. It's sad that our military does not understand how to handle the flow of information from Iraq. For all the great stories Yon brings us, I was surprised to learn that many more are suppressed.
Just why the military considers some information "classified" while other information gets the "go ahead, write it" shrug, is not based on logic, science, or even one of those absurd but iron clad rules that codify so much of the military. Many explanations for the military's requests not to publish certain information, do not hold up well to scrutiny.
For example, our soldiers capture or kill top terror figures in Mosul routinely. Sometimes in stunning operations that display split-second timing. The "higher ups" often say, almost reflexively, that they don't want the enemy to know about these kills or captures.
Sounds reasonable. But whether soldiers sleek through dark allies with silenced weapons, slipping over walls with padded ladders, snatching sleeping terrorists from their beds before they can fully waken; or, whether they engage in a gunfight at a busy intersection and drag terrorists from behind the wheels of their cars--these are not anonymous men. Families notice when daddy's gone missing.
If we aren't keeping it secret from the enemy--and we can't keep it secret from them--who do we protect by keeping quiet? These are not illegal operations. These are examples of the effectiveness of our forces. In Mosul alone there are daily events where the Coalition gets things right, that I never write about.
If we want to convince the enemy that they cannot win and must give up fighting, every single success story must be recorded, broadcast, and loudly trumpetted at every level. What Yon reports is no way to win the propaganda battle--and if we do not win the propaganda battle we cannot win the war.
1
I've been advocating for massive ammounts of pro U.S. propoganda. We need to be dropping leaflets and basic supplies all over the country to get total support from the average Iraqi.
We should be commandeering television/radio stations and just make use of basic information warfare tactics. I haven't seen much if any coverage of any sort of attempts to reduce enemy morale. We've got the resources to annihilate these people in the info warfare and propoganda war.
I don't think we are though, it's sad and worries me a litle bit.
Posted by: tyler at August 20, 2005 05:00 PM (t+GZI)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 20, 2005 06:08 PM (JQjhA)
3
Our government has had a mortal fear of propaganda since the 1950's, which, coincidentally, was about the same time that Soviet moles infiltrated the government and media in massive numbers. And everyone though Krushchev was kidding when he said he would conquer us without firing a shot...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 20, 2005 11:25 PM (0yYS2)
4
Information Warfare and Security is a very interesting book. It focuses a lot on network and computer security but also touches on information warfare tactics used during the Gulf War. The book is extremely easy to read, anyone would understand it.
Moles are inevitable though, it's hard for me to believe that proven info warfare tactics wouldn't be employed today due to mole worries.
Even in the 50's it would seem silly to not take certain actions because there moles working in your agency. I shouldn't really speak of what I don't really know though. I think my mother was still in college in the 50's.
Posted by: tyler at August 21, 2005 12:38 AM (t+GZI)
5
Another thing I've wondered about too is why we have so many websites and publications compiling statistics on our fallen soldiers or Iraqi civilians and no one has done the same with how many terrorists have been taken out or blown themselves up. Someone should have graphs, dates and names if possible. They should have monthly followups on "key" operatives eliminated from the gene pool. (Rusty is good on getting us the info on "key" operatives) Otherwise, the only info we get on any of it is sporadic and slipshod. Hell, when a suicide bombing with one or more terrorists involved occurs and they give us a count of the dead, they include the terrorists and you're left wondering how many were innocents. For instance, one accounting last year by major news outlets said their was a massive death count somewhere of 49 dead at once. Later, we find that 27 of them were terrorists!
I think sometimes our government wants to lose. They suck at keeping us informed with actual data to counter all the hype and propaganda the disgusting and traitorous media puts out.
Posted by: Hollywood Oyster at August 21, 2005 07:49 AM (YudAC)
6
Speaking of propaganda, I was at a Presbyterian college for a wedding Saturday, and in one student services building I found islamic apologetic propaganda, and how-to books for radicals and demonstrators. Unfuckingbelievable. If only people knew they were speding 30K a year to get their kids indoctrinated into hating their country.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 21, 2005 07:17 PM (0yYS2)
7
Tyler, it's not that the actions are not taken out of concern for moles, but that moles warn against taking that action and work to discredit it.
Ask yourself why the press considers it unethical to embed with US forces, but gleefully pays "stringers" who are actually jihadis for posed photos and staged attacks.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 22, 2005 06:57 AM (1j9aH)
8
Moles should be easy to spot. If we didn't have any muslims here we wouldn't have the problem.
ISLAM OUT OF AMERICA.
They bring nothing but problems. They contribute nothing to our society,
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 06:59 PM (OvTKg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
