Office of Strategic Influence (Office of Propaganda)

[rockHEAD]

Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20020219/wl_nyt/pentagon_readies_efforts_to_sway_sentiment_abroad&printer=1)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 - The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said.

The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defense Department's public affairs officers.

The military has long engaged in information warfare against hostile nations for instance, by dropping leaflets and broadcasting messages into Afghanistan when it was still under Taliban rule.

But it recently created the Office of Strategic Influence, which is proposing to broaden that mission into allied nations in the Middle East, Asia and even Western Europe.

The office would assume a role traditionally led by civilian agencies, mainly the State Department.

The small but well-financed Pentagon office, which was established shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was a response to concerns in the administration that the United States was losing public support overseas for its war on terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries.

Little information is available about the Office of Strategic Influence, and even many senior Pentagon officials and Congressional military aides say they know almost nothing about its purpose and plans. Its multimillion dollar budget, drawn from a $10 billion emergency supplement to the Pentagon budget authorized by Congress in October, has not been disclosed.

Headed by Brig. Gen. Simon P. Worden of the Air Force, the new office has begun circulating classified proposals calling for aggressive campaigns that use not only the foreign media and the Internet, but also covert operations.

The new office "rolls up all the instruments within D.O.D. to influence foreign audiences," its assistant for operations, Thomas A. Timmes, a former Army colonel and psychological operations officer, said at a recent conference, referring to the Department of Defense. "D.O.D. has not traditionally done these things."

One of the office's proposals calls for planting news items with foreign media organizations through outside concerns that might not have obvious ties to the Pentagon, officials familiar with the proposal said.

--

good info... click the link for the complete article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20020219/wl_nyt/pentagon_readies_efforts_to_sway_sentiment_abroad&printer=1)

--

[MadMax]

this frightens me...particularly the concept of publishing false news items...this reminds me of "1984"...I don't like it.

[treeman]

Good. About time.

MadMax:

What are we supposed to do, not counter the endless streams of anti-US propaganda that our enemies are constantly spewing? This is just a recognition that we can no longer ignore it.

I wouldn't worry about the "false information" bit; I don't think the intention is to feed the Euros (or our public, for that matter) false news stories; the intention is to ise disinformation and information warfare strategies against our enemies' populations. Such has been the way of warfare since the dawn of history.

[Major]

<B>The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said.</B>

And we wonder why other countries' people and governments don't trust us...

[treeman]

Major:

What other countries - even so-called "allies" consistently spread/publish/report lies about us all the time. We are not allowed to do the same?

At least this is in the context of information warfare in wartime. Everyone else does it regularly during peacetime, and for much less admirable reasons.

[Puedlfor]

What are we supposed to do, not counter the endless streams of anti-US propaganda that our enemies are constantly spewing?

Then counter with the truth. It should be on our side.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by treeman
Good. About time.

MadMax:

What are we supposed to do, not counter the endless streams of anti-US propaganda that our enemies are constantly spewing? This is just a recognition that we can no longer ignore it.

I wouldn't worry about the "false information" bit; I don't think the intention is to feed the Euros (or our public, for that matter) false news stories; the intention is to ise disinformation and information warfare strategies against our enemies' populations. Such has been the way of warfare since the dawn of history.


i don't like it...it will go on with or without my approval...but i don't like it.

[Rocketman95]

So, if every other country was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
So, if every other country was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?

yeah, mom!! i know!!! :)

[treeman]

Puedlfor:

Then counter with the truth. It should be on our side.

99% of the time we can.

All this is saying is that at times we'll really be "here", but we'll tell everyone we're "over there", that type of thing. Feeding the enemy misinformation is nothing new - it's been done in pretty much every war in history. You're reading too much into it.

RM95:

So, if every other country was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?

Great analogy. Comparing suicide with wartime defense...

This is called fighting back.

[Major]

<B>What other countries - even so-called "allies" consistently spread/publish/report lies about us all the time. We are not allowed to do the same? </B>

I thought we were a little better than that. Like Puedlfor said, use the truth.

<B>I wouldn't worry about the "false information" bit; I don't think the intention is to feed the Euros (or our public, for that matter) false news stories; </B>

<I>The Pentagon is developing plans to provide <B>news items</B>, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of <B>a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers</B> in both friendly and unfriendly countries</I>

This is not military disinformation, which as you said, has always been going on. This is fake news to sway public opinion... It reminds me of the whole Israeli / Palestinian news problem.

[glynch]

The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations

I guess this is based on their success with providing such news items to the American media organizations.

Or would you believe that they would feed the truth to Americans, but lies to foreigners? With the internet how effective would that be?

To tell you the truth, I don't think it really represents any change from the status quo.

[Jeff]

You don't do something the wrong way just because everyone else is. At some point, we have to adhere to a higher moral principle or we are just sinking to their level and trouncing upon everything we believe in.

Plus, isn't that like saying, "Well, we really do suck, so we'll tell you lies as a way to convince you we are good even though we aren't." ???

Don't we have to have faith in who we are and that our principles will be embraced? If we are so uncertain of ourselves, why even bother saying anything?

[Rocketman95]

Your parents never used that one treeman?

My point was that just because other countries are doing doesn't mean that we should resort to their level. For one thing, I don't think it will work, and will ultimately backfire in causing more and more people to hate us, especially those in "friendly" countries. I'm thinking that those who are already unfriendly to us aren't going to change their minds anytime soon.

[treeman]

Major:

I thought we were a little better than that. Like Puedlfor said, use the truth.

And I said, 99% of the time, we can.

This is not military disinformation, which as you said, has always been going on. This is fake news to sway public opinion... It reminds me of the whole Israeli / Palestinian news problem.

Well, I think you're reading too much into it, and conveniently ignoring the "possibly" part. 99% of it should be accurate, because the truth is on our side. It is usually not that hard to counter/expose a false news item or message if the facts don't support it...

I suspect that if they actually do intend to put forth false news items, they will be very, very careful about it, and I would expect such activity to be very rare. It's just damn near impossible to get away with in the age of modern communications, and with armies of nosy reporters crawling around every crack and crevice of the planet.

You're reading too much into it.

[treeman]

One more minor point:

As it already is, pretty much all of the world already thinks that every news clip that comes from an American source is already false, so if anything, I wouldn't expect this to be too effective regardless of whether or not the particular news item is true or not.

Conspiracy theories are very popular in many corners (aren't they, glynch?). They already think it's false anyway...

The main goal of this organization should be to work harder on actually getting the truth out there, and working on the credibility of the source, as that is the real problem. If it does not do that, then it will not be effective.

And if it actually does start putting out false news clips like there's no tomorrow (as everyone here appears to think), then I will join you all in s*itting upon it. I will reserve judgment on it, though, until we see what it actually does.

Why is everyone here always so quick to assume the worst about American intentions and activities in wartime? It really baffles me...

[Rocketman95]

To me, treeman, one time is too many times. I don't care if they use this strategy sparingly or all the time, I don't think they should do it at all.

[treeman]

Well, I admire your moral fortitude, Rm95. Glad you're not calling the shots in this war. ;)

[F.D. Khan]

Originally posted by Puedlfor


Then counter with the truth. It should be on our side.

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. We act as the watchdog of the world with our sense of moral and social superiority, yet if the truth does not set us free then what makes us any better than these regimes.

What makes the US strong is that the power rests in the hands of the people and that there is a system of checks and balances. The freedom of speech is there to criticize the government and promote any change for the better or worse, because the will of the people is what rules supreme.

Yet if we get into the business, and i'm not naive enough to believe it hasn't been going on for decades, we lose our own
principles. And if we don't stand for truth and justice then we are doing a disservice to our forefathers who fled those same sort of regimes and created America.

[haven]

We're already considered the modern perfidious Albion... now we're confirming the truth of such allegations!

Let it never be said again: "no, we're the honest ones... they're the liars."

[treeman]

*sigh*

You guys are reading too much into this. You're are apparently already convinced that the new Gestapo is here, Gen. Worden is the new Goebbels, and the next step is the formal burning of the constitution...

You guys were wrong about Ashcroft's fascism, and you're wrong about this. But that's fine... Continue with your paranoid conspiracy theory generation. :)

[Major]

<B>You guys are reading too much into this. You're are apparently already convinced that the new Gestapo is here, Gen. Worden is the new Goebbels, and the next step is the formal burning of the constitution... </B>

It doesn't matter what the current "intent" of the office is. The whole framework of our government system is limited government power because of the simple and true principle that if you give the government power, it will ultimately be used.

It may start as something used only rarely, but there's no doubt that at some point -- especially with all the secrecy and lack of oversight witin the office -- it can and probably will be used in ways that are a bit more sinister than you're describing.

It would be nice if governments were completely trustworthy and always did the right thing, but the history of the world and our own history show otherwise.

[F.D. Khan]

Treeman,

I just don't believe in "temporary" repealment of constitutional rights on any level. We must remain true to the principles that has made our country prosper. Principles such as capitalism, free commerce, and other laws of economics balanced with the freedom of the individual. We are the strongest country in the world for one reason and one reason only:

Because we have the strongest, flourishing economy in the world. Our corporations are multi-national conglomerates that are owned by our citizens and the taxes goes to the government, which allows the government to purchase the best military equipment and create the newest military technology. FACT.

Some political interests through lobbyist groups are alienating us from a portion of the world and the negative backlash is extending beyond the middle east into Europe, Russia and other areas. This will create tensions that will adversely affect trade and international commerce, that will effect our economy with our global reach. FACT.

One thing that I do know Treeman, is that some of the biggest propaganda is used in training US soldiers and army officers and molding them into their own image. Similar to how a college fraternity breaks you down during hazing only to build you back into their image of you. There is no individual, only the group. Follow the leader and do not dispute the leader.
Non-conformists are the founding fathers of this country that did not simply follow blindly the will of their government.

The drive towards increased government control and socialism is rampant, and I am very much against it. Its ironic even how the Enron situation is seen as a problem with de-regulation and how the industry should be government-run. That is nonsense to the core.

Things don't change to a fascist state overnight, it happens through slow manipulation and it is our job as US citizens to make sure we never even start down that path.

[treeman]

Major:

It may start as something used only rarely, but there's no doubt that at some point -- especially with all the secrecy and lack of oversight witin the office -- it can and probably will be used in ways that are a bit more sinister than you're describing.

No doubt? None at all? Not unless you're Miss Cleo.

When we see it abusing the system and publishing false reports left and right, then I will agree with you. Until it starts doing that, there is considerable doubt that its power will be abused.

F.D. Khan:

I just don't believe in "temporary" repealment of constitutional rights on any level.

Neither do I. Please give me an example of one single constitutional right that has been even temporarily repealed/curbed? And don't throw the "well there are still people being detained without charges brought" garbage at me - they are not US citizens and are not protected by the constitution - so the Supreme Court says.

One example.

Some political interests through lobbyist groups are alienating us from a portion of the world and the negative backlash is extending beyond the middle east into Europe, Russia and other areas...

I take it that this is a reference to the Jewish lobby's influence? Please, don't start going into the whole "Zionist conspriacy" thing... That is one of the more ridiculous conspiracy theories floating around.

Their current perceptions have more to do with two other facts: 1) their own governments are constantly telling them lies about us, and 2) we have previously never bothered to counter those lies with the truth.

Considering the second one... That is the whole point of this new office. You guys are focusing on the "possibly even false news" part, while totally ignoring the great likelihood that 99% of its activities will be to counter the lies that are traditionally told about us to the very populations that you guys are constantly accusing us of ignoring! Do you not see the irony here???

Things don't change to a fascist state overnight, it happens through slow manipulation and it is our job as US citizens to make sure we never even start down that path.

Yes, that is our job. And it is also the job of our government to protect its citizens during wartime. As many here have repoeatedly (and correctly) pointed out, part of that effort must include changing the perceptions of those overseas - addressing the hostility of those in the ME in particular. Well, not the government is going to do just that, and now those same vioces who were telling them to do so are crying "Fascism!"...

Sometimes the government just can't win, I guess?

[Major]

<B>When we see it abusing the system and publishing false reports left and right, then I will agree with you. Until it starts doing that, there is considerable doubt that its power will be abused. </B>

Unfortunately, at that point, it's too late and the damage is done. Don't ever give the government more control than absolutely necessary -- that's been a principle of our government since Day 1. If you know that we will never use this type of stuff on our allies, <I>don't give the government the authority to do it</I>.

[Princess]

We have tried telling other countries the truth before. Like treeman said, they already think we're lying to them when we're not. If they don't believe or like our truth, what else are we supposed to do?

The fact that other countries do it too does not make it right by any means. They do this type of thing day in and day out. It doesn't make it right, but it is warranted.

I do think this is getting blown out of proportion. If something they receive is false, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

You are assuming that if the US does something wrong once, that we'll do it again and again. We don't have a dictatorship in this country. We do not have one supreme leader. We do not have a government that has absoulute power. I'm not assuming that it won't happen again. If we do it once, it does make it more likely to happen again, but there are checks and balances in our system to protect against abuse. Why do you all fai to recognize that? The power is still not centralized. The government will need support to do this. If one branch thinks power is being abused, they won't let it happen. I try to have some faith in the system.

It would be nice if governments were completely trustworthy and always did the right thing, but the history of the world and our own history show otherwise.

You're saying you don't want us to tell lies, but you're providing proof that you at least understand that it's not always possible. The US has tried to play by the rules. In fact, I really don't see how this would be breaking rules. We're lying to our enemies? They're bad guys. Why do they deserve to know the truth, especially when we've been giving it to them and they dismiss it as lies.

We wonder why other governments do not trust us? They have always distrusted us. We haven't even done this yet and they distrust us. This will give them another legitamate reason I suppose. :rolleyes:

[Rocketman95]

Why do you think that telling them lies will all the sudden make them believe us? If they don't believe the truth, why would they believe the lies?

[Princess]

RM95,

I think that's a good point. And I don't know.

It does make me wonder though. Is it better to have them not believe the truth or to not believe the lies?

If they don't believe the lies, will any harm really be done (I'm really asking because I don't know)? And what would be the harm?

[Major]

<B>I do think this is getting blown out of proportion. If something they receive is false, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out. </B>

If that was the case, then the government wouldn't be going through this entire process. The people trying to implement this disagree with you here.

When you hear two conflicting reports on some incident in the Middle East, how do <I>you</I> determine which one is right?

<B>You are assuming that if the US does something wrong once, that we'll do it again and again. We don't have a dictatorship in this country. We do not have one supreme leader. </B>

That's exactly the point. We change leaders every couple of years. Just because you trust Bush not to abuse this power does NOT mean other future leaders won't.

<B>I'm not assuming that it won't happen again. If we do it once, it does make it more likely to happen again, but there are checks and balances in our system to protect against abuse. </B>

Agreed. And the check and balance is that we don't give the government excessive power that can be abused, which is the thing that is being ignored here.

<B>If one branch thinks power is being abused, they won't let it happen.</B>

That's good and all, but by the nature of the project (disseminating lies), this is a secretive project and all branches of government aren't going to be involved.

<B>You're saying you don't want us to tell lies, but you're providing proof that you at least understand that it's not always possible. The US has tried to play by the rules. </B>

No, I was referring to the crappy things the US has done in the past. (testing vaccines on black people without their knowledge or permission, I think? Watergate. Iran-Contra.) There are very good reasons to limit the power of government, and even more reasons to demand honesty from the government.

<B>In fact, I really don't see how this would be breaking rules. We're lying to our enemies? They're bad guys. </B>

If you read the article, this project lets us lie to our allies as well. They're the good guys.

<B>We wonder why other governments do not trust us? They have always distrusted us. We haven't even done this yet and they distrust us. This will give them another legitamate reason I suppose. </B>

That's ludicrous. They distrust us because we've screwed them before. Why do we distrust Iraq? <I>Because he's lied to us before, and that means he's likely to lie to us again.</I>

You earn trust, you don't just expect it to come when you've lied before. And authorizing a broad range of lying in the future doesn't help build that trust either.

[treeman]

Rm95 & Major:

I really think you guys are totally missing the point here.

Why do you think that telling them lies will all the sudden make them believe us? If they don't believe the truth, why would they believe the lies?

I would bet that 99% of what they will hear from us will still be the truth; the real difference now is that there will be a coordinated and committed effort to actually get our side of the story to them. As it is, the only current way for any of them to get our side of things is via the Internet, and the vast majority of Joe's and Jane's in that part of the world have no Internet access.

A primary goal of this office appears to be to increase efforts to get our side of things to those who previously had no access to it. And as I have repeatedly said, I would expect the vast majority of the information we give them will be of a truthful nature, because the truth really is on our side. You guys are simply assuming that this new office is going to be spitting out lies right and left. That is a baseless, and quite paranoid, assumption.

Unfortunately, at that point, it's too late and the damage is done. Don't ever give the government more control than absolutely necessary -- that's been a principle of our government since Day 1. If you know that we will never use this type of stuff on our allies, don't give the government the authority to do it.

No, you want to give government the power necessary - all power necessary - to win in wartime. Tie the governments hands in wartime, and you are likely to lose the war.

Why did Congress approve its budget if it is expected to abuse its power? Congress - both democratic and Republican - is notorious for not wanting to give anyone any power that might be abused. Apparently Congress doesn't think it's such a bad idea...

And as far as giving out false information, which you guys simply assume is this office's primary directive - I honestly cannot think of any false information, other than military deployments, they they would want to disseminate. I really do not think that you will see too much falsification, if any at all. You guys are overreacting.

[Princess]

Major, Thank you for addressing me.

As far as our allies go, do you think they have never ever lied to us? Just wondering.

I don't think one sole group should have this power. If they were just using it for disinformation in warfare strategies, that's one thing. But flat out lying, I don't know how I feel about it. I think it's a scary issue, but I don't really have an exact opinion on it yet.

I missunderstood that this was being done in secret without all government approval. If that were the case, I don't think we would have to fear this power being abused since there would be checks.

As far as I go, I never assume anything is right, or I assume it's all right. Either way, I never know what's really goin on! ;)

Like I said, they didn't believe us before. We have screwed countries over before. We have also kept many promises. As I've said in other threads, people tend to focus on the bad things. It's a truth about life that psychologists have recognized. I would write more, but I have to go to class.

[Major]

<B>No, you want to give government the power necessary - all power necessary - to win in wartime. Tie the governments hands in wartime, and you are likely to lose the war. </B>

First off, this office is not limited to wartime. Second, this authorizes the government to influence public opinion in FRIENDLY countries as well. Maybe you think it won't be used that way, and I hope you're right, but if that's the case, there's no reason to give that power.

<B>Why did Congress approve its budget if it is expected to abuse its power? Congress - both democratic and Republican - is notorious for not wanting to give anyone any power that might be abused. Apparently Congress doesn't think it's such a bad idea... </B>

Honestly? Because it passed right after 9/11 and virtually anything Bush wanted to fight terrorism would have passed in those several weeks because that's what the public demanded. By the way, Congress didn't specifically authorize this office -- it's entirely an Executive Dept thing:

<I>Its multimillion dollar budget, drawn from a $10 billion emergency supplement to the Pentagon budget authorized by Congress in October, has not been disclosed. </I>

Congress simply authorized emergency funding.

[Major]

Princess,

<B>As far as our allies go, do you think they have never ever lied to us? Just wondering. </B>

I'm sure they have, and I'm sure we have as well. The difference here to me is that we're officially sanctioning it. And everyone knows that we're doing this.

<B>I missunderstood that this was being done in secret without all government approval. If that were the case, I don't think we would have to fear this power being abused since there would be checks. </B>

I don't know how OSI will work, but as of yet, it's a pretty secretive thing. Congress didn't specifically authorize it, no one knows its actual budget or what exactly it does. Things like that don't sit real well with me, because that's a breeding ground for abuse.

<B>Like I said, they didn't believe us before. We have screwed countries over before. We have also kept many promises. As I've said in other threads, people tend to focus on the bad things. </B>

I agree that people tend to focus on the bad things, but I think there's good reason for that. Let's say, for example (yes, this sounds really stupid), Joe Schmoe is dating a girl, Joey Schmoe. Now, Joey has thought Joe was cheating on her 5 separate times. It turns out he only did it twice. The next time Joey thinks Joe is cheating, does she have reason to think she's right? I think she does, because he has a history of doing that. Sure, he's not done it every time, but it only takes a couple of times of compromising principles for others to distrust us in the future.

[treeman]

Major:

When you hear two conflicting reports on some incident in the Middle East, how do you determine which one is right?

When you hear a dozen reports saying one thing, and a single report saying another, then it's not that hard to figure out. Baseless stories have a strong tendency to be disreputed and found out.

That's exactly the point. We change leaders every couple of years. Just because you trust Bush not to abuse this power does NOT mean other future leaders won't.

Well, since our leaders obviously see no problem with this evil agency, then why don't you just vote them out next election?

And the check and balance is that we don't give the government excessive power that can be abused, which is the thing that is being ignored here.

We have yet to see this "abuse of excessive power" that you speak of. Apparently, this office has been in operation since shortly after 9/11. Please give me some examples of its "abuses of excessive power"?

That's good and all, but by the nature of the project (disseminating lies), this is a secretive project and all branches of government aren't going to be involved.

How do you know that? I'd be willing to bet $ that there will be congressional oversight of this office, as Congress doesn't like approving budgets for agencies that don't have to answer to anyone. Even the NSA has to brief them, and that is the "shadowiest" organization in the government. Even most "black budget" items must be disclosed to Congress, and we don't even know if this is in the "black budget".

What are you basing this assumption on?

And the whole "nature of the project (disseminating lies)" shows that you have already judged the office to be evil. You apparently have evidence that it has already disseminated a significant number of false reports to us/everyone. May I see this evidence, please?

There are very good reasons to limit the power of government, and even more reasons to demand honesty from the government.

True on both counts. But you are making the assumption that there is no oversight here, and without any evidence here. I am willing to bet that they will have to report to Congress.

If you read the article, this project lets us lie to our allies as well. They're the good guys.

Give me a hypothetical example of a lie that we would tell to our allies. You are assuming that there are many such examples (I can't even think of one relevant example), and that they will be told regularly. You're paranoid.

Now, I can think of one example where we might lie to our allies: about military deployments and pending military activities. But this is wise decision-making, IMO, as it is known that the French (for example) have passed such information to our enemies (the Serbs in Bosnia and Iraq), and there are leaks between Saudi intelligence and Iraqi Intelligence... But aside from that, what?

They distrust us because we've screwed them before.

No, that's ludicrous. When did we lie to the Brits? The Frenchies? The Saudis? The Turks? The Israelis? The Egyptians? The Germans? This could go on all day...

Some of these allies have consistently told lies about us to their own people. That is a large reason why they distrust us - their governments have told them to.

You earn trust, you don't just expect it to come when you've lied before.

Why can you only focus on the possibility that we're going to pass along a tidbit here and there that isn't true?

You totally ignore the great likelihood that 99% of the information we disseminate is going to be true. And you also totally ignore the fact that many of our allies have not been truthful to their own populations about us - and have refused to allow us in the past to tell their subjects our side of things. The primary goal of this oprganization, it seems, is to get our viewpoints out to people who previously had no access to that, not to go around the world dishing out lies just to screw with people - as you appear to believe.

Why doesn't anyone trust us? They have never heard our viewpoints - only the skewed viewpoints their governments have allowed them to hear. This will change that.

[treeman]

Major:

First off, this office is not limited to wartime.

First off, where does it comment on that either way. Second off, we are at war for the forseeable future so the point is irrelevant at this juncture.

Second, this authorizes the government to influence public opinion in FRIENDLY countries as well.

Oh heaven forbid we try to make our friends like us! How horrible!

Honestly? Because it passed right after 9/11 and virtually anything Bush wanted to fight terrorism would have passed in those several weeks because that's what the public demanded. By the way, Congress didn't specifically authorize this office -- it's entirely an Executive Dept thing:

Its multimillion dollar budget, drawn from a $10 billion emergency supplement to the Pentagon budget authorized by Congress in October, has not been disclosed.

Congress simply authorized emergency funding.

What do you think an emergency spending bill is? A blank check that the administration never has to account for?

When the administration proposes an emergency spending bill to Congress, it does not just show up and ask "Uuuhh... Can we have $20 billion to fight this war?" It has to have a laundry list of proposals to justify the additional spending, otherwise Congress will not approve emergency spending. I guarantee you that this was on the list, if its budget is that large.

The article says its budget has not been disclosed, and it means to the public. Congress knows of its existence, and its budget. They do not just dish out emergency funds without knowing what they're for.

[Major]

<B>Well, since our leaders obviously see no problem with this evil agency, then why don't you just vote them out next election? </B>

I already planned to vote against Bush next election. Until then, I will continue to debate policies of his that I disagree with.

<B>We have yet to see this "abuse of excessive power" that you speak of. Apparently, this office has been in operation since shortly after 9/11. Please give me some examples of its "abuses of excessive power"?
</B>

Where did I say it was being abused? I said it <B>CAN</B> be abused, and very easily. Call my crazy, but I don't really like to wait until after damage is done and people are pissed at us to correct problems that can easily be foreseen.

<B>You apparently have evidence that it has already disseminated a significant number of false reports to us/everyone. </B>

Find one place where I said that.

<B>But you are making the assumption that there is no oversight here, and without any evidence here. I am willing to bet that they will have to report to Congress. </B>

Of course they'll have to report to Congress, but they certainly aren't going to report specifics (since leaks would obviously negate the effects of the lies in the first placE).

<B>Why can you only focus on the possibility that we're going to pass along a tidbit here and there that isn't true?

I don't care what the <I>likelihood</I> is -- that's the point. If it's NOT going to be used, then why give the government the power? You still haven't answered this. You don't give a government power and assume they'll not use it.

<B>You totally ignore the great likelihood that 99% of the information we disseminate is going to be true. </B>

Well, this can and is already done without this project. This project authorized false information. I don't have any problem with us disseminating true information, and I don't have any problem with false information during war. I do have a problem with disseminating false information to allies for less ethical reasons, which is completely authorized in this project (even if that's not the current intent). This project reeks of slippery-slope in terms of potential uses, and that's almost always a bad way to run government. There have to be very clear lines drawn or things will be stretched to the point of abuse as often than not.

[TheFreak]

I guess this isn't one of those threads for "Pro-US" posters.

This is so not a big deal. Everything the government tells the people of this country is scripted, why shouldn't it be the same for the others too?

If this was meant to be some evil plot, why would they even tell us about it to begin with? Huh?

The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defense Department's public affairs officers.

Two important points from that excerpt, of course, are that it hasn't even been approved, and there is opposition. Doesn't look like anyone's trying to pull one over on us, guys -- sorry to get in the way of your thirst for another anti-US nugget.

[glynch]

Those who support this think that they are being realists or something.

The best term I've heard for this is "crackpot realism".

Haven't you learned anything from the OJ trial. Once you lie, your credibility is gone. Once the cops lied and played around with some of the evidence, it was pretty hard to say they hadn't lied and played around with the rest of the evidence.

It is important for the US to stand for the truth. It is also important for it to stand for freedom, human rights and democracy. The more consistent the better.

Those of us who are sceptical about the US's stands on these values have that position due to past actions that we are convinced don't reflect those values. Those who live outside this country and who are exposed to a different range of journalism, as we have seen on previous threads on the Israeli resrvist resisters etc., feel even more strongly about this.

The crackpot realists, the propagandists and pr folks, believe that to win back public opinion on these issues is just a pr problem to be managed, and if necessary with lies.

To change these opinions, which like it or not does lead to terrorism on Americans, will require a lengthy history of truth telling and good deeds, not just military might and propaganda.

[Major]

And it's not just paranoid freaks like me who have concerns. Several military personnel are just as concerned. Excerpts:

<I>
The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defense Department's public affairs officers.

...

General Worden envisions a broad mission ranging from "black" campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities to "white" public affairs that rely on truthful news releases, Pentagon officials said.

"It goes from the blackest of black programs to the whitest of white," a senior Pentagon official said.

...

But the new office has also stirred a sharp debate in the Pentagon, where several senior officials have questioned whether its mission is too broad and possibly even illegal.

Those critics say they are disturbed that a single office might be authorized to use not only covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities and deception, but also the instruments and staff of the military's globe- spanning public affairs apparatus.

...

"This breaks down the boundaries almost completely," a senior Pentagon official said.

...

Moreover, critics say, disinformation planted in foreign media organizations, like Reuters or Agence France-Presse, could end up being published or broadcast by American news organizations.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency are barred by law from propaganda activities in the United States.

...

"Everybody understands using information operations to go after nonfriendlies," another senior Pentagon official said. "When people get uncomfortable is when people use the same tools and tactics on friendlies."

...

"O.S.I. still thinks the way to go is start a Defense Department Voice of America," a senior military official said. "When I get their briefings, it's scary."

</I>

[Band Geek Mobster]

I hope this doesn't happen, we're supposed to be the good guys, we shouldn't feel the need to lower our standards just because the other guy's doing it...

[MadMax]

Originally posted by treeman
*sigh*

You guys are reading too much into this. You're are apparently already convinced that the new Gestapo is here, Gen. Worden is the new Goebbels, and the next step is the formal burning of the constitution...

You guys were wrong about Ashcroft's fascism, and you're wrong about this. But that's fine... Continue with your paranoid conspiracy theory generation. :)


hey...i never said ashcroft was a fascist!! i was on your side in that debate!!!

the problem here is that I've seen too many times where if the government is given an inch, they'll take a mile. i've seen this particularly with constitutional interpretation (like the commerce clause)...but i think it applies here, too.

liberals -- please don't argue with me on the commerce clause at this point...i'm on YOUR side in this debate! :)

[rimbaud]

I agree with Freak, they do it domestically, why not let them do it internationally?

Of course this has been going on for a while (the exportation of pro-US prop, based on truth, half-truths, and misinformation).

I just find it odd that they have to make it "official." Maybe some people just wanted a label/title that they could put on a business card, instead of just "governent worker" or "the man," etc.

[treeman]

Freak:

Good point. I didn't even catch that...

Major:

I already planned to vote against Bush next election. Until then, I will continue to debate policies of his that I disagree with.

Well, vote your Congressman out, too. Because I guarantee that he/she approved spending for it.

Where did I say it was being abused? I said it CAN be abused, and very easily.

You are operating under the assumption that it will be abused. I am operating under the assumption that it could be abused, but likely will not be. Your assumption is paranoid.

Find one place where I said that.

I am refering to your assumption that the "nature of the project" will be dissemination of lies. Do you deny that this is an assumption of yours?

Of course they'll have to report to Congress, but they certainly aren't going to report specifics

I don't think you understand how oversight committees work. A Congressman asks a question, and the agency head/employee answers the damn question. It is not optional - even sensitive material cannot be witheld.

I don't care what the likelihood is -- that's the point. If it's NOT going to be used, then why give the government the power? You still haven't answered this. You don't give a government power and assume they'll not use it.

Because we do not know whether or not it will need to be used. In all likelihood, it won't. But it might, and if it does then you want the government to be able to do it. You authorize government to have a power before it has to use that power, not when it needs it. You err on the side of caution in wartime.

glynch:

Those who support this think that they are being realists or something.

I'd say those who oppose this have seen too many Oliver Stone movies.

Haven't you learned anything from the OJ trial. Once you lie, your credibility is gone.

Ahh, there's your assumption that everything that comes from the government (military in particular) is a lie. Why does everyone here simply assume that this organization is going to be spitting out lies right and left? No one has addressed that yet.

We have no credibility as it is. The primary goal of this organization is apparently to fix thtat situation. Voice of America ain't enough.

Those of us who are sceptical about the US's stands on these values have that position due to past actions that we are convinced don't reflect those values.

I think you have that position because you spend all day at Antiwar.com and RedRevolution.org (if it exists)...

Those who live outside this country and who are exposed to a different range of journalism...

You mean the brand of consistently dishonest and fact-ignoring journalism you are always bringing us? The kind that ignores the fact that the Israeli reservist situation is really an issue of 150 or so against 400,000? And that type of journalism that tries to paint the pacifist movement as a broad-based popular movement, while ignoring what Gallup has to say about it?

Most of the rest of the world has already been inundated with the lies you so often love to bring us here. I am willing to bet that they will get more truth if we actively try to combat your brand of propaganda.

[/QUOTE]To change these opinions, which like it or not does lead to terrorism on Americans, will require a lengthy history of truth telling and good deeds, not just military might and propaganda.[/QUOTE]

I agree. It will require far more detailed accounts of actual history and current events than I am willing to devote myself to giving to combat your arguments. But the sooner people start getting actual truth, and not the type of garbage conspiracy theories people like you are always bandying about, the better.

[Rocketman95]

A big thank you to TheFreak who, like so many others on this board, have reminded us that those who may disagree at times with U.S. policy are un-American.

[TheFreak]

Man, RM95, for someone who complains about smilies, you sure do have trouble getting jokes when they're not used:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29210

[treeman]

MadMax:

the problem here is that I've seen too many times where if the government is given an inch, they'll take a mile. i've seen this particularly with constitutional interpretation (like the commerce clause)...but i think it applies here, too.

Hey, if they take a mile this time, then I'm with you guys.

If there is no oversight of this office, then I don't want it to exist. I am pretty sure there will have to be oversight.

If they actually do start throwing lies around right and left, then I don't want it to exist. I see no good reason for them to do so, however, since truth actually is on our side. I have yet to hear a good hypothetical example from anyone, even though I have asked for one a couple of times.

If it actually does these things, then you are certainly correct. But if it does not, as I feel it wouldn't... Then it is exactly what the doctor ordered. The perceptions others in the world have of us are extremely negative and must be changed. If we don't start actively trying to change those perceptions, then we can expect to be under attack indefinitely.

I find it odd (and quite ironic) that the exact same people who consistently argue that we need to focus on foreign perceptions are now arguing against an effort to do so. Exactly what do you guys expect us to do?

If you have an alternative - and don't throw "we need to change our foreign policy" at me, that is garbage - then speak.

[Rocketman95]

Right, you didn't mean it that way. :rolleyes:

The difference is that mine was obviously a jab, your's comes right after your criticism of our criticism, and finish off with the same old tired line I've read on this board since September 11th. Too many people aren't joking when they say that...sorry if I didn't get your's.

[TheFreak]

Okay, now I simply don't know what you're talking about.

The "Pro-US" thing was taken directly from another thread title, and meant to be a joke.

The "anti-US nugget" thing was not a joke, but a comment on how every foreign policy thread inevitably becomes an attack on US actions. I believe HayesStreet talked about it as well in the thread I referenced.

On your comment "mine was obviously a jab", I'm completely clueless.

I hope you're as sensitive on the basketball court as you are in the BBS. It'll make it funner when I beat your ass to see you cry.

[Rocketman95]

OK, that's what I get for not clicking on your thread, I just assumed it was the thread where Kagy didn't get what I was referring to when I was making a good natured jab at those who say that liberals are too quick to label people racist.

I knew what you meant when you said "Pro-US" posters, I knew you were referring to the link you eventually posted. My initial response was to your "anti-US" comment which I took to mean that if you're criticizing this, you're anti-US.

Regardless, you'll be the one crying when I muster my 23 seconds of energy into ramming your ass in the ground with my enormous beer belly.

[Puedlfor]

I find it odd (and quite ironic) that the exact same people who consistently argue that we need to focus on foreign perceptions are now arguing against an effort to do so. Exactly what do you guys expect us to do?

Just tell the ****ing truth. You do not fight fire with fire, you fight it with water, likewise, you fight lies with the truth. The truth is on our side, use it.

One lie that gets caught(and it will, I guarantee it, tis in the cards ;)) demolishes any influence the truth will have coming from this office.

I don't have the problem with getting the truth out, the truth supports us! I have a problem with lying like that. Its not necessary, and it will cause more problems that it solves.

[Princess]

I think most people are afraid of the potential of this. But right now, we don't know what the intent and possibilities are. All the discussion is great, but all we are doing is speaking in hypotheticals. Some people are more optimistic than others. That is what I see as the real difference.

I don't think it's all bad. I think it could be potentially dangerous and if I (a moron to most of you) can see that, I'm sure the government does as well. I really don't think our government wants to have absolute control over everything.

I think it would be nice if we could give our government the benefit of the doubt (but I do understand your analogy Major). We are the leader for a reason. All the people in government cannot be self-serving, power-driven idiots.

[treeman]

Puedlfor:

I don't have the problem with getting the truth out, the truth supports us! I have a problem with lying like that. Its not necessary, and it will cause more problems that it solves.

This is precisely why I am not worried about it. I fail to see a need for it... You guys are just overreacting, and appear to have missed the meaning of "possibly".

[boy]

Would you drink water from a stream which is "1%" pollluted? It's the exact same thing. Once you don't know what is true and what isn't...how do you know which news to believe and what not to?

[Princess]

Does it matter? Do they believe the truth when we give it to them?

I think it's ironic that Saddam wants us to trust that he doesn't have WMD even though he won't let inspectors in, but no one in the world wants to believe us.

They already don't trust us. And like treeman said, no one said we're using this strategy and no one said we ever will. Everyone is speculating. We haven't even done it yet. Stop overreacting.

(and if you're living in Houston, you'd be lucky if the water was THAT clean-j/k) ;)

[treeman]

boy:

Would you drink water from a stream which is "1%" pollluted?

Yes. I do it every day. So do you, unless you survive entirely upon bottled springwater.

Once you don't know what is true and what isn't...how do you know which news to believe and what not to?

This coming from someone who actually believes the Palestinian press? Someone who believes in Hamas's cause? Please. You are hopelessly biased - nothing will ever change your mind.

This is for those who are not 100% hopelessly and irrevocably biased against the US. And those who don't support the terrorists... Kinda leaves you out of the equation.

[glynch]

Treeman, you still fail to explain away the obvious problem with the plan, that once your credibility is shot because you lie, than whatever you say including the truth s not believed.

Being tone deaf to credibility issues may explain why you don't understand how your constant name calling (communist, moron, conspiracy theorist etc) when posting destroys your own credibility for what are basically pretty main stream Republican views.

By the way I'm going to check out anti-war.com. I've never seen it. Thanks for the headsup.

[Princess]

they already do not believe the truth

[treeman]

glynch:

We have no credibility right now, thanks to dumbasses like you who are constantly 1) telling lies and distributing incorrect "facts", and 2) constantly carrying an anti-US line. You should work for a Saudi or Egyptian newspaper - you could edit one.

And you are still assuming that we are going to be throwing lies around - you do not even consider the possibility that we'll actually tell the truth. You are so far gone in your conspiracy theories that there's simply no hope in ever changing your mind. (You'll have lotsa fun at Antiwar.com ;) )

If we are constantly telling lies, as you assume, then no one will have any reason at all to believe us. But if we tell the verifiable truth - and as much as you dismiss that as even a possibility, it is the greatest likelihood, as the truth is on our side - then eventually some people might believe us.

As it is now, they simply are not hearing our viewpoints on anything. All they are hearing right now is the type of garbage that you are constantly spewing. Is it any wonder why they hate us???

And is it any wonder that you don't want them to hear our viewpoints? I should expect that from you, since it runs counter to our interests for us to refrain from actually expressing them. And if something is in our interests to do, then you are automatically opposed to it... You'd much rather we kept quiet, and kept the war going long enough for you to see your Vietnam-style defeat...

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

[haven]

I think it's ironic that Saddam wants us to trust that he doesn't have WMD even though he won't let inspectors in, but no one in the world wants to believe us.

Just out of curiosity, how is that ironic?

[Princess]

Originally posted by haven


Just out of curiosity, how is that ironic?

Sadam is a meglomaniac. He is evil. He has done nothing but lie and hide things and we're supposed to trust him.

However, the US, who stands for freedom and democracy and who has come to the aid of almost anyone who asks for it, is not trusted.

[Rokkit]

Watching you folks go at these threads is entertaining, and sometimes depressing.

Anyhow....one side doesn't like the idea, believes that truth is the best way to go since it should be on our side anyway, so there is no need for such an office.

The other side also believes truth supports us, and that this is only a possibility that hasn't even been approved anyhow, so isn't even worried about this article, because there is no need for such an office.


.....


What the hell are you arguing about again?:D

[Princess]

Rokkit,

And like treeman said, no one said we're using this strategy and no one said we ever will. Everyone is speculating. We haven't even done it yet.

That's what I was trying to get at here. Guess it wasn't too effective! :D

[Grizzled]

Originally posted by Puedlfor


Just tell the ****ing truth. You do not fight fire with fire, you fight it with water, likewise, you fight lies with the truth. The truth is on our side, use it.

One lie that gets caught(and it will, I guarantee it, tis in the cards ;)) demolishes any influence the truth will have coming from this office.

I don't have the problem with getting the truth out, the truth supports us! I have a problem with lying like that. Its not necessary, and it will cause more problems that it solves.

What he said.

Do you remember that story during the Gulf War about the Iraqi soldiers killing babies in a hospital? Do you remember that after the war this was shown that it never happened, that it was disinformation, propaganda? This is one of the main reasons that nobody really trusts CNN anymore. They didn't cook it up I'm sure, but they were had by somebody, and they're still paying the price.

[Elvis Costello]

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if I am repeating an idea already stated, but I think this story was leaked by someone inside the Defense Department so it would get shot down. The new information office that was set up in the DoD already has a $10 billion budget and might be getting too big for its bureaucratic britches.
There are legitimate concerns besides liberal handwringing from folks like me...if a disinformation campaign gets into, say, a foreign news service like Reuters, an American newspaper can pick this information up and report it to the country. There is a law against domestic disinformation campaigns and this could fall into these parameters. Anybody want one more series of congressional hearings?
Anyway, why give anybody the impression that we have to lie, or be disingenious if this is a noble cause? Why add fuel to the fire? For example, there was currency in a lot of the Arab world that Jews were behind the 9-11 attack. This is obviously clear BS, but the many Muslim versions of Oliver Stone would get some great ammunition if we fabricated stories, or lied about their origin to promote a war with Iraq. It just is not worth what little we could gain. I think someone in government is trying kill this idea in the cradle.

[Princess]

Nicely put. Some has been said and some not.

I, again, am not against it as it is intended, but I do see and fear potentials.

[treeman]

February 20, 2002

HEARTS AND MINDS
Bush Will Keep Wartime Office Promoting U.S.
By ELIZABETH BECKER and JAMES DAO

WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 — President Bush has decided to transform the administration's temporary wartime communications effort into a permanent office of global diplomacy to spread a positive image of the United States around the world and combat anti-Americanism, senior administration officials said today.

"The president believes it is a critical part of national security to communicate U.S. foreign policy to a global audience in times of peace as well as war," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director.

While discussions are at a preliminary stage, officials said there was general agreement in the administration that the intense shaping of information and coordination of messages that occurred during the fighting in Afghanistan should become a permanent feature of national security policy.

The White House office to be created to carry out the policy will coordinate the public statements of State, Defense and the other departments like the Voice of America to ensure that foreign correspondents in Washington as well as foreign leaders and opinion-makers overseas understand Mr. Bush's policies.

"What is important is we want to do a better job of using the government seamlessly to give direction to the president's global diplomacy," a senior administration official said.

Officials said the new office would be entirely separate from a proposed Office of Strategic Influence at the Pentagon, which would use the media, the Internet and a range of covert operations to try to influence public opinion and government policy abroad, including in friendly nations.

That office is contemplating plans, which are being reviewed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, to disseminate information, and possibly even disinformation, in foreign media as part of an aggressive campaign by the military to promote American policies overseas.

Today, the president of the Radio- Television News Directors Association, Barbara Cochran, wrote a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld objecting to any plans involving the spread of false or misleading information by the Pentagon.

Like the office of Homeland Security, the efforts to centralize public diplomacy following the Sept. 11 attacks have grown in importance and urgency in the last six months.

So far, the new White House office has no name, no director and no budget, though officials say Mr. Bush has said money will be no obstacle in pursuing the effort. The earlier White House push to create a more positive image of the United States after Sept. 11 was led by Karen P. Hughes, senior adviser to the president and is known as the Coalition Information Center.

The major goal, officials said, is to stem what the White House sees as a rising tide of anti-Americanism.

"A lot of the world does not like America, and it's going to take years to change their hearts and minds," said a senior official involved in the discussions.

The president broached the possibility of a permanent mission in a meeting with the top people who speak for the administration in September. "He told us that we were going to be at this for a long, long time," one participant said, "that we were setting a template for future presidents, that we had to think big, strategic, historic thoughts."

Global diplomacy as envisioned in the new office will inject patriotism into the punishing 24-hour, seven-day news cycle, officials said. It will include information campaigns about Mr. Bush's domestic policy — like education bills — as well as traditional information about the military, diplomatic and economic sides of national security policy, officials said.

Rather than create agencies, the new office would take advantage of the huge communications network of American embassies, their media offices and the broadcast network already in place under the State Department.

Charlotte Beers, a former advertising executive now in charge of public diplomacy at the State Department, has used her marketing skills in an attempt to make American policies as familiar as American culture.

Officials involved in the global communications effort said it required clear direction from the White House to break down the bureaucratic walls built up around the government after the cold war ended and the focus on defeating a clear-cut enemy disappeared.

Foreign journalists say they have given up getting meaningful interviews from American officials here. Only the most senior ambassadors from allied countries meet regularly with government policy makers.

"There was often the feeling that we were either taken for granted or considered irrelevant," said Patrice de Beer, the former Washington correspondent for Le Monde, the French daily. "We don't expect anyone to deliver state secrets to us but to be accessible to explain what the policy was. That's all."

In the earlier White House effort, Ms. Hughes joined forces with her British counterpart to put together the Coalition Information Center, known as the war room.

When Washington decided to highlight the Taliban's policy against women's rights, officials enlisted not only First Lady Laura Bush but Cherie Blair, the wife of the British prime minister.

"The Afghanistan women's campaign was the best thing we've done — giving insight into their vision of the future," said Jim Wilkinson, the head of the Coalition Information Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/international/20INFO.html

[JuanValdez]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020226_379.html

They've killed the Office of Strategic Influence. Rumsfeld says that reporters gave it such a bad reputation that it couldn't do its work. Of course, the office treeman just posted an article about will just take its place (and probably its personnel, office and budget too).

[treeman]

That's cool. As long as someone's going to try to spread the word... ;)