by Matt Hanson

originally published in Flak Magazine

            Recently, the NY Times broke a story which is holding many of the major networks at bay.  Not surprisingly, it involves virtually all of the major networks in complicity.  Even less surprisingly, none of the major networks have done any serious reporting on this.  And it's not about Paris Hilton.  The story is this: many of the seemingly innocuous talking heads appearing on network news broadcasts both in the build up to the Iraq War and afterwards were in fact Pentagon "message multipliers" or "surrogates" employed to lend credibility to the Administration's arguments and rationale.  They were relied upon to deliver the government's "themes and messages" to the viewing public "in the form of their own opinions."  This group largely consisted of retired Army men, who appeared as "military analysts"  while maintaining a guise of innocent commentary, objectivity and direct access to "generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance".  To be- in effect- puppets, as one source remarked.  Some had scruples, some had eyes for defense contracts.        

            The Times successfully sued for over 8,000 documents- letters, memos, e-mails, etc- and has now brought his information to light.  It provides some haunting, fascinating glimpses into the closed doors of an extended, massive PR campaign to seduce the public into believing what was, to put it mildly, politically dicey.  And in some cases, they were into it: some were found to have been advising the Pentagon on how to manipulate the inevitable criticisms of the "Wolf Blitzers and Chris Matthews' of the world" and avoid scrutiny.  A Fox News analyst, after recieving new talking points in late 2006, was quoted as writing back "Good work, we will use it."  The atmosphere does seem pretty chummy, with the same unnamed analyst a few minutes later encouraging Rumsfeld to "go out there and just crush these people...And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are.  You are the leader.  You are our guy."  As if that wasn't creepy enough, Rumsfeld on occasion took a few of the boys back to his office after the meetings to check out his collection of antiques and such from his years in government.         

            The trading of integrity for access (already a lethal catch-22, as shown by Judy Miller and Scooter Libby and their WMD mash notes) created a puppet show to help lull the viewing public into believing what amounted to state propaganda:  "It was them saying, 'we need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you' " according to Robert Bevilaqua, a retired Green beret and former Fox analyst.  There was no disclaimer, no Hey-by-the-way-everything-I'm-saying-is what-Donald Rumsfeld-wants-you-to-think-and-since-I'm-not-Donald-Rumsfeld-you'll-probably-trust-me-more kind of admissions, which would have (sort of) been fair enough.        

            Instead, what we have now learned is what many suspected.  That the well-respected, avuncular presence of the news analysts whose objectivity many viewers probably took as real advice and information was merely an echo of the administration's lies and effective public marketing, a "rapid response team" for criticism.  Scary indeed, especially when applied to the arguments and execution of an actual war.            

            Tori Clarke, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had in mind a plan for accomplishing "information dominance":   "In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat.  The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, might one day slip some to Al Qaeda, the invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive 'war of liberation.' "  This is pretty much what was drilled into everyone's heads leading up to the war.   One Administration official was quoted as saying "You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying...and they were saying it over and over and over...we were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message.  You'd look at them and say, 'This is working.' '"      

            The information blitz continued during the war, as well.  As the Administration fought off inevitable criticism from pretty much everywhere, they bore down.  Lawrence DiRita (described in the article as "one of Rumsfeld's closest aides") said in an interview that "a conscious decision" was made to use the military analysts to contradict "the increasingly negative view of the war" coming from actual journalists in Iraq.  The analysts, he said, generally had a "more supportive view" of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV appearances and military experience made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces.  "On those issues, they were more likely to be seen as credible spokesman."  The problem being, that no one knew that they acting in the capacity of Administration advocates.  The irony is pretty twisted.  Being seen as credible spokesmen is indeed very effective, especially when they are almost unanimously carrying water for the administration and hence are not even close to what anyone would consider credible!  Opinions are one thing.  Distributed talking points are entirely another.         

            Of course, there was an economic incentive at work.  Many of the analysts were being paid for their "hits", the number of appearances on major network TV.  The more an analyst could claim in terms of high level Pentagon access, the more hits he could anticipate.  More hits on TV means more attractiveness in the marketplace of the military.  Some had direct interests in Defense contracts.  And this financial incentive, naturally, affected the criticism.  One of the analysts was quoted as saying that he was afraid that "some four-star could call up and say, 'Kill that contract.' " For example, he believed Pentagon officials had lied to the analysts about how well the Iraq security forces were doing: "I know a snow job when I see one".  This pungent bit of authentic criticism wasn't seen on TV.  "Human nature" was his explanation, although "he noted other instances when he was critical."   All too true, but isn't human nature more of an excuse than a reason, in this instance? Not biting the hand that is feeding you is something as humanly possible as asking questions which are not easily asked.  It's just not as easy- or as potentially lucrative.       

            It's encouraging to know that not everyone was taken in.  Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling "very disappointed" after being shown photographs of bunkers purporting to prove a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he decided that the analysts were being "manipulated" to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.         

            And as for the future, Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum "distilling their collective guidance into bullet points. Two were underlined: 'Focus on the Global War on Terror — not simply Iraq. The wider war — the long war.' and 'Link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern. If we fail in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will help Iran.' "  So the drumbeat for war with Iran was part of this plan, too.  Not only were the puppet people used to build up the current war, explain away the war's inconsistencies, and curry favor throughout, but they've also helped create the climate where future war with Iran could be conceivably possible.  And all this far-sightedness takes place as Baghdad smolders.  At least one participant, General Nash, the ABC analyst, was repulsed. 'I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions,' he said.  Information dominance, indeed.      

            This begs the question- what about 'information dominance' in the other direction?  Why is there a major network media blackout on this story?  PBS has broken it , and they are alone in this regard.  The answer is pretty obvious- no one wants to admit that they are complicit in disseminating veiled government propaganda.  It's deeply ironic that the same mendacity and opportunism which allowed for this to happen in the first place is going to keep the vicious cycle going longer than it has to.  A free ticket back to respectability is available for any network that decides to bite the bullet and admit their own complicity and make a full mea culpa followed by an in-depth report.  John Kerry has started a petition to investigate these shenanigans.  How long does one want to wait for THAT to happen?         

            The case could be made that this is the kind of thing governments do all the time.  We're in a soundbite world, why be angry, it's the media age and better get used to it.  But this means almost nothing, when compared to the fact that people have died unnecessarily over this propaganda.  Issues regarding appropriate troop levels, suitable armor, and political progress happen to have people's lives hanging in the balance.  These are issues of life and death to every soldier serving.  It's not enough to swear off the message manipulation as another shady political trick.  The same method and strategy would be bad enough if it were applied to farm subsidies.  It's outrageously bad when applied to matters of life and death- war, in other words.            

            What this new information also illuminates, and not for the first time, is one of the essential dilemmas and reasons for the profound anxiety which will forever follow this war. It was, essentially, an argument.  Iraq, like some wars before it, was a debate which became a reality.  The rationale behind the war has been argued with great eloquence, vision, and humanitarian principle by many of its supporters.  The same is true of its opponents (full disclosure: I happen to be one of these).  The problem is that no matter how many noble goals the supporters of the war could claim, the people bringing it about at the executive level have resorted time and again to deeply sleazy tricks like this, and the distortions and half-truths and boldfaced lies have so tarnished this argument for it to be almost beyond repair.            

            Simply put: if the same government has to spin its way to convince you and your friends and family that they are in fact not psychopaths and are instead struggling to create a beautiful vision for human rights, and are distributing their marching orders from within a bubble which denies you access unless you decide to follow their lead and repeat their elisions, obfuscations and outright bullshit, how can you be expected to trust them at all?   Why would you be willing to believe anything that they said about anything ever again?  Why even use puppets when a human face would be more than enough?  It seems, tragically, that the neocons simply weren't willing to trust the courage of their own convictions.   Instead, they all too commonly reached for the puppet head.