Friday, October 24, 2008

Private Military Contractors Writing the News? Pentagon's Propaganda mercenaries

Note that there are more retired generals working for private mercenaries'
contractors than in the Pentagon.

The definition for such a situation is Feudal Fascism...

Private <> Military Contractors Writing the
News? The Pentagon's Propaganda at Its Worst

AlterNet | Months after the Pentagon pundits flap, the Department of Defense
continues to hand down contracts for propaganda in Iraq and beyond.

<> Jim Marrs

The Rise of the Fourth Reich
For the first time Jim Marrs has gathered compelling evidence that an effort
has been underway for the past sixty years to bring a form of National
Socialism to modern America, creating in essence a modern empire-or "Fourth
Reich"! <> Get this
blockbuster at Alex Jones' Infowars Store today!

<> Private Military Contractors Writing the
News? The Pentagon's Propaganda at Its Worst

Liliana Segura
October 17, 2008

Less than a week after the Washington Post
4223_pf.html> reported that the Department of Defense will pay private
contractors $300 million over the next three years to "produce news stories,
entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media
in an effort to 'engage and inspire' the local population to support U.S.
objectives and the Iraqi government," Virginia Sen. Jim Webb wrote a
strongly worded letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "I have serious
reservations about the need for this expenditure in today's political and
economic environment," he wrote. "Consequently, I am asking that you put
these contracts on hold until the Armed Services Committee and the next
administration can review the entire issue of U.S. propaganda efforts inside

Such a review, if it were to happen, would be a formidable undertaking, one
that would have to start with the declaration of the "War on Terror" itself.
It's a project the Bush administration has always approached as a PR
campaign as much as a military one. Who can forget former White House Chief
of Staff Andy Card's explanation for the need to introduce the Iraq War to
Americans in September: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce
new products in August." And remember the short-lived attempt by
administration officials to re-brand the "War on Terror" by renaming it the
"Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism"? (Reports at the time were that
administration officials worried that the original phrase "may have outlived
its usefulness," due to its sole focus on military might.)

Regardless of what you call it, the so-called "War on Terror" has cost
American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda costs
alone. As with so much of modern war-making, most of this work is carried
out by private military contractors. With the word "Halliburton" now
shorthand for waste, fraud and abuse for many Americans, taxpayers'
tolerance for war profiteering has reached new lows - especially when
private military companies operating with no oversight undermine the very
"hearts and minds" that mission propaganda is supposedly meant to advance.

Selling the War to Americans

Perhaps one of the Bush administration's most egregious PR undertakings in
the war on Iraq was revealed this spring, when the New York Times
<> blew the lid
off the Pentagon's military analyst program, in which more than 75 retired
military officials were recruited to spout pro-war rhetoric on major
networks in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. These "message force
multipliers," as they were branded, were provided with thousands of talking
points by the Department of Defense starting in 2002. In one memo, dated
Dec. 9, 2002 and titled "Department of Defense Themes and Talking Points on
Iraq," a quote from Paul Wolfowitz - "We cannot allow one of the world's
most murderous dictators to provide terrorists a sanctuary in Iraq" - was
followed with a bullet point: "Saddam Hussein: A Global Threat."

The investigative piece by the Times said the project "continues to this
day," seeking to "exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a
powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military
contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on

"Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its
control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts
into a kind of media Trojan horse - an instrument intended to shape
terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." It would be
hard to overstate the implications of such a program, particularly for a
country that claims to be a beacon of democracy.

Although the Pentagon was said to have suspended its PR briefings of retired
military officials shortly after the Times story broke, since claiming that
its inspector general is conducting an investigation, in reality there has
been precious little fallout. However, in one promising move, earlier this
month, the Federal Communications Commission sent five letters of inquiry to
TV military analysts in an apparent probing of the program. According to
on-analysts.html> one report, "at issue is that some of them were also
linked to Pentagon contracts, raising the issue of conflict of interest. In
its letter signed by the chief of the investigations and hearings division
enforcement bureau, the FCC suggests that TV stations and networks may have
violated two sections of the Communications Act of 1934 by not identifying
the ties to the Pentagon that their military analysts had." Diane Farsetta
at PR Watch, who has written extensively on the Pentagon's pundits,
particularly their work on behalf of defense contractors, says, "the good
news is that that's (a first) step toward conducting an investigation."

Profiting off the "War of Ideas"

Beyond the Pentagon's pundit "scandal," the fact that propaganda contracts
continue to be awarded to the very companies that have previously been
implicated in ethical breaches for disseminating unattributed U.S.
propaganda abroad is reason enough to renew alarm. More than the dollar
amount, what is outrageous to Farsetta about the most recent propaganda
contract is that it is "blatantly illegal." "If you look at this most recent
contract," she explains, "one of the 'strategic audiences' is U.S.
audiences." According to federal law going back to World War II, she says
"no taxpayer money can go to propagandize U.S. audiences."

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t

<> Prison Planet TV

The Washington Post story describes the contract as the latest in a series
of cutting-edge PR initiatives undertaken since 2003 that represent a
revolution in what it calls "the military's role in the war of ideas."
"Iraq, where hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on such
contracts, has been the proving ground for the transformation."

"The tools they're using, the means, the robustness of this activity has
just skyrocketed since 2003. In the past, a lot of this stuff was just some
guy's dreams,'" said a senior U.S. military official, one of several who
discussed the sensitive defense program on the condition of anonymity.

The Pentagon still sometimes feels it is playing catch-up in a propaganda
market dominated by al Qaeda, whose media operations include sophisticated
Web sites and professionally produced videos and audios featuring Osama bin
Laden and his lieutenants. "We're being out-communicated by a guy in a
cave," Secretary Robert M. Gates often remarks.

The new contract was awarded to four companies, most of whom Farsetta refers
to as "the usual suspects," including
<> Lincoln
Group, the Pennsylvania Avenue company that in 2005 was found to have
planted articles written by U.S. military officials in Iraqi newspapers
without attribution. (Although the group was cleared of any illegalities,
even then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recognized the potential breach,
remarking, "Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing."

Selling the War to Iraqis

The main target audience for the $300 million contract is Iraqis. But,
different from earlier propaganda efforts, the content is not simply meant
to convince them of the noble intentions of their American occupiers.
"Originally, the major focus was all about the U.S.," says Farsetta. "The
message then was, 'Hey, you're free now,' but over time it has shifted to
more 'make sure you support your own government, your own police.'"

Indeed, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed official who described one
component of the program:

"There's a video piece produced by a contractor showing a family being
attacked by a group of bad guys, and their daughter being taken off. The
message is: You've got to stand up against the enemy." The professionally
produced vignette, he said, "is offered for airing on various (television)
stations in Iraq. They don't know that the originator of the content is the
U.S. government. If they did, they would never run anything.

"If you asked most Iraqis," he said, "they would say, 'It came from the
government, our own government.'"

A pretty blunt admission, to be sure, and one that lays bare the dubious
ethical nature of the program (not to mention the extent that the military
recognizes Iraqis' antipathy for the U.S. government). But it's not the
first time the U.S. government has sought to play hand puppet with Iraqi
media. Last spring, the NSA obtained and made public a document, along with
a PowerPoint presentation, that revealed the Pentagon's plans in the run-up
to the war to create a "Rapid Reaction Media Team." Jim Lobe, D.C. bureau
chief of InterPress Services, covered the revelation in May 2007; as he
wrote, the proposal was for a "six-month, $51 million budget for the RRMT
operation, apparently the first phase in a one- to two-year 'strategic
information campaign'":

Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. "media
consultants" who were to be paid $140,000 each for six months' work. A
further $800,000 were to be paid for six Iraqi "media consultants" over the
same period.

Both the paper and the slide presentation were prepared by two Pentagon
offices - Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which, among other
things, specialize in psychological warfare, and the Office of Special Plans
under then undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith - in
mid-January, 2003, two months before the invasion, according to NSA analyst
Joyce Battle.

"The RRMT concept focuses on USG-UK pre- and post-hostilities efforts to
develop programming, train talent, and rapidly deploy a team of U.S./UK
media experts with a team of 'hand selected' Iraqi media experts to
communicate immediately with the Iraqi public opinion upon liberation of
Iraq," according to the paper.

The "hand-picked" Iraqi experts, according to the paper, would provide
planning and program guidance for the U.S. experts and help ''select and
train the Iraqi broadcasters and publishers ('the face') for the
USG/coalition sponsored information effort." USG is an abbreviation for U.S.

In a rather extraordinary quote, the document boasted, "It will be as if,
after another day of deadly agit-prop, the North Korean people turned off
their TVs at night, and turned them on in the morning to find the rich fare
of South Korean TV spread before them as their very own."

Circumventing Congress

In the United States, few lawmakers have had a chance to scrutinize this
latest deployment of public funds for propaganda. (Like so many other
contracts awarded to private defense corporations, this one was awarded with
no Congressional approval.) But Webb's letter to Defense Secretary Robert
Gates suggests that it could become an issue.

At a time when this country is facing such a grave economic crisis, and at a
time when the government of Iraq now shows at least a $79 billion surplus
from recent oil revenues, in my view it makes little sense for the U.S.
Department of Defense to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
propagandize the Iraqi people. There is now an elected government in Iraq,
which is recognized to have the power and authority to negotiate a long-term
security agreement with the government of the United States. Clearly that
government is capable, both politically and financially, of communicating
with its own people in the manner now contemplated by these DOD contracts -
and without being accused by adversaries of being a foreign government that
is fulminating internal conditions through propaganda.

Laudable as his efforts to reign in contractors may be - much of Webb's
letter was devoted to military contractors more generally, and Blackwater
specifically - his letter made no mention of the myriad ethical questions
raised by the propaganda contract. To name a few, says Farsetta, "the fact
that the media produced is overwhelmingly not attributed to the U.S.
government;" "the fact that one of the 'strategic audiences' listed in the
contract is 'U.S. audiences,' in apparent violation of U.S. law;" and "the
difficulties in holding private contractors operating in war zones
accountable to any standard (ethical, performance or otherwise)."

Webb, who first learned about this contract as did most Americans, from the
Washington Post, has called for a thorough review of the Pentagon's
"strategic communications" initiatives, including Congressional hearings."
Were this to happen, says Farsetta, "I would love for those hearings to
include representatives from foreign governments and civil society groups
where the U.S. has major propaganda operations, including Iraq and
Afghanistan. The heads of firms like the Lincoln Group, L-3 and Rendon
should also testify, under oath."

But, she says, "What really bothers me is that Webb's using the "we've given
Iraq so much and now it's time for them to step up" argument. That argument
never fails to amaze and anger me. We bombed them in 1991, then for more
than a decade placed them under such devastating sanctions that hundreds of
thousands of children died, then bombed them more ferociously over a longer
period of time. Yet some politicians have the gall to complain that the
Iraqis aren't doing enough now? That's not to mention that the argument
assumes that Iraqi leaders have the same priorities as U.S. officials.
Personally, I say we need to get our propaganda and troops out of Iraq and
pay them reparations."

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links
may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.

Please check <>
<> for more
real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email
all posts)

free book download: <> or


*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes
only. *** Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan,
pro-truth-honesty-peace, and anti-war-lies-crime. The purpose is to expose
corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies, criminal plans, cover-ups and
free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments, foundations,
corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human
rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism,
economy, business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to
trick the public into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and
freedoms, while the propaganda we are subjected to makes us believe that we
have evolved to where such things cannot happen [remember slavery,
apartheid.]. Please share what you learn with others who do not have access
to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that is
used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of predatory
aggressions;spread the truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied
territory of the neo-feudal lords by rejecting the mainstream news
propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of schizophrenia because it
provides a true vision of reality which is so different from the one we are
presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at
alternate news. ***** Check,,, & other alternative news sites for latest news flashes. In
Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions and
viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or
others mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to
stimulate dialogue and discussion.

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency
(NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse,
nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail
is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer
Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire &
are all intended for entertainment and amusement only.

Labels: , , , , ,


Blogger batcave911 said...

2:54 AM  
Blogger batcave911 said...

9/11 links

2:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home