Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pentagon Debate Rages Over "Misinformation"
Topic Started: Dec 2 2004, 10:11 AM (415 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Pentagon debate rages over 'information operations' in Iraq

Thursday, December 2, 2004 Posted: 3:55 AM EST (0855 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Amid a debate over the use of misinformation by the U.S. military, the Pentagon says it is investigating an October incident in which a Marine spokesman gave CNN misleading information about an attack on the Iraqi city of Falluja.

In an October 14 interview from Iraq, 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert announced that a major U.S. military operation was under way in Falluja -- three weeks before the offensive that eventually recaptured the city began.

A senior Pentagon official told CNN that Gilbert's remarks were "technically true but misleading." It was an attempt to get CNN "to report something not true," the official said.

CNN management has asked the Pentagon for an official response to a report in the Los Angeles Times that identified Gilbert's comments as a possible case of deliberate misinformation of news outlets. The newspaper reported that the interview was part of a broader effort to manipulate the media to achieve U.S. goals in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said U.S. personnel are never allowed to deceive reporters, and he said he is reviewing the circumstances surrounding the Gilbert interview.

"We are looking into reports where people may have gotten more creative than they should have," he said.

Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned commanders not to mix up "information operations" with the dissemination of news to reporters. But some in the military are concerned about blurring clear distinctions among three goals: psychological operations against enemy forces; offering timely and accurate information to reporters; and influencing international audiences.

The interview with Gilbert was unusual. He appeared on air only because military officials contacted CNN and said they had someone ready on the scene to discuss major unfolding developments that night.

"The troops crossed the line of departure. We had artillery fire, prep fire going out," Gilbert said in the October 14 interview. "Aircraft have been moving through the area all day, helicopters providing transport. It's been a pretty uncomfortable time."

The objective, Los Angeles Times reporter Mark Mazzetti said Wednesday, was "to see what the enemy was up to."

"The Pentagon people I spoke to said that the intended audience was the insurgent population around Falluja [who] might think that the U.S. military was coming to get them, and the U.S. military wanted to observe what they did when they thought the U.S. was coming," Mazzetti told CNN's "Newsnight With Aaron Brown."

Military officials said later that the operation was not an attempt to retake the city, just an effort to lay the groundwork for the eventual offensive that began in November.

"As the story developed, we quickly made it clear to our viewers exactly what was going on in and around Falluja," CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said.

The Gilbert interview sheds light on a debate behind the scenes at the Pentagon about the use of information as a weapon in the war in Iraq -- and whether a single battlefield commander should be in charge of both psychological operations and media operations at the same time. Some senior officers who served in the Vietnam War and its aftermath, when the credibility of the military was damaged, have raised concerns about the issue.

"Over time, people just didn't believe what the military was saying, and they fear that if we go down this path, the same thing is going to happen again," Mazzetti said.

A proposal circulated within the Pentagon calls for a new post for a "director of central information" to be established as part of a deeper effort to "counter ideological support to terrorism."

A Pentagon advisory panel warned recently that the military must make an effort to communicate better with the Muslim world. But critics worry that effort is becoming a Madison Avenue-style campaign full of leaflets, broadcasts and government-sponsored "influence" that crosses the line.

CNN Pentagon Correspondents Barbara Starr and Jamie McIntyre contributed to this report.
| Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

Although I often find the media glare on the US somewhat one-side and hypocritical (for example, the lack of outrage at the actions of the French in the Ivory Coast), I am glad to see it in this instance. I am also glad to see the internal discussions of the Pentagon on the issue discussed.

Certainly misleading the enemy about when an attack is to occur sounds logical, but using the regular news media to do so could compromise it and cause problems in the future.


End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Sounds like CNN is up in arms over being "used" by the military. I wonder if they think they are doing their duty when they broadcast what our commanders will be doing, or showing locations of troops, that the enemy can see.

I remember during the war last year, CNN spent an entire Saturday talking about the 1st Armored Cavalry getting caught in a sandstorm, and they gave the friggin' location!!

You sometimes have to wonder, do CNN and the rest of the LSM think they are "journalists" first, or AMERICANS?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gdog243
Rear Admiral
Wichita
Dec 2 2004, 08:03 AM
Certainly misleading the enemy about when an attack is to occur sounds logical, but using the regular news media to do so could compromise it and cause problems in the future.



How exactly? The regular news media is usally good at misleading. They do it to the American public all the time.

I heard about this today, and I really don't see what the problem is. If I recall, this is war, and don't we want to always be one step ahead of our enemies in war? It sounds stupid and illogical if we told them "We're ready to start the battle now" or some other damn thing. To CNN, shut the hell up. This isn't an issue.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

It would be a bad situation if the media instinctively mistrusted the veracity of information put forth by the military based on this inncodent.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Who cares if the media trusts a military source, or the entire military. Wars are not fought for headlines or for media coverage.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I think most reasonable people would agree that the government should do it's best to maintain it's credibility.
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 12:16 PM
I think most reasonable people would agree that the government should do it's best to maintain it's credibility.

I would also think that most reasonable people would agree that the government cant always be 100% honest when dealing with matters of national security.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Thank you, Dante. You beat me to it. One thing that people seem to forget in their mad desire to know everything about anything is the need for national security.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 12:19 PM
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 12:16 PM
I think most reasonable people would agree that the government should do it's best to maintain it's credibility.

I would also think that most reasonable people would agree that the government cant always be 100% honest when dealing with matters of national security.

Dan, do you think there is a difference between withholding information and misleading the press?
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 12:22 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 12:19 PM
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 12:16 PM
I think most reasonable people would agree that the government should do it's best to maintain it's credibility.

I would also think that most reasonable people would agree that the government cant always be 100% honest when dealing with matters of national security.

Dan, do you think there is a difference between withholding information and misleading the press?

They can be, but I can think of situations where misleading is the effective and desirable way to withhold. This example can be seen that way. Every one knew we where going to go into Falluja, it was just a question of when. In order to keep the time of the operation as secret as possible (aiding in its success) it was reasonable to make it appear as if it was going to happen well in advance of the real time, keeping the enemy guessing. If CNN got caught in it they should be happy to do their part for their country and stop crying about it.

Disinformation is an effective tool, it helped win WWII, with out it we might have lost. We should not tie our military’s hands behind their back on this issue, over such a minuscule situation as this one is.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Do you think there is a difference between spreading rumors in the population at large and deliberately misleading the press?
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 12:43 PM
Do you think there is a difference between spreading rumors in the population at large and deliberately misleading the press?

I think their is a difference between this situation, with CNN and pretending an operation was imamate in days rather then weeks in order to put the enemy off guard, and trying to manipulate the people at large through propaganda - yes their is a difference.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Why can't CNN just say something like "Military forces inform us that Santa Claus was shot down over Minnesota by an F-16 today". That way, CNN is just reporting and the military source is liable for the veracity of the story.

Just reporting the news, what a novel idea.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 11:22 AM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2004, 12:19 PM
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 12:16 PM
I think most reasonable people would agree that the government should do it's best to maintain it's credibility.

I would also think that most reasonable people would agree that the government cant always be 100% honest when dealing with matters of national security.

Dan, do you think there is a difference between withholding information and misleading the press?

Who cares. This is in a war zone, and it could mean American lives.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus