I will tie everything together at the bottom, but let me address each point by the both of you. And before I start, I probably owe the two of you (zaphod and geni) and apology. My comments were peppered with some unnecessary hostility. It wasn't necessary and I regret any offense.
What exactly is being insinuated here? These "analysts" are being presented in a deceptive manner. Do you dispute this? Is the NYT article cited above false or inaccurate?
No, I believe the reporting is accurate. When you see a "military analyst" on a cable show with remarkable knowledge of current troop positions, force disposition, and speaking in specific terms, I'd bet he's been coached by the administration. I also wouldn't put it past Pentagon officials to present such figures to the media. I'd also wager with the changing of the guard (and far less chickenhawks at the wheel) this is a practice that will become less prevalent.
I sense a note of hostility in your reply. Would I be correct to assume you are military? Is it possible I'm offending you with these questions? If so, just let me say clearly that I sincerely appreciate the service of our military. My objections with policy have nothing to do with the many fine people serving.
Yes. I am a U.S. Navy veteran. I was an electronic warfare technician on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It was a smaller ship, which meant a lot of multitasking had to be done to carry out the various missions. As such, my collateral duties included intelligence analysis, PSYOPs distribution, inventory, etc., physical security and force-protection, photographic intelligence collection, electronics maintenance, and other things as assigned.
Can you point me to any civilian-grade info on "information dominance operations"?
Information dominance can also be known as Information Warfare. This refers to the effort by a military force to maintain supremacy over the flow of information germane to warfighting efforts. This includes all manner of electronic, acoustic, communications/non-communications derived informations. We're talking about radars, sonar, cell phones, printed information, PSYOPs, instrumentation signals, radio/television, etc. You want to maintain the integrity of everything within your C4ISR, while denying and disrupting the ability of the enemy to utilize theirs. (C4ISR = command, control, computers, communications, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaisance) When combating a low tech enemy, these concepts have to be adjusted to the threat - a process that I believe our services are still feeling out.
geni said:
Your agenda appears to be to defend US PSYOPS. Understandable. However your tactics this time are nothing special. A mix of doubt and uncertainty combined with the always attack doctrain of PR. It's not a bad aproach just one I see rather a lot.
Can you please clarify the bolded portion? And, by the by, I'm not a public relations person and never have been. I'm way too much of an ass to be an effective one.
I mean look at this "the Pentagon addressing an information warfare deficiency in a combat zone and controlling the media itself". Now any halfway objective analysis would show that the only difference is a POV.
Not the case. Putting on a dog and pony show, however stretched and falsified it may be, is a lot different than "buying off the judges."
"Countering what was considered disinformation, nothing more." It's a good excuse. Not consistent with the availible information.
Can you point me to the reputable available information that states the U.S. military or intelligence establishment
controls the mainstream media in
any part of the globe?
Psyops is somewhat wider in scope:
Also called PSYOP. (JP 1-02)"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...op-jp-3-53.pdf page 120
Your reference is correct. That document, or "Joint Publication," is one of many resources which define, plan, and govern the concept of Psychological Operations. Each unit may have their own "playbooks" depending on their chain of command's tasking and structure, but none of these are going to be available to the general public, nor should they be.
Once again, it's important to remember that PSYOPS is part of a larger information dominance strategy, and never the sole purpose of an operation.
It's also accepted by the US goverment that modern media networks make it effectively imposible to limit the effect to foreign audiences.
They learned this lesson the hard way. I think modern media culture caught them with their pants down. You have to remember that many in the Bush adminstration who were doing the bulk of the war planning are products of a different age. (Also, very few had seen actual combat.) As a guy on the pointy end of things, Colin Powell's resignation made me really nervous when it happened.
The U.S. Military staged a publicity operation. They pissed on the public's boots and told them it was raining. In wartime, it happens - although the Bush admin seemed to pull this kind of operation a lot more. Another example would be the whole "Mission Accomplished" nonsense. In either case, a dog and pony doesn't mean that the organization in question
controls or
owns major mainstream media outlets.
In terms of the OP, with regards to the bogus William Colby quote, I haven't seen anyone bringing information forward that would support the idea that the military or intelligence agencies do this sort of thing.
Simply because the Bush-era military and intelligence agencies engaged in deceptive and manipulative media stunts during a "time of war" does not mean that they directed the reporting and coverage activies of major news outlets.
kidding me. David Crosby?!? Sorry, but no. I don't care who is daddy is, Crosby couldn't control a cuppa coffee. A joint maybe...