I'm not sure, but I'm starting to think that the people in charge of the United States might be engaged in an essentially criminal enterprise.

Needed in war/hostile environment reporting: real free, untethered, unembedded journalism. It is as if you need a separate armed force that does nothing but protect journalists and provide translation and cultural cue education to journalists so they can roam freely and find out how things really are.

I understand completely how the armed forces would like to control reportage of their theatre...and it is absolutely pernicious to democratic and informed debate on the progress and possibilities of the conflicts we are involved in.

Oh and disperse the media conglomeration.

And distribute a free gold ingot to each citizen after voting.......

:(

After all the sex scandals..two things.

Never let a politician kiss your baby

And never shake a politicians hand.

And never shake a politicians hand.

Cuz we all have a pretty good idea where that hand has been...

Unless we want to start shutting down the Internet, the genie's out of the bottle on this one.

The tendency to manage information and to lie is built into every side of a conflict, which is a more active form of competition. Rather than focus on suppressing misinformation, we might consider exposing and correcting it. When lies we tell the enemy turn up in domestic discourse, it's time to tell the truth. The same goes for lies we tell ourselves. (The surge is working?)

My first order of business would be to see that our citizens have access to accurate information; next, that they take advantage of that access by working and networking to base their opinions and actions on reliable information.

Second would be to help those in other countries who are unable to do the same. The Chinese people need reliable information, too, and they need to be able to talk about it.

I'd go so far as to suggest that a not-insignificant portion of General Petraeus's information operations efforts have been directed towards shaping American public discourse. It isn't an accident that he has been so available to so many journalists, or that the flow of "good news" about the Anbar Awakening and the surge into the American media has expanded so dramatically.

These guys didn't go for a Political Science or pre-law degree, they went to military academies. And one of the first things you'll read in the biggest books on military strategy is stuff like this-- working on the perception of your enemy and the populous at home. In an age of global communication, sure, it's common sense that putting out certain messages at home can be part of controlling what the enemy sees. These guys don't think or care about what's right for our domestic politics, like someone who thinks or cares about political theory might, instead their goal is just to do well in military operations, so it makes sense that some of them might conflate communication at home with their anti-enemy propaganda message.

I just read a few paragraphs down and had to write this-- I'll have to look at the rest of your post and think about what you're asking about.

working on the perception of your enemy and the populous at home.

It's straight out of Macchiavelli and Sun Tzu, and that stuff has been strongly influential on later writers and thinkers.

A corollary discussion might be whether pols really need to go to Baghdad (and we really need to pony up the $millions [and soldiers who one hopes have something better to do]) to find out what's going on there. I mean centcom runs the show from Fla, and I assume that most of the rest is directed from Kuwait. Why do we need to pay for photo ops of Potemkin villages?

Just make sure it's attributed and step back. In other words, let the 2 narratives run side by side and if our outgoing propaganda is too different from what can be discovered domestically, the propagandists look kind of silly and have to do better to stay credible. If the domestic propagandists are tempted to emulate the outgoing version, they run the risk of being found out because correcting information is more accessible domestically. But the information has to be correctly attributed, so we know which bullshit is which.

I guess that means that we are the other insurgency to counter.

Stewart Dean >"...It is as if you need a separate armed force that does nothing but protect journalists and provide translation and cultural cue education to journalists so they can roam freely and find out how things really are...."

Yes, much like the idea that came out of the DoD during the late 1970s when they were attempting to figure out how to move beyond the Vietnam mistake. It was expressed in a presentation labeled "1st Earth Bn" ("google" it for more details). A concept somewhere between Peace Corps and Marine Corps. Of course the concept went nowhere.

Boolaboola >"...Rather than focus on suppressing misinformation, we might consider exposing and correcting it. When lies we tell the enemy turn up in domestic discourse, it's time to tell the truth. The same goes for lies we tell ourselves...."

EXACTLY

Something alone the lines of what the U.S. judiciary is supposed to be (and is assumed to be by those not really paying attention).

Maybe it should be labeled the Edward R. Murrow Brigade.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." – Edward R. Murrow

The reason for the original prohibition was because, while American officials thought that they needed to tell lies overseas to win the Cold War, they feared the effects if the same propaganda machine that would tell pro-US-government lies overseas would also tell pro-US-government lies at home; whoever controlled the government mind wind up controlling the minds of the public, and establish permanent rule.

The problem is that with better communication, it's no longer possible to cleanly separate foreign and domestic propaganda. So perhaps the answer is to get rid of the former, or at least make it more honest. After all, the BBC is much more respected and listened to internationally than the various US government propaganda organs, because it's seen as a straight news service, even though it cannot help but promote British values, by virtue of being British.

Swan, the academies teach a full compliment. They haven't been solely focused on artillery for decades. Try actually reading Professor Lynch (daily!) before you get your criticism all ginned up for the waiting masses at PA who hang on your every word like they came from the metatron itself.

I don't see how the laws apply to Petraeus granting lots of interviews and putting a positive spin on the situation. He is not in that instance putting together a propaganda piece designed to improve our image abroad--the piece supposedly is being written by a journalist. There can never be a law stating that Generals always have to be realistic, and there should never be a law stating that Generals cannot speak to the press.

Q: During a time of war do we let government tell lies to win the war, and risk they'll use it for partisan political purposes?

Q: Can an "open" society such as ours actually get along without propagandizing? Can we avoid it?

The post Kevin quotes here is the latest of several relating to public diplomacy that Marc Lynch has put up on his site. I'd encourage those interested to read all of them, and several others he links to. It's a worthwhile conversation on an important subject.

I want to make just one observation about it, and Kevin's comment, that make me a little nervous. It would be a mistake to see public diplomacy, as so many people do, solely in the context of our efforts to engage "the Muslim world." What most commenters mean by this is engaging the Arab countries -- and not even all of those -- on Arab issues. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran come up in the discussion from time to time, but for the most part "Muslim" is assumed to equal "Arab."

In the first place, this is simply wrong. There is no doubt that the Iraq war, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, do have a strong impact on public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries around the world, and on how the United States is viewed in those countries. Outside the immediate Mideast region, though, these are just two issues among many others -- and while it is true that the great majority of Arabs are Muslim, the great majority of Muslims are not Arabs. We shouldn't expect that getting our public diplomacy right on Arab issues will accomplish what we need to in non-Arab Muslim countries.

And there is an even larger issue where the future of American public diplomacy is concerned; most of the areas it will need to address in the future will not directly involve Muslims at all. In the largest and most important countries America must deal with in the world, Muslims are a significant minority in India, a smaller minority in Europe, a tiny minority in China and Latin America. The urgency of affairs in the Middle East -- a product in large measure of how the last three administrations, and particularly the one we have now have chosen to address developments there -- cannot be denied. But urgency and importance are not the same thing.

All of these other areas of the world are more important from the standpoint of American national interests than any predominantly Muslim country (or indeed than all the Arab countries put together). American public diplomacy will have to reflect that in the years to come.

The provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act we're discussing here are on the borderline of being unconstitutional. A much better approach would be to prohibit any government employee, appointee, elected official, or contractor from making false statements publicly. Yes, we would still have "leaks" of false information, but nothing is perfect.

However, in an effort to prevent the government from engaging in domestic propaganda while still giving it a free hand overseas...

I'd say the Jessica Lynch story fed to the press was domestic propaganda, as was the false story of Tillman's death.

I'd agree with Joe Buck, above. The line between domestic and foreign communications has fallen. Any communications should be acceptable in both audiences. Can generals present optimistic views? Yes - they are optimistic by nature and training. But our image as the land of freedom in the world must be buttressed by the actions of a land of freedom.

jimmy >"I guess that means that we are the other insurgency to counter."

BINGO !

BIG WINNER !

"War is the easy part" - Anthony Zinni

Re: "the act also stipulated that VOA programming couldn't be released domestically"

I am not sure the act was ever enforced as I can remember listening to the VOA English language, shortwave broadcasts as a kid. I mean how do you not release "domestically" a broadcast that originates from Ohio (as I remember). For that matter, even if broadcast from another country, shortwave pretty much covered the world and would be received domestically.

In the end, just telling the truth, good, bad or indifferent, will be more effective one would think.

JimG >"...a broadcast that originates from Ohio (as I remember)...."

Delano CA also ("...The city is best known as one of two U.S. sites for the Voice of America's shortwave transmitters and numerous broadcasting antennas....")

I also did the shortwave thing as a young person.

JimG >"...just telling the truth, good, bad or indifferent, will be more effective..."

You are completely correct of course but "these people" have NEVER been about truth, NEVER.

Truth is THE disinfectant remember.

"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille

Kevin, how about shoving a VOA mike up Petraeus' ass?

There's what to do.

reino wrote:

I don't see how the laws apply to Petraeus granting lots of interviews and putting a positive spin on the situation. He is not in that instance putting together a propaganda piece designed to improve our image abroad--the piece supposedly is being written by a journalist. There can never be a law stating that Generals always have to be realistic, and there should never be a law stating that Generals cannot speak to the press.

That maay be all well and good, but I think you're missing the point. I think the point of demonstrating how Petraeus may be cheer-leading and intentionally exagerratin and misdirecting isn't to give us an example of where the law does or should apply, but to make us think about the ways immoral, harmful, or illegal deception may be being practiced against us at home by the military/intelligence community, that we do not usually easily recognize.

If it there is an internally directed propaganda effort, it's been a miserable failure just like everything else the administration does. The war is still extraordinarily unpopular, and the American people want out by an overwhelming margin. Heckuva job!

If it there is an internally directed propaganda effort, it's a success as far as we're in the war, we've been in it for years, and the American people aren't out in the streets protesting against it in a big way.

I also think that no sitting general should ever exagerrate or lie in order to convince the American people to support a war the general wants us to have or thinks we should have. Sure, the general has had the military training, and lots of Americans haven't. But there are many surgeons and doctors who commit very bad malpractice. There are many very educated, sophisticated politicians who are very corrupt. There have been many sophisticated, well-educated businessmen who have let products they knew were too dangerous go on the market, or who let advertising they knew was aimed at kids- for products like cigarettes and booze- go on the market. I for one do not swoon at whatever some general says.

Who is Petraeus? Who cares what he thinks? At this point, anyone who follows the info/news about the Iraq war can come to an intelligent conclusion that it's a bad idea.

The problems are big enough that you don't have to be a military expert to appreciate them. At this point, the question is definitely not rocket science.

That said, I'm sure there might be some other, more specific instance where I'd think it would be justified if a general lies to the public. If a general who was planning a surprise attack somehow went on David Letterman and was asked if he was going to attack some place where the attack was actually supposed to occur, and the general lied and said it wasn't. It's an absurd and unlikely example of an imaginary situation, but the point is I don't think this would be unjustified.

If Petraeus lies about how well the war is going, that's another matter entirely. It's up to the American people, the congress and the president to decide whether we should go to war, not some random asshole I don't know from Adam. The American people didn't pick Petraeus. He was picked by a process, and picked by other people who were picked by the same process, and that's not a good enough reason for him or anyone else to get to manipulate us all into doing whatever they want.

I don' get it. Are the Voice of America and Bush/Petraeus spin part and parcel of the same propaganda machine?

I think the problem in Iraq is simply that the environment is too hostile for good reporting, so we eat blatherings from the administration and immediately vomit them out like news bulimics.

Expecting the truth from Petraeus is foolish. When Lou Holtz said that his next opponent was the greatest team of all time, everybody listened and rolled their eyes. Why can't we do the same thing when Petraeus says that we are making great progress? If you are listening to Petraeus and thinking that you are getting the whole truth, then the problem is with you rather than with Petraeus.

Smith-Mundt? As a principle? Even a casual glance at, for example, Stephen Kinser's *Overthrow* will demonstrate that misleading U.S. propaganda has been repeatedly and torrentially aimed at the domestic U.S. audience. Just briefly: John Foster Dulles was basically a two-legged lying machine. The Pentagon Papers were a catalogue of propagandistic lies, and on and on . . .

Joe Buck and others have it right: a policy of not lying is the easy and moral solution to this "dilemma". Not a policy this administration - or many prior administrations - could ever be capable of, but one we should demand of our government.

"Always tell the truth. That way you don't have to remember what you said." --Mark Twain

Not sure why having two versions of the "truth" was ever condoned, much less legitimized by law, but thankfully the internet solved that with inescapable evidence that there are as many versions of such "truth" as their are mouths to speak. As it always has been, although more evident now with the plethora of reportage from on-line diaries to candidate homesites, it is each person's responsibility to balance information against life experience rather than blindly follow the scariest authority. If may take generations for this to sink in, if ever.