proposed plan to spread disinformation in the fight against terrorism.


"Consistent with defense department policy, under no circumstances will the office or its contractors willingly or deliberately disseminate false or misleading information to the American or foreign media or public," the Pentagon said in a statement to the New York Times.


"The information that's provided to the public both at home and abroad needs to be accurate, as accurate as we can make it," said the US vice-president, Dick Cheney.


Donald Rumsfeld: "Government officials, the department of defense, this secretary and the people that work with me will tell the American people and the people of the world the truth," he said.


That didn't take long.

Doesn't the fact that they even considered the proposal in the first place disturb you? I'm not surprised in the least that this ridiculously stupid proposal was nixed. What does surprise me is that they would openly consider a policy that would damage our credibility even further. That in itself leads me to question the mental capacity of our leaders. A bunch of monkeys in suits and ties is what I see. They truly make me sick.

It certainly makes me question the judgment of the General in charge of the office at the Pentagon which came up with this proposal. However it is due to the other monkeys in suits and ties that this proposal was nixed.

That they let it out to the public is what embarasses me! What kind of circus are they running out there? Discuss these things privately, for Christ's sake! Come to the conclusion that it was a stupid, misguided idea, and then shitcan it without another word. To let this out of the bag is just plain stupid--for all of the monkey's! It's a joke. I can only imagine the giggling about this in other countries. This is the kind of crap that I find embarassing as an American.

seems to me this is just like the torture of americans thing. they know it wont fly right now but they want to gauge public reaction to see how much more work they have to do.


brad

I'm not surprised at all.


But what's your source on this? According to the 2/21 Chicago Tribune (link below), the information is not longer "black" propaganda for the foreign media, but false "tactical" information:


"Dubbed the Office of Strategic Influence and headed by an Air Force general, the operation is already trying to counter false information being spread overseas about the U.S. war on terror, officials said.


In addition to playing defense, the office will play offense by helping the military spread tactical and strategic disinformation designed to throw off adversaries.


'The Pentagon is not issuing disinformation to the foreign press or any other press,' Rumsfeld told reporters during a stop in Salt Lake City at the Winter Olympics. 'We make a practice of assuring that what we tell the public is accurate and correct.'


But Rumsfeld said the Pentagon will actively try to deceive adversaries."


So it sounds as if they're going to be lying to the bad guys but not us, presumably in some fashion that the bad guys will be unable to detect but that we will.


Clearly the Pentagon was stung by the story but the idea hasn't finished percolating. The Rumsfeld quote in your post above sounds like the one I heard Wednesday on NPR. Upon hearing it, I was struck at how he emphasized government employees telling the truth but didn't say anything about the consultants mentioned in the original Times article, the ones that also worked for the CIA.


Sure enough, this distinction appears to have been deliberate, as the Tribune notes:


"[On Wednesday] Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy ... appeared to draw a distinction between misinformation clearly traceable to the Pentagon and misinformation that might be disseminated through other means, such as a contractor or clandestine operative."


Now we see from the first quote in your post that the use of contractors to lie to the public is now being ruled out. Three days after the story was leaked. Thank goodness for government disloyalty.


BTW, I don't think that Pentagon disinformation is that big a deal in the first place because the media is so dominated by propaganda that it wouldn't make much difference. The press is business that filters foreign events in a predictable manner according to conventions of (1) tacit or overt support and deference to our government and other major institutions, (2) describing events in a context that makes them predictable and understandable given the worldview of most Americans, based mostly on a framework of government support, as opposed to context which might agitate or alarm the public; and (3) against "extreme" government criticims or stressing factual ammunition for foreign propaganda, to the extent possible while maintaining credibility. These are business-driven conventions of news reportage, just as there are business-driven conventions to advertising.


As a result, the press functions as a proposganda machine for the state (more so with foreign than domestic policy). This isn't a conspiracy or deliberate decision by anyone, anymore than there's a deliberate "conspiracy" to make the local news stations in every major market look pretty much the same, which they do to an amazing degree nonetheless. There are exceptions, but they're rare, such as Vietnam after 1967 (and not before), when government planners, officials and other elites became sharply divided.


There's enough biased and incomplete reporting about without complicating matters through deliberate government lying.

The source was a British newspaper linked from a larger news site--I forget the exact name of the British paper. I cut and pasted the exact quotes. I did not want to cut and paste the entire article because I would be concerned about copyright infringement.


The impression I got regarding use of disinformation was this: the Pentagon was saying, essentially, that they retained the right to use disinformation to confuse the enemy during war, but that news information released to the public would be accurate and true. So maybe that means they would use false command messages, hoping the enemy would intercept them, or something like that. It does sound somewhat contradictory but I think there are ways they can try to deceive the enemy without false news reports. Not all information gathered by the enemy is gathered from news reports;-)

You believe the Pentagon?

Actually, I wait for an official denial from The Pentagon. Then I know the opposite must be true.