RS: Army used psy-ops against US citizens

[Narmer]

US Senators, in this case. This is interesting because if it was used against regular Americans, there would've been a law passed exempting the Army. But considering it was used against Senators, a holy shit-storm could be in the making.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12571711

US Army 'used psychological operations on US politicians'

Gen Caldwell is accused of using 'psy-ops' to influence US lawmakers
Continue reading the main story Related Stories

• Petraeus assumes Afghan command
• Obama fires US Afghan commander

A US Army general in Afghanistan has been accused of using "psychological operations" to influence US lawmakers.
Lt Gen William Caldwell allegedly tasked "psy-ops" personnel to help him persuade legislators to support budget increases, Rolling Stone magazine said.
The army strictly prohibits the use of psy-ops on US citizens.
Gen Caldwell's office denies the story. But Gen David Petraeus, head of Nato forces in Afghanistan, would order an inquiry, the Associated Press reported.
Gen Caldwell, who heads the US effort to train Afghan troops, has not commented on the story directly.
But his office "categorically" denied the allegation that "the command used an Information Operations Cell to influence distinguished visitors".
One of the senators who was reportedly targeted, Jack Reed, has called for a full investigation into the accusations.
Psy-ops, or "information operations", are specifically used to target and influence enemy behaviours. The army deliberately separates that from public affairs, which is the mechanism for promoting the Army's agenda to Americans.
'Get inside their heads'
Lt Col Michael Holmes, who led a psy-ops team in Afghanistan, was quoted by Rolling Stone as saying that his unit was ordered to prepare Gen Caldwell for meetings with visiting US officials by providing detailed background briefs.
Gen Caldwell demanded "deeper analysis of pressure points" that would help him persuade politicians to support additional funding for the training for training Afghan troops, Lt Col Holmes says.
Lt Col Holmes recounted one alleged exchange with Gen Caldwell's chief of staff.
"How do we get these guys to give us more people?" the magazine reported that the chief of staff said. "What do I have to plant inside their heads?"
'No convincing needed'

John McCain and Joe Lieberman are among the politicians allegedly targeted
Among the lawmakers targeted were senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin.
Congressman Steve Israel on the House Appropriations Committee and Admiral Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also listed.
Mr Levin has responded to the story, denying that he was unduly influenced by the army.
"For years, I have strongly and repeatedly advocated for building up Afghan military capability because I believe only the Afghans can truly secure their nation's future," Mr Levin said in a statement.
"I have never needed any convincing on this point. Quite the opposite."
Mr Levin has supported a $2bn (£1.2 bn) increase in funding for training of Afghan troops.
Lt Col Holmes also alleges that Gen Caldwell considered expanding the programme to include NATO officials.
The magazine report was written by Michael Hastings, the journalist whose story on the behaviour of General Stanley McChrystal and his staff resulted in the general's dismissal - and won Hasting a Polk award for magazine journalism.

The reported post message said this: "OP got lost on his way to P&N." I couldn't agree more, so I'm moving the thread there. -DrPizza

 

[OCGuy]

Isnt this what any lobbyist does?

 

[rivan]

Isnt this what any lobbyist does?

This. I'm not seeing anything all that strange.

 

[Kadarin]

The army strictly prohibits the use of psy-ops on US citizens.

This seems to be the strongest prohibition against it mentioned in the article, as opposed to there existing any sort of law or Presidential Executive Order.

 

[iGas]

Wow!

Are US senators now equal to terrorists?

 

[OCGuy]

This. I'm not seeing anything all that strange.

Next at 11: US Companies using psy-ops to influence US Citizens to purchase their goods and services!

 

[Modular]

Just a Dem spin to make it look like anyone who supported the war wasn't doing it out of conviction. It's an interesting play on modern politics to be sure.

Obligatory:

<============== P&N

 

[JTsyo]

I think readers are misconstruing what phy-ops did. They didn't put them in a chair and hypnotize them or something. They looked at their history and looked for points that they would be weak on to make their case for extra manpower. It might still be wrong using personnel from the phy-ops group to this history instead of other staff.

 

[Brigandier]

I think readers are misconstruing what phy-ops did. They didn't put them in a chair and hypnotize them or something. They looked at their history and looked for points that they would be weak on to make their case for extra manpower. It might still be wrong using personnel from the phy-ops group to this history instead of other staff.

They probably also got some good information on what was happening in their lives that could coerce persuasion. The only thing I find reprehensible is that they don't release the findings on the senators, it'd be good to know what those cats were really up to.

 

[MotF Bane]

So a lobbyist put a staff to work figuring out how best to sell their beliefs to people... sounds like something a politician does.

 

[LumbergTech]

the point that many seem to be missing here is that they are supposed to SERVE , not control the overall plans

 

[Brigandier]

the point that many seem to be missing here is that they are supposed to SERVE , not control the overall plans

This is a good point. I really don't see that as the issue though, he just wanted budget increases, in a way, isn't that what a general should be trying to do? Get more money for the boys fighting his war. The problem is that the system is so depraved that the only way to get things done is to get dirt, which seems easy to find, and build from there.

Even if the article appeared in the National Enquirer, it'd still scare me.

 

[Unheard]

Are US senators now equal to terrorists?

That's debatable.

 

[her209]

When did the Army become unionized?

 

[alkemyst]

I can believe it, we have 80 employees and turned an 11 Million dollar profit (net - net)...the spin was they have to cut out all styrofoam cups now and lay off people.

Every manager was heavily bonused on top of this.

The story on the floor is "oh we are hurting, I am happy to bring my own cup in."

 

[Craig234]

There's a danger of the military viewing citizens - who can oppose the military's interest - and politicians - who can end wars and cut funding - as 'the enemy'.

Because these groups can hurt the military's interests in ways the enemy cannot, and sometimes some in the military can confuse that on the one hand, they're killing the enemy to try to win a conflict, and on the other, they can't use propaganda or other measures to protect against other threats to their 'mission' - a threat called 'democracy'.

There's a reason warnings against a standing large military - saying it's incompatible with democracy - go back to the founding fathers.

The military has many levers it can push against its bosses, the politicians - just as the huge contractors to, such as building systems in all 50 states so politicians will be hurt in elections if they cut funding, leading to things like building unnecessary things that only serve the profits of the companies - who hire PLENTY of military when they leave the service, after they have helped the contractors while in the service.

How many times has the military found to have lied just in recent years? From the story of the female soldier at the beginning of the Iraq War (emptying her gun at the enemy, a dramatic heroic behind enemy lines rescue), to a fictional account about the killing of Pat Tillman by enemy fire, to coverups about things like Abu Ghraib, and much more in the effort to cross the line of telling the truth to influence American opinion for its own interest? There weren't mistakes, they were deceipt.

 

[Nebor]

LTG Caldwell was my boss's boss in Afghanistan. I've been to numerous meetings and briefings with him, and he's a sharp, dynamic leader.

I think this story is being spun out of control by the media. The Psychological Operations (or Information Operations, the article isn't clear on which team was used. They do different things) team just did research into the background of visiting dignitaries. I think it's odd to utilize the psy-ops\info ops instead of public affairs or other members of NTMA's enormous staff. But LTG Caldwell's job is to ensure the success of the ANSF training mission in Afghanistan. In order to reach that end, he needs to secure funding and support. Is it any surprise that we show visiting senators the ANA Commando's and pilots? Or the brand new Afghan Defense University? That way we can say, "look where the American tax payer's money is going sir. We're doing great things here. "

It works better than showing them the ANA medical corps or logistical bases and being like, "Yeah, we're estimating ~10 years until this part of the military is anywhere close to self-sufficient, so we need A LOT more money sir."

 

[Thump553]

That article had me half believing until I got down to the part about convincing Joe Lieberman and John McCain, then I realized it had to stolen from the Onion. Regarding Afganistan all those two would ask "Are you sure that's enough money? Want more?"

 

[Brigandier]

LTG Caldwell was my boss's boss in Afghanistan. I've been to numerous meetings and briefings with him, and he's a sharp, dynamic leader.

I think this story is being spun out of control by the media. The Psychological Operations (or Information Operations, the article isn't clear on which team was used. They do different things) team just did research into the background of visiting dignitaries. I think it's odd to utilize the psy-ops\info ops instead of public affairs or other members of NTMA's enormous staff. But LTG Caldwell's job is to ensure the success of the ANSF training mission in Afghanistan. In order to reach that end, he needs to secure funding and support. Is it any surprise that we show visiting senators the ANA Commando's and pilots? Or the brand new Afghan Defense University? That way we can say, "look where the American tax payer's money is going sir. We're doing great things here. "

It works better than showing them the ANA medical corps or logistical bases and being like, "Yeah, we're estimating ~10 years until this part of the military is anywhere close to self-sufficient, so we need A LOT more money sir."

I think part of the problem is people don't understand what it would take to make a country like Afghanistan succeed, it takes a lot more than we are giving it.

 

[ayabe]

This seems to be the strongest prohibition against it mentioned in the article, as opposed to there existing any sort of law or Presidential Executive Order.

There's also this from the article:

"Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation."

 

[Craig234]

That article had me half believing until I got down to the part about convincing Joe Lieberman and John McCain, then I realized it had to stolen from the Onion. Regarding Afganistan all those two would ask "Are you sure that's enough money? Want more?"

Just because they're pro-war doesn't mean it's not useful to reinforce those views. If anything, they might be more useful to do that people with firm anti-war views.

Politicians tend to have more benefit available from doing something the other side likes - they already have 'their side' and can gain some support from the other side.

This is like Obama coming out with a Republican position that gets him more votes from the right while the left still has 'him or even worse' to choose from, same with the right.

 

[her209]

That article had me half believing until I got down to the part about convincing Joe Lieberman and John McCain, then I realized it had to stolen from the Onion. Regarding Afganistan all those two would ask "Are you sure that's enough money? Want more?"

Though this might explain John McCain's outbursts and flailing about when it came to the repeal of DADT.

 

[Nebor]

Though this might explain John McCain's outbursts and flailing about when it came to the repeal of DADT.

I think he's on his own with that one. The surveys conducted internally through AKO showed most Army service members and their families in strong support (60%+) in favor of repealing DADT.

 

[Thump553]

Though this might explain John McCain's outbursts and flailing about when it came to the repeal of DADT.

The Manchurian candidate-I knew it all along!

 

[her209]

I think he's on his own with that one. The surveys conducted internally through AKO showed most Army service members and their families in strong support (60&#37;+) in favor of repealing DADT.

Hahaha.... maybe John McCain was the control and Joe Lieberman was the experiment. Or vice versa.