Army Propaganda Unit Ordered To Illegally Target US Senators With Psy-Ops Propaganda
from the wrong-target,-general dept
Last week, Rolling Stone broke the news that the US Army's team of psy-ops (psychological operations) specialists in Afghanistan were ordered to target their efforts towards visiting US officials rather than Afghanis. This is highly illegal. US law says that any sort of psy-ops/propaganda efforts can only be targeted at foreign citizens:The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department's own definition, psy-ops -- the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you're not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's what you learn on day one."The army does have a public affairs team, who is supposed to help on domestic issues, but their focus is more of a PR type role, rather than overt propaganda and misdirection. However, it appears that some of the top Army brass in Afghanistan made it clear that the psy-ops team was to focus almost exclusively on visiting Americans, rather than influencing locals. The goal was to convince US politicians to keep sending more money and more men. The psy-ops team resisted and complained, but were continually ordered to do so. When the head of the team consulted a lawyer about the issue -- and was told by the lawyer that his concerns appeared valid -- the army retaliated by opening an investigation of the guy, Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, with what appear to be ridiculously trumped up charges (such as accusing him of using Facebook too much -- something he'd been encouraged to do by his commanders).
And, of course, after all of this, the Pentagon and the Army appear to be working on ways to cover this all up by making it look legit. They've done away with the name "psy-ops," changing it to the bland and vague "MISO" (Military Information Support Operations). Also, a few months later, the entire psy-ops team was told, "effective immediately," that they were being renamed from an "information operation cell" to an "information engagement cell," and told their "sole purpose" was to now do public relations, targeting everyone, including the US. So, basically, after going against the law that forbids propaganda targeted at the US, the Army decided to paper it over by taking the soldiers specifically trained for propaganda and pretending they're just PR people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: afghanistan, propaganda, psy-ops, us army
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh look, a conspiracy!
Huh...where have I heard THAT before? Anyone want to guess whether or not any defense contractors (Bell Helicopter again, perhaps) are involved in this? War is big money, after all....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So..
The book was actually based on fact. The movie... very, very loosely (i.e., barely).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
this story has been busted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So..
They should have just coupled this program with MK-ULTRA. That would've worked out well....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
Ain't America grand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: this story has been busted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone else take by the idea
Also, I can't help but feel that military organisations with bland names MUST be up to something interesting, and trying to divert attention from themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The question would be did they use only PR on Americans. Without proof the the contrary, it is hard to say they broke any laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*George (Tides Foundation, Media Matters, Moveon.org) Soros.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: this story has been busted
I expect any human to potentially try to sell things to his/her superiors. Obviously there are many ways to go about doing this. We certainly want honesty here if anywhere (people are dying and opposing players are making preparations to fight back).
What is striking though is the Hollywood (and perhaps very realistic) image that grunts are trained to follow orders without fail. What kind of respect is that for another human? This means they become a tool of whoever is the one that is actually thinking. I clearly understand why this is done (to fill the ego, with the plausible reasoning that you, the general, should have an extended body with as much power as possible and that those fighting are not equipped to think nearly as well), but a person's life should be viewed as more valuable than that. If you, the fighting soldier, are going to risk limb or try to remove someone else's you should hold yourself responsible and hence better be sure you believe in your subsequent actions.
Of course, I am not shocked the military does things this way since in practice there is a very large number of grunts that are willing to shoot and might do so under someone else's command if not yours. Demanding strict adherence to following orders is also a way to keep those with doubts about morality working for you (the general) rather than getting in the way.
The grunt creed contrasts sharply with the higher ups who certainly want to analyze the perceived enemy/foe and figure out how to win that chess game.
So, since military leaders have to think, does this pose a threat to the President and to the People, much like a thinking soldier like Pvt. Manning might pose to his higher ups? But we can ask the same thing about a thinking and empowered President and Congress posing a threat to the People. In the end, it is nice to try to make one set of decisions and then encourage everyone on down the complex hierarchy to just follow the decision, but this dehumanizes the participants, likely denies the valuable input of many heads, and makes you less likely to think dynamically and adjust quickly. It also makes us potentially very ruthless, yet powerful in many ways. And this attitude escalates from others as well (who'll feel threatened by us) and results in an arms race towards ever more powerful murdering weapons.
The best approach is to always frown upon violence (ignoring outlets like games and some controlled environments). And the best way to defend against violence from others is to encourage everyone to think and get educated on matters (so as to avoid being exploited and turned against someone else). [Anyway, if you act without having confidence, your chances of failing go up significantly from whatever they'd otherwise be.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: this story has been busted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Neither carries any more or less likelihood to be true or false.
If you really wanted to carve out a difference you might say that whereas propaganda might be used both to make the person , body or organisation look good, it can also be used purely to make others look bad where PR is more commonly associated with just making the person,body or organisation look good and tends to avoid the other.
But to be honest, even that doesn't hold up.
Just think back to your last elections, any negative ads were as certainly PR as any of the positive candidate supporting ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
End the Wars
[ link to this | view in thread ]
propaganda vs PR
Uh, no. People use "PR" when they don't want you to think of "propaganda". Same thing, but a more deceptive label.
"Edward Bernays, a confidante of President Woodrow Wilson, coined the term 'public relations' as a euphemism for propaganda 'which was given a bad name in the war'. In his book, Propaganda (1928), Bernays described PR as 'an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our country' thanks to 'the intelligent manipulation of the masses'." (John Pilger, 2010, Why are wars not being reported honestly?, UK Guardian.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps you are quick to condemn?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What the hell is Fox News?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
army-embeds-active-duty-psyops-soldiers-at-local-tv-stations
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Holmes is a douche
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: this story has been busted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, seriously, time for an update
You are showing a consistent liberal bias in your posts, posts that fall outside the technology subjects you pretend to cover. You consistently insist you are not so biased. Do you want to prove that, or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]