I Can't Tell You Anything You Don't Already Know

Over at Winds of Change, noted Internets savant Armed Liberal explains that people who dislike propaganda are great big sillyheads:

The usual suspects are going bonkers - bonkers! - over the notion that the Pentagon briefed a cadre of retired military men who served as 'expert commentators' in the media.

The thing is, you see, that we are involved in a "counterinsurgency" (against foes who include Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority, as AL explains in his comments -- I did not know that) and that therefore the American government really should be relentlessly evangelizing and radicalizing the American people for the purposes of crushing the mighty forces of Islamofascism:

So here's my problem. If we're engaged in counterinsurgency, public diplomacy and information warfare - which the insurgent side are very good at, spends a lot of time doing, and where the mainstream media only recently grudgingly backed away from the most egregious, falsified examples of their work - is a critical component, according to pretty much everyone who has written on the subject.

But - our government can't play. Not only are there legal restrictions, but the simple fact that information was given to commentators, bloggers, or reporters by the government - in the hopes that it can shape the information battlespace - is illegitimate, and is itself a major meta-story.

I don't think it's wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it's necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

But those two principles seem to be in a midair collision, and as a consequence it's going to keep raining aluminum.

It's true -- the forces arrayed against us are masters of manipulation. The amount of money that Al Qaeda pours into the MSM is staggering; they've clearly bought off the entire Washington Post editorial board, which explains why that wise body has consistently endorsed boneheaded policy ideas that have in the final analysis have done at least as much good for anti-American Islamicists as for anyone else, and probably more.

At any rate, while it is certainly tons of self-flattering fun to image oneself a heroic warrior of the "information battlespace," it might just be a bad idea in a democracy to ever try to "sell" a war at all. This is especially true when the reasons for the war are strategically incoherent, as they are in this instance, since that means you literally cannot make your case without heaping in entire steaming mounds of bullshit.

In other words, if you want a war and know perfectly well you can't convince anyone that it's a good idea unless you're dishonest about it, you probably should rethink your belligerence.

AL's airplane metaphor is illuminating. If take off knowing you're inevitably headed for a midair collision, you're kind of an idiot. And if you only figure out after you're in the air that the pilot got you on board under false pretenses and is deliberately aiming straight for a crash, wrestle away the controls and land the fucking plane.

The stuff he gets from his sources is likewise interesting:

It is as though we had entered some gladiatorial combat with helmet visor closed, sword dull and bent, and shield lying in the dirt. The United States, in particular, it is argued, possesses a ‘quagmire mentality’ which gifts its enemies with a playbook for its defeat....

Basically, if you need to target your base and find that it is fractured and lacks purpose, lacks the attention span for in-depth appeal to argument but is exquisitely sensitive to manipulation and possesses an innate mastery of semiotics then you have a problem. And if, moreover, your opponent’s base is unified, has a sense of purpose, a rich oral tradition which lends itself well to story-listening (and telling) and is fairly credulous when it comes to conspiracy theories then you have got a very serious problem.

This is of course insulting, and dare I say, "elitist." But besides that, it's incoherent on its own terms. If you decide to step into the arena with your visor closed, you have made an extremely dumb decision. (I'm also amused by the suggestion that Americans are sophisticates who are suspicious of "conspiracy theories," given that the whole purpose of Generalgate was to sell the American public on a conspiracy theory, and the entire Right Blogosphere still believes in this theory with every fiber of their being). 

But besides that, it reinforces the ridiculous, dangerous, but popular notion among neocons, neolibs, and neowingnuts that everything is a question of "willpower" and not of material reality. Why are we losing? Because we picked an unnecessary and unwinnable fight against sloppily defined opponents with no clear idea of what "victory" might in fact constitute? Hells no!

We was done in by the flightiness of the American people, who just didn't believe in the pony hard enough. We have met the enemy, and it is... semiotics.

These people are completely barking insane.

Comments

Excellent post.

I'll add one wee thing -- I'd give a lot for the lemmings who get their "news" from our "fair and balanced media" to realize that the true radicals in this nation are not, in fact, the modern-day version of "dirty fucking hippies" but rather the fascistic far-right and their insane policies, which are wildly unpopular with the, you know, regular folks in the country, but the media fails to actually point this out to them.

[rea]

The adminstration and its wingnut allies want to do some damn fool things, and if we keep complaining, they won't be able to do the damn fool things they want to do, so obviously, the only solution is for us to shut up.

[spocko]

After the Wall Street stock scandal they required the sources to be identified,

'Mary Smart Analyst works for Big Ol' Bank which doesn't trade in the stock she comments on." or something like that.

Would that make any difference? "Thank you General 3 1/2 stars. A programing note: General 3 1/2 stars is an consultant for the Lockeed Corporation. He also sits on the board of directors of the manufacturers of laser guided smart bombs used in the war. He was paid for this appearance but he is not allowed to comment on any military strategy that involves planes, bombs or either of those companies."

[Pat Johnson]

I am in the middle of reading Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill. Pretty scary stuff. These ex military are up to their necks acting as advisors and being paid big bucks to sit on the boards of many of these military industrial outfits. Naturally they would do the bidding of the Pentagon to assist the run up to the war. They all profited. The bottom line to any venture this admin has entered into.

[parsec]

Sounds like some more of that Straussian power relation stuff. Very necessary to defeat those wily wogs.

[digitusmedius]

Armed with something other than brains, it appears.

[censored]

The Propaganda of the Word
by Patrick Lang
Thu Dec 1st, 2005 at 09:39:19 PM EST

by Patrick Lang (bio below)
There are Public Information Officers (PIOs) and then there are propagandists. The two are not the same.

PIOs have the job of releasing what is thought to be the truth to media outlets. The information is often laden with the values, point of view and hopes of the releasing headquarters but it is, nevertheless, not a deliberate attempt to deceive. Those who have seen Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece "Full Metal Jacket" have seen this in action. (Yes. Yes. I know. This is not really the Marine Corps) In the film the "Joker's" boss, a bureau chief for "Stars and Stripes" tells Joker to write more positive stories because the troops "need it." This is stupid but not propaganda. (In fact, the troops don't need or believe any of that crap)

Propaganda is different. It involves the dissemination of information not intended to inform, but rather to influence. It comes in three varieties:

White. This is propaganda which is clearly identified as to source. The Voice of America, Sawa Radio, Al-Hurra TV. These are White propaganda outlets. Harmless, if often inept.

Grey. Propaganda not clearly identified as to source. A wire service, TV station or publishing house which does not identify its ownership.

Black. Propaganda which seeks to deceive as to source, In "normal" (non-wartime) times this is by law the domain of the CIA. In wartime it is equally the realm of the military (to the chagrin of the CIA). Propaganda directed against foreign audiences has not been thought "out of bounds" in the USA since the end of WW2. It is a fundamental principal of such action under American law that it should not be directed at the American electorate.
We must ask if this principle has been adhered to, not by the CIA, but rather by political enthusiasts and "cultists" within the "information operations" and "psychological warfare" area of military activities.

Beginning with the trauma that followed our defeat in Vietnam, there arose in the US Army a "movement" which sought an answer for the question of why our long and painful struggle had led to nothing but masses of refugees seeking refuge from the prospect of communist government. Various strange studies were funded for several years seeking answers which would not be too personally painful.

Telepathy, telekinesis, firewalking, spoonbending, distant viewing, political warfare and propaganda against both hostile and friendly targets were all studied and experimented in by men who under normal circumstances were more stable and certainly less imaginative. ... continued below ...

(See the interesting work, "The Men Who Stare at Goats")
In the end the Army rejected all this and returned to its usual preoccupation, but the tendency survived in the persons of several officers who have risen to high rank. Some have been high officials in the counter-terrorism and homeland defense fields. Some are now major media figures and others officials of the Department of Defense, but outside the "mainstream" of the Army. None are in the intelligence business.

As a result of the continued existence of this"tendency," the Bush Administration has been influenced in the direction of manipulation of public opinion here and abroad as an instrument of warfare.

We are now beginning to witness the results of such foolishness.

Pat Lang

Ref: L.A. Times

Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as "Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism" for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the "Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive." He [was] a frequent commentator on television and radio, including MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room (interview), PBS's Newshour, NPR's "All Things Considered," (interview), and more.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=2053&paper=2550

[censored]

Is that Claude Levi-Straussian stuff?

[Joel]

Whatever Armed Liberal is armed with, it isn't with the sense that god gave geese. He has been posting this kind of wingnut narcissism for years. I visited WoC for a year or so at the beginning of the occupation, but no more. AL is no more serious about real American national interests than Bill Kristol or Ann Coulter. I don't know why anyone would even bother to link to his drek.

[stickler]

Armed Liberal is interesting because he is kind of earnest, if totally deluded. He has assembled a coterie of commenters who range from diehard neocons to eliminationist racist freaks. But unlike LGF, they don't cuss!

What makes Armed Liberal "liberal?" Good question. Ask him. Watch the furious handwaving that ensues.

Good times.

[Johnny Coelacanth]

I'm a little late to this particular instance of Wingnut World. Has Armed Liberal ever been "liberal" in any discernible sense?

[Joel]

AL is more libertarian than liberal. Mostly just narcissistic in an angry high school boy sort of way. His idea of gravitas is owning firearms and riding motorcycles.

[Thers]

Has Armed Liberal ever been "liberal" in any discernible sense?

You mean besides the remunerative?

[Glen Tomkins]

Differently abled

They're not insane. Just because what they're doing doesn't make any sense in terms of accomplishing what you imagine the range of sound policy options to be, doesn't mean it makes no sense in terms of what they're aiming for.

Not taking these people at their word is more like what I would think of as insane, as in, it is a mental attitude that is likely to prove hazardous to your health. Just follow their logic to its logical conclusion. We are engaged in a physical war with "the terrorists" overseas, which naturally also has a psychological dimension, the dimension of winning hearst and minds. But the key theater of engagement for winning hearts and minds is clearly the home front, because the most powerful nation on the planet has the most decisive set of hearts and minds. Worse, that most powerful nation is a still somewhat functional democracy. Yes, the presdient is an elected dictator, but that "elected" part still holds, and therefore the hearts and minds of the US electorate are the key battleground of their little war. Now, you and I, my friends, are the clear and present enemy on the homefront in that psychological war. And if it is now irrefutably clear that they are willing and able to treat us as the enemy for the psy-ops component of that war, why exactly do you think that they will not complete the loop by extending the physical violence aspect of the war to us, the enemy on the home front, should that prove necessary? And if it looks like we're about to take the presidency, won't that present them with the alternative of either losing the war, or extending its violence to us?

Take these people at their word. They still think, they actually think, that they did Iraq a huge favor by overthrowing its government by force of arms. Why exactly should we be at all confident that they will not extend the same benefits to their own nation, should its government seem poised to be taken over by forces sympathetic to Islamofascism?

[LL]

No, not barking insane at all. C'mon. This is so obvious (and has been for at least three years), that a 5-year-old caught breaking the china could figure it out.

These guys simply don't want to be blamed. Period. They are doing anything and everything they can to avoid responsibility for criminal stupidity. That's all.

[wmac]

Most of the comments, including 'armed liberal's' relate to the fact that they were doing the Government's bidding. They were in fact doing the bidding of corporations (that's who pays them) who have an agenda of making money for themselves. How can you blame some poor Generals for trying to make a buck, just because their corporate interests just happen to align with the some people in government? Everybody's got to make a living. And how can you blame government for taking advantage? They're in business for themselves too you know.

[Charles]

It's interesting to rank wars by longevity and cost. By those standards, Iraq is one of the longer and more expensive engagements in world history. If people are going to accuse Americans of being war wimps, it would be nice if they would check on what other people have been willing to endure to fight their wars.

[Steve in CO]

Hi Charles,

Why did the term "Hundred Year's War," pop into my head all of a sudden? Your cynical take on the metrics of the seriousness in which a nation takes a particular war is interesting, and so far, ignored, unless it supports the argument of "we can't stop NOW!" as well as, "haven't we spent enough?"

McCain's wish may well become true whether he is elected or not. I fret that we have pushed this boulder down the hill, and there isn't any stopping it.

Blow back from the "first Persian Gulf War," was bad... my heart sinks thinking about the blow back from this 5-plus year disaster that is sure to come... :(

[jerry]

IIRC, Armed Liberal was also one of the original rogerlsimontheguywhomademoseswhine pajamahadeen, even before there was a open sores media, I mean pajamas media.

He always was a douchebag and I think he was even fingered as the CIA/VC bagman carrying the funds that funded the rogerlsimon-i-fucked-moses-till-he-whined pj gang.

against foes who include Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority, as AL explains in his comments

Why doesn't he call himself Armed Zionist?

[nitpicker]

Well, I think the metaphor the "source" uses is both apt and telling. It doesn't take Freud to tell you that the man who writes that America's sword is "dull and bent" is really saying that he hasn't had a stiffy since Mutual Assured Destruction was all the rage and wants us to quit cock-blocking his access to war porn.

[Dorothy]

if you need to target your base and find that it is fractured and lacks purpose [...] And if, moreover, your opponent’s base is unified, has a sense of purpose...

...then maybe you should reexamine your "purpose" for this particular war.

Isn't it pretty obvious that an occupied country always has a strong unifying purpose--namely, oposing the occupying force? In America's own "oral tradition", those stalwart defenders who choose to die rather than live under an occupation are revered and remembered much more than than the invaders who kill them.

Don't these guys remember the Alamo at all?

[Jemand von Niemand]

It seems that, behind the rhetoric, what any number of wingnut blogs (not to mention commenters) really want is for someone, finally, to give a signal -- that America will just stop namby-pambying around, abroad and at home, and become the silvershirt fascist Cheneyist totalitarian dicatatorship they're praying for.

For many in wingnuttia, this would simplify the very confusing and upsetting world in which they have to live.

[Davis]

You just don't get it. More and better propaganda, and everything will be fine.

[G.I.]

And a reminder of the obvious: Anyone, ANYONE who intentionally misleads the American people in order to manipulate them is by definition NOT fighting for "democracy."