scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Information Operations versus Public Affairs

Posted by Trevor in under other on Dec 4th, 2005 | View Comments |

I work in military public affairs. It’s my job to tell the public the truth about military operations. I am late blogging this, but it was recently revealed that the military has been paying Iraqi media to write positive stories about coalition operations in Iraq. I’m left feeling uncomfortable.

Information operations are intended to “influence foreign adversary audiences using psychological operations capabilities,” according to a Sept. 27, 2004, memo sent to top American commanders by the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers.

Myers warned that putting public affairs and information operations in the same office had “the potential to compromise the commander’s credibility with the media and the public.”

I am a noncommissioned officer of the lowest level. It isn’t my job to make policy. But I still have opinions, whether my commanders want to hear them or not. And in the Army of a free nation, I should be able to express them. So I am. Paying for positive coverage doesn’t encourage freedom of the press. Being dishonest may well be necessary from time to time, but I am not going to do it. My word is my bond, as the old saying goes.

Information Operations is a gray area that should never be mixed with Public Affairs. It is our duty to tell the public and the world the truth about what we do. It is not our job to make up people’s minds for them. We serve America, not the other way around.

We have been fighting a “War Against Drugs” for 40 years at home. We’re losing that war and I believe that much of the reason is because we use dishonest tactics. Officially endorsed bribes and on the payroll snitches are bad policy. Honestly winning hearts and minds is good policy. If I were in charge, I would direct that the policy of paying for positive coverage stop. The core of such a policy is dishonest, and I was taught that lies never lead to good things. I think I was taught well.

It’s not a perfect war, but we can work on some areas and this is one of them.

Similar Posts:

Print This Post |

Trevor

My dear wife,

I suppose some dishonesty is to be expected in warfare. But I don't have to be the one perpetrating it. Which is why I work in public affairs. We are ethically duty bound to provide honest information or say "I cannot answer" when necessary.

I suppose my main concern is that the Army discusses (at levels well above my head) combining Information Ops with Public Affairs, which would completely discredit Public Affairs at some point, sooner rather than later.

Barb

Let me add to my comment above. The articles I had read so far were only on the "paid ads" that were not marked as paid. Now I see that this issue is extending to the US paying Iraqi journalists for positive press too. It sounds like a well intentioned plan that went down the slippery slope..paying the journalists a sum to show up at the press conferences to report what they hear, to paying them more if they reported good stories.

IF the stories written are true, I still don't see a big issue here. We need the Iraqi people to support our efforts there on their behalf, and if positive press helps us (and them in the long run), and the stories are true, then so be it. I agree that media people should be reporting "freely" and "honestly" and hopefully they still are. What they may be doing is NOT reporting the negatives as much because they are getting money. This may not end up being a popular opinion, but if it ends the travesties occuring over there sooner and the loss of life, I don't care if we pay some journalists some money for reporting on the positive side of the events. The fact that it became public is the only negative I see. If it undermines our credibility with the Iraqi people, then that now becomes an issue.

This is war, and in war, some "dishonest" tactics are used. Tactics being the operative word here. In war, there is not always room for perfect idealistic behavior and ethics.

Barb

It is my understanding that the "ads" paid for were all supposed to be labeled as a "paid ad" much like when politicians advertise on television here in the states, they have to say that the ad was paid for. From what I have read too, the ads were supposedly taken from true stories of events and positive happenings in Iraq.

If what I have read is true, I don't see a problem with that. Spreading positive (if true) press is not unethical in my opinion, even if it means it is put in papers as a "paid ad" that was supposed to be marked as such. I believe that is where the issue comes up, that some of the ads were not marked as paid. It has yet to be determined who decided not to put the "paid" disclaimer in the articles, the US government or the people selling the paper.

I believe the reason we are losing the war on drugs is because the demand for the drugs by the American people is there. To those who supply the drugs, there is much money to be made, and no amount of press coverage is going to change that fact. The money we spend on the war on drugs would be much better put to use educating the youth in our country (and not those hokey ads you see on TV...Just Say No), educating the parents in this country, and making "life" a better state of being where the state or euphoria brought on by drugs was not such an enticing proposition. All of the above is probably not an attainable goal though. It is not just the poor and uneducated in this country that use drugs; they are sought after by every strata of society (and they have been since things that make you feel "better" were discovered--most likely by cavemen).