Reply With Quote
But it was for something worthwhile so it's not an issue.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ators-20110223The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.
The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
But it was for something worthwhile so it's not an issue.
I guess the visiting Congressional members weren't fully American, and needed some remedial instruction.
The ends justify the means. This used to be one of our main criticisms of the USSR and all things socialist, now it is a wet blanket we use to stifle internal dissent.
And indoctrinate US Senators, apparently
We assume that history progresses to a better tomorrow...
I know, I know, an isolated incident.
We are headed that way, primarily in our ins utions. In a highly regimented organization of immense scale and scope, any room for deviation will be exploited by the human mind for what it wants.
Supposedly we are to be comforted by the fact that our "traditions" would preclude us from subjecting the individual to a assault upon one's mind by the state. Rousseau foresaw such activity, and of course approved.
Of course, other efforts by the state to shape the mind are seldom noticed, and often defended vehemently by the recipients.
Exactly what statute was violated and how?
After reading the story, it appears the Commander merely asked for advice on how to sell the CODELs on more funds and troops.
The soldier objected because he believed it was illegal.
Nowhere in the article does it state the Congressional delegations were "propagandized" or exposed to direct efforts of the IO team. There was a nice conflation of the ideas, by the writer, to suggest that just because the IO team has a mission with the enemy that their expertise couldn't be used in a completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries.
What the story fails to expose is exactly what statute was violated and what specific actions were in violation.
'Hey you, trained in psychological warfare, how do I get these visiting dignitaries to agree with me? I mean, I'm not that great of a rhetorician.'
Yeah.
And, when you demonstrate the returned advice was to lie or mislead or "propagandize" the delegation; you have a case.
I don't see that element in the story.
They spent three pages building a narrative that something illegal occurred without citing the law or what specifics acts occurred that violated said law.
Why must it have happened? What cons utes a "lie"?
The point is the order was given.
What was the order given?
Why would a Lt Colonel lie? To make into a RollingStone piece?
Sorry Yoni, until proven otherwise, I give the benefit of the doubt to a guy that know his job and it's constrains...
That's because the IO team ordered to do so refused to do it.
The fourth graf contradicts you:
The orders were allegedly illegal, and the statute violated is mentioned in the article:According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their "hot-button issues." In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to "refine our messaging."
Holmes believed that using his team to target American civilians violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was passed by Congress to prevent the State Department from using Soviet-style propaganda techniques on U.S. citizens.
What was the order? I thought this guy sat in on meetings and gave advice to the General. Exactly which order did he refuse?
First, anything that begins with "According to..." doesn't exactly fit the definition of proof. Secondly, the graf doesn't describe anything illegal. "Refining your message," to appeal to someone you're trying to sell on an idea, seems perfectly acceptable -- unless, you refine it with untruths or misleading propaganda.
They don't exactly specify if that occurred.
I overlooked it, my bad.
Correct. I cited it as an example of the sort of "completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries" you claimed the article did not discuss. You were wrong.
I didn't suggest the general did not draw on the IO team's expertise in preparing for the visiting dignitaries, it is fairly clear he is described as having asked for their advice and input on how to best sell the need for more troops and money. And, like I said, as long as the returned advice didn't include "propagandizing," untruths, or misrepresentations, I don't see an issue. The article doesn't describe anything of the sort.
Your excerpt is no exception.
I never accused him of lying and, he could be mistaken about the illegality of what he was asked to do.
There's not enough information in the article to make that determination.
And, as for the motivation of military men seeking the limelight for selfish motivation, they're a dime a dozen. The networks are strewn with Lt. Colonels that will take just about any position on a topic so long as it pays well. But, again, I don't know enough about what is being alleged to know what I think about his assertion of illegality.
Rolling Stone Magazine appears to have decided on a narrative and is intentionally obtuse in its three-page article.
Having your name turn up in an article such as this is unlikely to be good for a military career.
Then certainly there must not be one.
Okay then; glad we agree.
In a pig's eye.
Look, I never said there wasn't an issue, I just don't see one. And, nothing in the article or in this thread convinced me otherwise.
Is what was done unsavory? Maybe to some but, so is Congressmen and Senators traveling to countries and negotiating with other world leaders to undermine the aims of the United States executive branch and that happens -- even though it is arguably illegal and uncons utional.
I'm just not convinced a crime took place. Maybe it should be investigated by real criminal investigators instead of being tried in the media. Maybe that's happening but, I don't recall that being indicated in the article either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
