Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations
By Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt
New York Times
Monday, 16 December, 2002

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Defense Department is considering issuing 
a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert 
operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in 
friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and administration 
officials say.   

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet decided on the 
proposal, which has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush 
administration over whether the military should carry out secret 
propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany, where many 
of the Sept. 11 hijackers congregated, or Pakistan, still considered 
a haven for Al Qaeda's militants.   

Such a program, for example, could include efforts to discredit and 
undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that have 
become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism 
across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. It might even include setting 
up schools with secret American financing to teach a moderate Islamic 
position laced with sympathetic depictions of how the religion is 
practiced in America, officials said.   

Many administration officials agree that the government's broad strategy 
to counter terrorism must include vigorous and creative propaganda to 
change the negative view of America held in many countries.   

The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over "the strategic 
communications for our nation, the message we want to send for 
long-term influence, and how we do it."   

As a military officer put it: "We have the assets and the capabilities 
and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence 
public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean 
we should."   

It is not the first time that the debate over how the United States 
should marshal its forces to win the hearts and minds of the world 
has raised difficult and potentially embarrassing questions at the 
Pentagon. A nonclandestine parallel effort at the State Department, 
which refers to its role as public diplomacy, has not met with so 
much resistance.   

In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of 
Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news items, 
and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public 
sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply 
frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for 
molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global 
campaign against terrorism and militancy.   

Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the military 
in carrying out what it calls information operations against adversaries, 
especially before and during war, as well as routine public relations work 
in friendly nations like Colombia, the Philippines or Bosnia, whose 
governments have welcomed American troops.   

In hostile countries like Iraq, such missions are permitted under policy 
and typically would include broadcasting from airborne radio stations or 
dropping leaflets like those the military has printed to undermine morale 
among Iraqi soldiers. In future wars, they might include technical 
attacks to disable computer networks, both military and civilian.   

But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at allies 
has divided the Pentagon -- with civilians and uniformed officers on both 
sides of the debate.   

Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists 
to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside contractors 
without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of 
American policies.   

The current battlefield for these issues involves amendments to a 
classified Department of Defense directive, titled "3600.1: Information 
Operations," which would enshrine an overarching Pentagon policy for 
years to come.   

Current policy holds that aggressive information tactics are "to affect 
adversary decision makers" -- not those of friendly or even neutral 
nations. But proposed revisions to the directive, as quoted by senior 
officials, would not make adversaries the only targets for carrying out 
military information operations -- abbreviated as "I.O." in the document, 
which is written in the dense jargon typical of military doctrine.   

"In peacetime, I.O. supports national objectives primarily by influencing 
foreign perceptions and decision-making," the proposal states. "In crises 
short of hostilities, I.O. can be used as a flexible deterrent option 
to communicate national interest and demonstrate resolve. In conflict, 
I.O. can be applied to achieve physical and psychological results in 
support of military objectives."   

Although the defense secretary is among those pushing to come up with 
a bolder strategy for getting out the American message, he has not 
yet decided whether the military should take on those responsibilities, 
the officials said.   

There is little dispute over such battlefield tactics as destroying an 
enemy's radio and television stations. All is considered fair in that 
kind of war.   

But several senior military officers, some of whom have recently left 
service, expressed dismay at the concept of assigning the military to 
wage covert propaganda campaigns in friendly or neutral countries. 
"Running ops against your allies doesn't work very well," Adm. Dennis 
C. Blair, a retired commander of American forces in the Pacific, advised 
Pentagon officials as they began re-examining the classified directive 
over the summer. "I've seen it tried a few times, and it generally is 
not very effective."   

Those in favor of assigning the military an expanded role argue that 
no other department is stepping up to the task of countering propaganda 
from terrorists, who hold no taboo against deception.   

They also contend that the Pentagon has the best technological tools 
for the job, especially in the areas of satellite communications and 
computer warfare, and that the American military has important 
interests to protect in some countries, including those where ties 
with the government are stronger than the affections of the population.   

For example, as anti-American sentiment has risen this year in South 
Korea, intensified recently by the deaths of two schoolgirls who were 
crushed by an American armored vehicle, some Pentagon officials were 
prompted to consider ways of influencing Korean public opinion outside 
of traditional public affairs or community outreach programs, one military 
official said. No detailed plan has yet emerged.   

Those who oppose the military's taking on the job of managing 
perceptions of America in allied states say it more naturally falls to 
diplomats and civilians, or even uniformed public affairs specialists. 
They say that secret operations, if deemed warranted by the president, 
should be carried out by American intelligence agencies.  

In addition, they say, the Pentagon's job of explaining itself through 
public affairs officers could be tainted by any link to covert information 
missions. "These allied nations would absolutely object to having the 
American military attempt to secretly affect communications to their 
populations," said one State Department official with a long career in 
overseas public affairs.   

Even so, this official conceded: "The State Department can't do it. 
We're not arranged to do it, and we don't have the money. And U.S.I.A. 
is broken." He was referring to the United States Information Agency, 
which was absorbed into the State Department.   

One effort to reshape the nation's ability to get its message out was a 
proposal by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is 
chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Hyde is 
pushing for $255 million to bolster the State Department's public 
diplomacy effort and reorganize international broadcasting activities.   

"If we are to be successful in our broader foreign policy goals," Mr. 
Hyde said in a statement, "America's effort to engage the peoples of 
the world must assume a more prominent place in the planning and execution 
of our foreign policy."   

(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.)

(c) t r u t h o u t 2002

                           -==-

Source: Truthout ...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.17B.penta.prop.htm

Cheers, Steve..

---