This is, of course, not an isolated incident. Another, perhaps less ethically-on-the-verge example was the “Shock and Awe” feint. You remember that? The military never said as much, but they certainly allowed everyone to think that GWII was going to start with this massive coordinated aerial assault greater than anything the world had ever seen… The media bit hard on a few leads the military threw out and parroted them endlessly.
Of course that never happened, and instead the ground troops launched a swift and sudden attack without massive bombardment beforehand, catching Saddam’s troops off-guard. To this day, I’ve never heard any media source admit what happened. Most tried to redefine “shock and awe” as something else and hoped nobody noticed they’d been had (and for the most part, no-one did). Nonetheless, the fact was that the military had used CNN et al. to spread disinformation to the enemy, to brilliant effect.
But in the Fallujah example cited, we seem to have something a little more serious; it’s pretty much a flat-out lie, and not just a dropped hint. And that raises some interesting questions.
It is a given that in 21st century warfare information (or lack thereof) is an absolutely vital resource, as important as territory held or materiel supplied. It is also a given that much of postmodern warfare is conducted via news media. Finally, it is also a given that as Ho Chi Minh demonstrated, a weaker opponent can secure a strategic victory over a much stronger nation by (among other things) attacking the stronger nation’s will to continue fighting. These facts are so bleeding obvious as to not merit discussion, and are axiomatic for this thread.
The question, then, is about to what extent, and in what ways a liberal democracy can or should use public disinformation. It’s fairly easy to think of relatively harmless lies that most people don’t have much a problem with; it’s also easy to think of cases that are obviously wrong. But where is the line drawn?
Conversely, if an enemy is supplying deliberate misinformation to a news source (say blowing up a mosque and then saying that Americans did it, or somesuch), and it is being uncritically reported, does the military have any right to prevent use of that information weapon; i.e. confiscating videotapes, etc?
Any thoughtful considerations of the question appreciated.
Two different questions, really… and I can only offer my opinion.
There is no line; the military, even in a liberal democracy, needs to have the capability to both keep it’s operations secret and to disinform the enemy of their intentions using whatever means available. As the enemy also has CNN, then creating illusions and ‘leaking’ them to the press is a great way to both control the information being released and to wage a disinformation campaign. Additionally, a good psy-op or informational warfare campaign can reduce casualties on both sides.
In the Fallouja example, did this psy-op campaign actually increase enemy casualties or decrease them? I would thing that the less-than-truly-dedicated enemy ‘insurgents’ probably left the battle zone before major combat operations commenced. This is good for both sides - fewer of them means fewer casualties for us, and an easier campaign.
No, I don’t think the military has the right to try to prevent such mis-information from being reported, but does have the right to offer their own story. Of course, the press also has the right (in a free country) to ignore the military and report anyways. In the example cited, however, I would think it would simply be a case of military spokespeople telling the press that it was a falsehood created by the enemy; it is then the responsibility of the reporter(s) to find out who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s more a question of journalistic integrity, rather than military expediency or right to control information, that would decide this issue.
I think this is the major conundrum we have in a western democracy. We have an institution (The Military) which is far from democratic and does not always operate on the same fundamental principals of freedoms and values as the society as a whole and yet is necessary to defend that society.
Let’s face it we believe in transparency and openness in our governments and institutions except our Military and secret services because for them to operate effectively they must be guarded. The chain of command is the backbone of our armed forces, questioning orders is, on the most part, actively discouraged, freedom of expression and action is also limited depending on your rank and specific job.
When in a conflict we allow(ed) letters from soldiers to be opened and examined and even censored. Civilians would never stand for that in any other time or with any other job.
Now the news services, which ideally should be the strongest institution standing up for the freedom of speech and holding our governments and institutions to account for the populous, should not be used this way. I’m thinking that the problem is that in the last twenty years the press has weakened. It has given up its critical eye to gain the privileges of “inside information” such as being part of press junkets and imbedding with military units. Unfortunately those “privileges” amount to them simply parroting the party line.
They have forgotten that they have the power in our society and have reduced reporting to out scooping and out flashing the other guy. Makes it easy for the generals to use them.
Hey, all’s fair. If the networks need to be spoon-fed every little thing and I’m in charge of what will be a bloody, violent invasion, you bet your bibby I’m going to use the press for all they’re worth. And it’s perfectly fair to do so.
Bottom line: the job of a commander is to get the job done and get as many of his people home as possible, and everyone else be damned. That’s the long and short of it. If by fooling the press he can get them to put out disinformation and get intel on their preparations and that saves more of his people’s lives, then he should do it by all means.
This is one of the finest examples of psychological operations I’ve ever seen, and that is what I do for a living.
I don’t for a second think the press has forgotten the power they have in our society, I think they have just learned over time what it takes to sell newspapers and get people to watch their programs, and that has become more important to them than their duty to act as the 4th estate and inform the little guy as to what the big guy’s doing.
I also agree with Airman Doors - this was a masterful touch and the military commander who ordered this was right on in tactics and strategy. If the press gets suckered in by it, so much more the merrier.
I don’t moan when the press gets it wrong - they get away with far too much, in my opinion, and have done so without remorse for far too long.
I don’t fault the Military or the Bush government for doing such a masterful stroke of manipulation of the press. In a way that is their jobs, to get their message out and obscure the message odf the other side.
I do blame the press for its own weakness. I know it has always been a business but there was a time when the news business had a tie only to the news business and out selling the other guy, now you have parent companies that have their own agendas in play.
I mean what can be said about news items about a new MacDonald’s product being intrioduced or Disney ride opening?
Also this fear of being cut off from press confrences leads to less critical reporting.
The press is like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football before Lucy pulls it away. The press has to realize that deliberate disinformation is an acceptable military tactic - if they don’t want to be a part of it, nobody sticks a gun to their head.
Then I think we’re violently agreeing with each other :).
The press has definitely been McDonald-ized. It’s no longer about news, information, or anything noble - it’s about sales and advertising budgets and that is what rules.
It’s definitely one thing I appreciate about Britain - the press here is no lapdog for the sitting powerful, wether that be politicians or businessmen. It helps that the major news source (BBC) is paid for by taxes rather than through advertising. Maybe that’s why NPR is still a valid news source rather than just another corporate mouthpiece.
Yup…Along these lines, I highly recommend Amy Goodman’s “The Exception to the Rulers.” She’s the host of “Democracy Now!” and her philosophy is that it is the job of the press to constantly question those in power and to actively not allow those in power to manipulate the press to their own ends. (And she does think that the press are too willing to trade access for docile behavior.") For example, when President Clinton called up her show on Election Day 2000 in an attempt to get out the vote among Democratic-leaning voters, she didn’t let him control the agenda but made it a real hard-hitting interview, leading him to say that she was being “hostile, combative, and even disrespectful.” However, if you read the transcript, what she was really doing was just doing her job rather than allowing her show to be used as a mouthpiece.
I don’t have a problem with tactical deception related to the US media in order to directly contribute to the success of a military operation. I don’t see it as much different than the spin that politicians put on their take of an issue, with the added bonus that this spin by the military could actually save the lives of US troops.
What I am uncomfortable about, however, is a blanket policy that our military may tell white lies to the public so long as troops’ lives may be saved. If one doesn’t question the military and our government each time a lie or distortion is handed out to our media, then the temptation to push the limits on what facts may be fudged may become irresistable. That’s not the fault of the military establishment, it’s the fault of human nature: give an inch, take a mile.
In this specific case about Falluja, I don’t mind for a second the fact that the military decieved the American public about the timing of a military operation, but part of the reason I don’t mind is that the story has come out now with a full explanation of the context of that distortion. I’d get very worried if the military didn’t have to go back at some point in time and explain what lies they told and why they told them.
The US Military is very good, I’d say well ahead of the curve, at “Information Operations”. This essentially means controlled leaks or misinformation being leaked. If some bad guy is working on a WMD program the guys in the Pentagon may let it “slip” to a journalist via a “senior official who asked to remain anonymous” that there are plans to increase the strength of US forces on bases within striking distance of bad guy’s border. In reality there are no such plans, but it gives bad guy a hell of a turn and acts as a deterrent. This was a favorite tactic during the cold war and continues to be reasonably effective as long as the US can project military power as effectively as we can today.
Well I always thought Star Wars were just a feint to push the USSR into giving up… but then some people now are making money of trying to actually do it…
The problem what if that mosque was in fact blown up my “ordinance miscarriage” (military speak for a bomb missing) and they try to say it was the insurgents in order to “save lives” ? When does deceiving the enemy becomes different from hiding something from the public ?
“Shock and Awe” was a “distraction” ? Well it actually came across as a propaganda blunder instead of “brilliant” like the OP says. They did bomb Baghdad… it wasn’t exactly a “sneak” attack. Anyway tricking journalists hardly is something hard or brilliant is it ? They tend to be pathetic when it comes to fact finding… and always in a hurry to publish something. Using CNN to distract enemies is fine… but its a fine line to abuse.
I don’t mind a little strategic disinformation from the military, but there are limits. These limits should be kept firmly in mind by the military spokesmen themselves.
The first is that if you lie too much no one will believe anything you say. See the 5:00 Follies from the Vietnam war, where the press realized that the daily briefings were worthless, because the spokesmen were ONLY interested in providing disinformation. You have to tell the truth enough that your lies will sometimes be believed.
The second is that you have to assume that at some point your lies will be exposed, and you will have to live by the consequences. If you state that the offensive has begun, but it really hasn’t until 3 weeks later, that is reasonable, since it will be obvious in a few days that the offensive really hasn’t begun. But if you say that a Mosque was blown up by terrorists, when it was really blown up by US forces, what will you do when the truth comes out?
The third is the target of the disinformation. Are you lying to the enemy? To Iraqi civilians? To allied governments? To US civilians? To US soldiers? To the CIA? To the DoD? To Congress? To the President? Given point 2 above, it is unwise to lie for the purpose of deceiving the American people or the American government. Will you really feel comfortable sitting under oath at a Senate investigation defending your lies? The likelyhood that your lies will be discovered eventually is very high, if you aren’t prepared to defend them then consider whether you should make them.
And of course, the press has to act independently. If the press blindly parrots everything said at a Pentagon briefing, how is that the fault of the military? There are way to many anonymous sources and highly-placed administration officials in news stories today, and I’m sick of it. Please keep in mind that your source is using you, always. Highly-placed administration officials don’t just randomly call up reporters and brainstorm ideas with them, they are trying to create a perception. At the very least, reporters should be comfortable exposing anonymous sources who lie to them. Access, hah! What good is access if that access doesn’t give you accurate information?
My thanks for some very thoughtful contributions so far; my apologies tat circumstances have intervened and I may not be able to post until Monday. Not that I necessarily disagree with what’s been said; I don’t really have a position to defend myself.
I saw Goodman a few times on cable TV’s Hardball recently, and while I have some sympathy with her positions and was somewhat impressed with her tenacity, she nearly lost me when she came out with the phrase “the lies of the administration” in her first 5 seconds on air. If you want to persuade and win people over, that’s not the sort of question you want to beg.
Her job isn’t to persuade or convince, but to report and to get what she thinks is the truth out of people who don’t necessarily want to tell it…
That’s one good point - why does the press need to have a ‘position’ on anything, why the hell can’t they just report the news and let us decide! That’s supposed to be their job, reporting, and they are taking our job, creating a position of opinion, away from us!