[Infowarrior] - Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show

[Richard Forno]

Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show

By Brad Jacobson
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 -- 10:12 am

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/bryan-whitman-2/

In Part I of this series, Raw Story revealed that Bryan Whitman, the  
current deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations,  
was an active senior participant in a Bush administration covert  
Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to generate  
positive wartime news coverage.
A months-long review of documents and interviews with Pentagon  
personnel has revealed that the Bush Administration's military analyst  
program -- aimed at selling the Iraq war to the American people --  
operated through a secretive collaboration between the Defense  
Department's press and community relations offices.

Raw Story has also uncovered evidence that directly ties the  
activities undertaken in the military analyst program to an official  
US military document’s definition of psychological operations --  
propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign  
audiences.

The investigation of Pentagon documents and interviews with Defense  
Department officials and experts in public relations found that the  
decision to fold the military analyst program into community relations  
and portray it as “outreach” served to obscure the intent of the  
project as well as that office’s partnership with the press office. It  
also helped shield its senior supervisor, Bryan Whitman, assistant  
secretary of defense for media operations, whose role was unknown when  
the original story of the analyst program broke.

Story continues below...
In a nearly hour-long phone interview, Whitman asserted that since the  
program was not run from his office, he was neither involved nor  
culpable. Exposure of the collaboration between the Pentagon press and  
community relations offices on this program, however, as well as an  
effort to characterize it as a mere community outreach project, belie  
Whitman’s claim that he bears no responsibility for the program’s  
activities.

These new revelations come in addition to the evidence of Whitman’s  
active and extensive participation in the program, as Raw Story  
documented in part one of this series. Whitman remains a spokesman for  
the Pentagon today.

Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the  
intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest  
attempt to inform the American public.”

In the interview, Whitman sought to portray his role as peripheral,  
noting that his position naturally demands he speak on a number of  
subjects in which he isn’t necessarily directly involved.

The record, however, suggests otherwise.

In a January 2005 memorandum to active members of both offices from  
then-Pentagon press office director, Navy Captain Roxie Merritt – who  
now leads the community relations office -- she emphasized the  
necessary “synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together” on  
the military analyst program. [p. 18-19]

Merritt recommended that both the press and community relations  
offices develop a “hot list” of analysts who could dependably “carry  
our water” and provide them with ultra-exclusive access that would  
compel the networks to “weed out the less reliably friendly analysts”  
on their own.

“Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the  
analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably  
friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to  
future plans,” Merritt remarked. “As evidenced by this analyst trip to  
Iraq, the synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together on  
these types of projects is enormous and effective. Will continue to  
examine ways to improve processes.”

In response, Lawrence Di Rita, then Pentagon public affairs chief,  
agreed. He told Merritt and both offices in an email, “I guess I  
thought we already were doing a lot of this.”

Several names on the memo are redacted. Those who are visible read  
like a who’s who of the Pentagon press and community relations  
offices: Whitman, Merritt, her deputy press office director Gary Keck  
(both of whom reported directly to Whitman) and two Bush political  
appointees, Dallas Lawrence and Allison Barber, then respectively  
director and head of community relations.

Merritt became director of the office, and its de facto chief until  
the appointment of a new deputy assistant secretary of defense, after  
the departures of Barber and Lawrence, the ostensible leaders of the  
military analyst program. She remains at the Defense Department today.

When reached through email, Merritt attempted to explain the function  
of her office's outreach program and what distinguishes it from press  
office activities.

“Essentially,” Merritt summarized, “we provide another avenue of  
communications for citizens and organizations wanting to communicate  
directly with DoD.”

Asked to clarify, she said that outreach’s purpose is to educate the  
public in a one-to-one manner about the Defense Department and  
military’s structure, history and operations. She also noted her  
office "does not handle [the] news media unless they have a specific  
question about one of our programs."

Merritt eventually admitted that it is not a function of the outreach  
program to provide either information or talking points to individuals  
or a group of individuals -- such as the retired military analysts --  
with the intention that those recipients use them to directly engage  
with traditional news media and influence news coverage.

Asked directly if her office provides talking points for this purpose,  
she replied, “No. The talking points are developed for use by DoD  
personnel.”

Experts in public relations and propaganda say Raw Story's findings  
reveal the program itself was "unwise" and "inherently deceptive." One  
expressed surprise that one of the program's senior figures was still  
speaking for the Pentagon.

“Running the military analyst program from a community relations  
office is both surprising and unwise,” said Nicholas Cull, a professor  
of public diplomacy at USC’s Annenberg School and an expert on  
propaganda. “It is surprising because this is not what that office  
should be doing [and] unwise because the element of subterfuge is  
always a lightening rod for public criticism.”

Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and  
Democracy, which monitors publics relations and media manipulation,  
said calling the program “outreach” was “very calculatedly misleading”  
and another example of how the project was “inherently deceptive.”

“This has been their talking point in general on the Pentagon pundit  
program,” Farsetta explained. “You know, ‘We’re all just making sure  
that we’re sharing information.’”

Farsetta also said that it’s “pretty stunning” that no one, including  
Whitman, has been willing to take any responsibility for the program  
and that the Pentagon Inspector General’s office and Congress have yet  
to hold anyone accountable.

“It’s hard to think of a more blatant example of propaganda than this  
program,” Farsetta said.

Cull said the revelations are “just one more indication that the  
entire apparatus of the US government’s strategic communications --  
civilian and military, at home and abroad -- is in dire need of review  
and repair.”

A PSYOPS Program Directed at American Public

When the military analyst program was first revealed by The New York  
Times in 2008, retired US Army Col. Ken Allard described it as “PSYOPS  
on steroids.”

It turns out this was far from a casual reference. Raw Story has  
discovered new evidence that directly exposes this stealth media  
project and the activities of its participants as matching the US  
government’s own definition of psychological operations, or PSYOPS.

The US Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command fact  
sheet, which states that PSYOPS should be directed “to foreign  
audiences” only, includes the following description:

“Used during peacetime, contingencies and declared war, these  
activities are not forms of force, but are force multipliers that use  
nonviolent means in often violent environments.”

Pentagon public affairs officials referred to the military analysts as  
“message force multipliers” in documented communications.

A prime example is a May 2006 memorandum from then community relations  
chief Allison Barber in which she proposes sending the military  
analysts on another trip to Iraq:

“Based on past trips, I would suggest limiting the group to 10  
analysts, those with the greatest ability to serve as message force  
multipliers.”

Nicholas Cull, who also directs the public diplomacy master’s program  
at USC and has written extensively on propaganda and media history,  
found the Pentagon public affairs officials’ use of such terms both  
incriminating and reckless.

“[Their] use of psyop terminology is an ‘own goal,’” Cull explained in  
an email, “as it speaks directly to the American public’s underlying  
fear of being brainwashed by its own government.”

This new evidence provides further perspective on an incident cited by  
the Times.

Pentagon records show that the day after 14 marines died in Iraq on  
August 3, 2005, James T. Conway, then director of operations for the  
Joint Chiefs, instructed military analysts during a briefing to work  
to prevent the incident from weakening public support for the war.  
Conway reminded the military analysts assembled, “The strategic target  
remains our population.” [p. 102]

Same Strategy, Different Program

Bryan Whitman was also involved in a different Pentagon public affairs  
project during the lead-up to the war in Iraq: embedding reporters.

The embed and military analyst programs shared the same underlying  
strategy of “information dominance,” the same objective of selling  
Bush administration war policies by generating favorable news coverage  
and were directed at the same target -- the American public.

Torie Clarke, the first Pentagon public affairs chief, is often  
credited for conceiving both programs. But Clarke and Whitman have  
openly acknowledged his deep involvement in the embed project.

Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article.

Whitman said he was “heavily involved in the process” of the embed  
program's development, implementation and supervision.

Before embedding, reporters and media organizations were forced to  
sign a contract whose ground rules included allowing military  
officials to review articles for release, traveling with military  
personnel escorts at all times or remaining in designated areas, only  
conducting on-the-record interviews, and agreeing that the government  
may terminate the contract “at any time and for any reason.”

In May 2002, with planning for a possible invasion of Iraq already in  
progress, Clarke appointed Whitman to head all Pentagon media  
operations. Prior to that, he had served since 1995 in the Pentagon  
press office, both as deputy director for press operations and as a  
public affairs specialist.

The timing of Whitman’s appointment coincided with the development  
stages of the embed and military analyst programs. He was the ideal  
candidate for both projects.

Whitman had a military background, having served in combat as a  
Special Forces commander and as an Army public affairs officer with  
years of experience in messaging from the Pentagon. He also had  
experience in briefing and prepping civilian and military personnel.

Whitman's background provided him with a facility and familiarity in  
navigating military and civilian channels. With these tools in hand,  
he was able to create dialogue between the two and expedite action in  
a sprawling and sometimes contentious bureaucracy.

Buried in an obscure April 2008 online New York Times Q&A with  
readers, reporter David Barstow disclosed:

“As Lawrence Di Rita, a former senior Pentagon official told me, they  
viewed [the military analyst program] as the ‘mirror image’ of the  
Pentagon program for embedding reporters with units in the field. In  
this case, the military analysts were in effect ‘embedded’ with the  
senior leadership through a steady mix of private briefings, trips and  
talking points.”

Di Rita denied the conversation had occurred in a telephone interview.

“I don’t doubt that’s what he heard, but that’s not what I said,” Di  
Rita asserted.

Whitman said he'd never heard Di Rita make any such comparison between  
the programs.

Barstow, however, said he stood behind the veracity of the quote and  
the conversation he attributed to Di Rita.

Di Rita, who succeeded Clarke, also declined to answer any questions  
related to Whitman’s involvement in the military analyst program,  
including whether he had been involved in its creation.

Clarke and Whitman have both discussed information dominance and its  
role in the embed program.

In her 2006 book Lipstick on a Pig, Clarke revealed that “most  
importantly, embedding was a military strategy in addition to a public  
affairs one” (p. 62) and that the program’s strategy was “simple:  
information dominance” (p. 187). To achieve it, she explained, there  
was a need to circumvent the traditional news media “filter” where  
journalists act as “intermediaries.”

The goal, just as with the military analyst program, was not to spin a  
story but to control the narrative altogether.

At the 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Whitman told the  
audience, “We wanted to take the offensive to achieve information  
dominance” because “information was going to play a major role in  
combat operations.” [pdf link p. 2] One of the other program’s  
objectives, he said, was “to build and maintain support for U.S.  
policy.” [pdf link, p. 16 – quote sourced in 2005 recap of 2003 mil- 
media conference]

At the March 2004 “Media at War” conference at UC Berkeley, Lt. Col.  
Rick Long, former head of media relations for the US Marine Corps,  
offered a candid view of the Pentagon’s engagement in “information  
warfare” during the Bush administration.

“Our job is to win, quite frankly,” said Long. “The reason why we  
wanted to embed so many media was we wanted to dominate the  
information environment. We wanted to beat any kind of propaganda or  
disinformation at its own game.”

“Overall,” he told the audience, “we’re happy with the outcome.”

The Appearance of Transparency

On a national radio program just before the invasion of Iraq, Whitman  
claimed that embedded reporters would have a firsthand perspective of  
“the good, the bad and the ugly.”

But veteran foreign correspondent Reese Erlich told Raw Story that the  
embed program was “a stroke of genius by the Bush administration”  
because it gave the appearance of transparency while “in reality, they  
were manipulating the news.”

In a phone interview, Erlich, who is currently covering the war in  
Afghanistan as a “unilateral” (which allows reporters to move around  
more freely without the restrictions of embed guidelines), also  
pointed out the psychological and practical influence the program has  
on reporters.

“You’re traveling with a particular group of soldiers,” he explained.  
“Your life literally depends on them. And you see only the firefights  
or slog that they’re involved in. So you’re not going to get anything  
close to balanced reporting.”

At the August 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Jonathan  
Landay, who covered the initial stages of the war for Knight Ridder  
Newspapers, said that being a unilateral “gave me the flexibility to  
do my job.” [pdf link p. 2]

He added, “Donald Rumsfeld told the American people that what happened  
in northern Iraq after [the invasion] was a little ‘untidiness.’ What  
I saw, and what I reported, was a tsunami of murder, looting, arson  
and ethnic cleansing.”

Paul Workman, a journalist with over thirty years at CBC News,  
including foreign correspondent reporting on the wars in Iraq and  
Afghanistan, wrote of the program in April 2003, “It is a brilliant,  
persuasive conspiracy to control the images and the messages coming  
out of the battlefield and they've succeeded colossally.”

Erlich said he thought most mainstream US reporters have been  
unwilling to candidly discuss the program because they “weren’t  
interested in losing their jobs by revealing what they really thought  
about the embed process.”

Now embedded with troops in Afghanistan for McClatchy, Landay told Raw  
Story it’s not that reporters shouldn’t be embedded with troops at  
all, but that it should be only one facet of every news outlet’s war  
coverage.

Embedding, he said, offers a “soda-straw view of events.” This isn't  
necessarily negative “as long as a news outlet has a number of embeds  
and unilaterals whose pictures can be combined” with civilian  
perspectives available from international TV outlets such as Reuters  
TV, AP TV, and al Jazeera, he said.

Landay placed more blame on US network news outlets than on the embed  
program itself for failing to show a more balanced and accurate picture.

But when asked if the Pentagon and the designers of the embed program  
counted as part of their embedding strategy on the dismal track record  
of US network news outlets when it came to including international TV  
footage from civilian perspectives, he replied, “I will not second  
guess the Pentagon’s motives.”

Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story.  
Additional research was provided by Ron Brynaert.