The Pentagon Clears Itself of Illegal Acts (Yet Again)

On Friday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Inspector General's audit of a secret Pentagon Iraqi propaganda program contracted to the Lincoln Group (which calls itself "a strategic communications & pubic relations firm providing insight & influence in challenging & hostile environments") had cleared the Pentagon of violating laws or its own regulations So challenging and hostile was the Iraqi environment, it seems, that the Lincoln Group spent its time using U.S. military personnel to create good "news" stories, having them translated into Arabic, and then secretly paying bribes to members of the newly "free" Iraqi media to publish them as Iraqi-generated news reports.

According to a brief summary of the investigation released by the Inspector General's office, "Psychological operations are planned to convey selected, truthful information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of Psychological Operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to U.S. objectives."

Get that mouthful? Now, all you have to do is translate it into Arabic and bribe an Iraqi news editor to publish it. Think of your goal as messing up a few more Iraqi minds when it comes to "objective reasoning."

The New York Times, which saw some of the other unclassified documents in the investigation, summarized the clearing of the Pentagon of illegal activity this way: "The report said that the secret program, run by the military in conjunction with the Lincoln Group, a Washington contractor, was lawful and that it did not constitute a ‘covert action' designed to influence the internal political conditions of another country."

Now, to a normal human being, a secret Pentagon operation to produce propaganda pieces--call it "selected, truthful information," if you wish--and slip them into the Iraqi press for a price might sound remarkably like a "'covert action' designed to influence the internal political conditions of another country."

Though I haven't seen the full documentation myself, I do have a theory about why the Inspector General might have cleared the five-pointed bureaucracy of illegality. The Bush administration has always been more focused on American than Iraqi public opinion. After all, Iraq is just a place where "stuff happens." The goal of administration officials was always to win the war at home above all else. With that in mind, perhaps the Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group to slip those good-news pieces into the Iraqi media not to influence Iraqis, but Americans. Perhaps the hope was that the "free" Iraqi media would be the royal route back to the American press. And, of course, if that's the conclusion the Inspector General came to, then influencing the "internal political conditions of another country" obviously doesn't apply. We're not another country. We're the original country, the only one that matters.

Oh, by the way, the IG's audit did dun the Pentagon for not retaining "adequate documentation to verify expenditures" or explain how the Lincoln Group got its initial $10.4 dollar contract in the first place. But, the Times tells us, since that contract had already expired, the inspector general "did not recommend any punishment for the violations." And the Lincoln Group is now back at work for the Pentagon in Iraq.

Comments (12)

1. "...since that contract had already expired, the inspector general "did not recommend any punishment for the violations."

   New Rules: The only penalty for graft in this administration is for getting caugt before getting all of the money.

   Posted by canaar at 10/23/2006 @ 08:59am

2. "The goal of administration officials was always to win the war at home above all else. With that in mind, perhaps the Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group to slip those good-news pieces into the Iraqi media not to influence Iraqis, but Americans. Perhaps the hope was that the "free" Iraqi media would be the royal route back to the American press."

   Well...then it was a failure, no?

   60%+ disapprovals for the war in Iraq and all the fluff stories in the Iraqi media can't change it.

   I know journalists may want to follow up on this because it's their home turf, but I think if you're talking about useless spending in Iraq...the 9 billion lost under Paul Bremer might be a more "general" topic that would resonate with the public. (not a pittance of 10 mill)

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 09:11am

3. psy-ops... are only effective when they are believable.

   This administration is not believable.

   let me give you an example...

   video excerpt from This Week with George Stephanopoulos [thinkprogress.org]

   During an interview today on ABC's This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker's plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is "between 'stay the course' and ‘cut and run.'"

   Bush responded, ‘We've never been stay the course, George!' Watch it:

   Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2006 @ 09:43am

4. Do you think the hamsters are aware that there are about a thousand miles of video tape of the chimp mindlessly repeating that he will stay the course?

   Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2006 @ 09:45am

5. Posted by WILL C. 10/23/2006 @ 09:43am

   WILL....so?

   I mean what's left with Bush anyway? You think "See! See! He's lying, reversing himself, totally contradicting his previous assertions"....matters anymore?

   The guy has 40% or less approvals and can't break through that ceiling. His foreign policy AND domestic agendas are dead and unless he becomes a martyr to an impeachment-crazy Dem Congress, the public isn't likely to support him on ANYTHING again.

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 09:47am

6. WILL....so?

   Posted by MASK 10/23/2006 @ 09:47am

   It always matters when people lie mask. That's why we are always so hard on you.

   what I'm still unsure about though is if you, the chimp and every other hamster even know that you all are lying.

   Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2006 @ 09:52am

7. Posted by WILL C. 10/23/2006 @ 09:52am

   WILL...what specifically did I lie about?

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 10:11am

8. ...the 9 billion lost under Paul Bremer might be a more "general" topic that would resonate with the public. (not a pittance of 10 mill) Posted by MASK 10/23/2006 @ 09:11am

   MASK,

   You're right: there are orders of magnitudes of difference between the amount of the vanishing benjamins (that's "big money", in case you have not been rapping of late) and the Lincoln Group's construction of Promkein Village News.

   But I will spell this out: Tom's post is referencing the tired and shabby refrain that the invasion was to bring the light of democracy to Iraq since such self-serving media manipulation would not pass muster in a democratic culture. It is one more part of the raft of evidence that puts the lie to the idea that the invasion was a selfless act to liberate the Iraqi nation.

   But there is no reason that the public cannot get its collective head around both ideas. First, outrageous sums of big money siphoned off into a financial blackhole to the elitist likes of Halliburton and Bechtel; and, second, further evidence of the craven, crass and self-serving manner in which the neo-cons trash their own alleged principles when it is expedient to do so. It is rendered in neon clarity.

   One is not mutually exclusive to the other; rather, they reinforce each other in demonstrating the absolute poverty of Bushism and its heaping shitmess of failure.

   Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/23/2006 @ 10:42am

9. Another thing: Henry A. Waxman has probably done more than any other MC to investigate the vanishing billions of benjamins on Bremer's watch. He has commissioned at least one report that I read.

   The right wing response? Could not stop talking about ... about Henry A. Waxman !!! ... rather than government opening the public trough to ravenous piggies. These responses were sickeningly doctrinaire displays of contempt for the public and unqualified reverance for detached and abusive elites ...

   Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/23/2006 @ 10:49am

10. Posted by GLENN LEMON 10/23/2006 @ 10:42am

    GLENN, does ONE MORE "failure in Iraq" story really matter?

    Especially one over 10 million bucks and "propaganda"?

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 11:02am

11. What's important about this case (and the IG's "investigation") boils down to two things; the double-speak (and I use the Orwellian term on pupose) of redefining something as it's opposite and the precident being set for future action by the all of the U.S. government.

    This report manages to redefine the use of covert propaganda to shape the internal politics of a supposedly friendly nation in our favor as "Psychological operations [which] are planned to convey selected, truthful information to foreign audiences..." Somehow, I fail to see the difference when this is being done by bribe and subterfuge. It has that "quacks like a duck" quality that no amount of redefinition will eliminate.

    Then we have the problem that, now that they have managed to pass this definition off officially, there is nothing to keep the Pentagon (or any other branch of the government) from doing it again based on the same false premise. We're likely to end up with government offices issuing false press materials in the U.S. in order to "convey selected, truthful information" (using their own definition of "truthful" you can be sure) so as to "influence ...emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of ...organizations, groups, and individuals." But of course, BushCo has already done this [americanassembler.com] and like the Pentagon they have managed to claim that, despite GAO rulings to the contrary, it's perfectly legitimate [washingtonpost.com] to be "disseminating information [that] is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,'".

    And there we have it, Ladies and Gentlemen, because it's for your own good, after all. Now just be quite and do what the TV tells you to. Big Brother wants you to be happy, and that means he can't have you distracted by anything "double-plus ungood."

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/23/2006 @ 11:10am

12. WILL...what specifically did I lie about?

    Posted by MASK 10/23/2006 @ 10:11am

    I'd waste my time going back for examples, but all I really have to do is sit back and wait for the next one.

    I'll keep you updated

    Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2006 @ 10:01pm