How dangerous is the Bush administration?

Pentagon propaganda program orders soldiers to promote Iraq war while home on leave
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Dec 29, 2005, 05:44


Good soldiers follow orders and hundreds of American military men and women returned to the United States on holiday leave this month with orders to sell the Iraq war to a skeptical public.

The program, coordinated through a Pentagon operation dubbed "Operation Homefront," ordered military personnel to give interviews to their hometown newspapers, television stations and other media outlets and praise the American war effort in Iraq.

Initial reports back to the Pentagon deem the operation a success with dozens of front page stories in daily and weekly newspapers around the country along with upbeat reports on local television stations.

"We've learned as a military how to do this better," Captain David Diaz, a military reservist, told his hometown paper, The Roanoke (VA) Times. "My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin."

When pressed by the paper on whether or not his commanding officers told him to talk to the press, Diaz admitted he was "encouraged" to do so. So reporter Duncan Adams asked:

"Did Diaz return to the U.S. on emergency leave with an agenda -- to offer a positive spin that could help counter growing concerns among Americans about the U.S. exit strategy? How do we know that's not his strategy, especially after he discloses that superior officers encouraged him to talk about his experiences in Iraq?"

Replied Diaz:

"You don't. I can tell you that the direction we've gotten from on high is that there is a concern about public opinion out there and they want to set the record straight."

Diaz, an intelligence officer, knows how to avoid a direct answer. Other military personnel, however, tell Capitol Hill Blue privately that the pressure to "sell the war" back home is enormous.

"I've been promised an early release if I do a good job promoting the war," says one reservist who asked not to be identified.

In interviews with a number of reservists home for the holidays, a pattern emerges on the Pentagon's propaganda effort. Soldiers are encouraged to contact their local news media outlets to offer interviews about the war. A detailed set of talking points encourages them to:
--Admit initial doubts about the war but claim conversion to a belief in the American mission;

--Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush administration;

--Claim the mission to turn security of the country over to the Iraqis is working;

--Reiterate that America must not abandon its mission and must stay until the "job is finished."

--Talk about how "things are better" now in Iraq.

Sorry boys, but that piece wasn't intended for you or any of the others here who would find excuse for this administration if it got photographed fukking a sheep (unless, of course, that sheep was of the same gender).

It is intended for everyone else to read, then forward as broadly as possible.

blatham wrote:

Sorry boys, but that piece wasn't intended for you or any of the others here who would find excuse for this administration if it got photographed fukking a sheep (unless, of course, that sheep was of the same gender).

It is intended for everyone else to read, then forward as broadly as possible.

But your 'intentions' do not govern the actions of others. They are free to criticize both your evident intentions and the merits of the piece you posted. I realize that may be hard for you to accept, but they are as free to reject your beliefs as you are to advance them.

I detect a self-righteous indignation and intolerance in your recent posts that makes me glad you are not in government - at least in this country.

I'm not interested in agreement of lack of it. Obviously, people will go on to read it (or not, as the case with you) then say something here. That's fine. Those who read it, find it compelling, then send it on to others on their email lists...that's the idea.

I certainly would be quite ashamed if I believed the central implications of the piece in question. Only the author can tell us the truth about "what he learned", or just what he means by all that. Only a fool or the already persuaded would accept his implications whole hog.

I certainly would be quite ashamed if I believed the central implications of the piece in question. Only the author can tell us the truth about "what he learned", or just what he means by all that. Only a fool or the already persuaded would accept his implications whole hog.

"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against those hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat."

Quote:

"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against those hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat."

GW Bush, Sept 17, 2004

Read the following piece from the London Review of Books. Then mail it off to your friends and anyone else who you think ought to read it. It is an extraordinary indictment.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n01/print/wein01_.html

The New Coalition of the Willing
Private security firms in Iraq are hiring an increasing number of ex-guerrillas and soldiers from Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Chile. A recent ad on Iraqijobcenter.com, for example, offered the services of "a thousand Colombian combat-trained ex-soldiers and policemen" for security work in Iraq. This year, U.S. security firm Halliburton employed Colombians to protect oil installations in several Iraqi cities. Blackwater, another private security firm, has had a group of soldiers who once served for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on the payroll. Recruits often come from militaries known for human rights abuses or paramilitaries with ties to narcotrafficking. So why are U.S. contractors hiring Latin American mercenaries? "If a contractor is killed," says Peter Singer, an expert on private military firms at the Brookings Institution, "it is less likely to make the news [than if it's a U.S. soldier]. If it's a contractor from another country, it is even less likely."