• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is

BBond

Diamond Member
You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is

In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead

Naomi Klein
Saturday December 4, 2004
The Guardian

David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London

Dear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word "eliminating".

The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.

In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.

US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital "a centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.

Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.

Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.

Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.

It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.

On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.

Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".

"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.

Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses.

 
He asked for evidence. Where did she present the evidence that doctors, clerics and journalists were targetted? Doctors, clerics and journalists are human beings and are susceptible to wounds like the rest. Technology and intelligence are sometimes imperfect and things go awry. This is well known. Is anyone surprised that the wrong people are sometimes arrested or killed? It's terrible, but it is a war zone.

Ms. Klein speaks of a deliberate strategy by U.S. forces to kill doctors, clerics and journalists. What is her proof? Simply stated, pointing to three or four occurances of Iraqis who happen to be doctors, clerics or journalists is not proof. If this is truly occuring, it needs immediate amendment. However this is also talking of a conspiracy almost on the level of saying the Jews orchestrated 9/11 - and that's why the entire thing is ludicrous. What would be the best way to kill off these people and maintain the best level of secrecy possible? A hitsquad in Iraqi made up of U.S. servicemen sworn to secrecy? Please! And who is Ms. Klein accusing of giving that order to carry out these assassinations?

A lot of rather ridiculous claims and no proof. At least this shows us the benefits of a free press. With people like Ms. Klein fabricating conspiracies, between waging conventional battles and responding to her assertions in the press, who has time for the real thing? 😛
 
im sure there's another side to the story here. I don't see any evidence here either, all i see is speculation and assumptions.
 
Doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

Journalists
Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege.

Clerics
On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".

None are as blind as those who refuse to see...

 
Originally posted by: BBond
None are as blind as those who refuse to see...
Haha. Please. Those who take unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as fact without any real evidence being viewed are worse than blind. Ms. Klein is asserting that there are people in the military chain of command who are authorizing and carrying out the deaths of innocent civilians (your doctors, clerics and journalists). It's one thing to point to a couple of instances of Iraqis being killed mistakenly or arrested for reasons unknown. It's another to bring forward evidence that orders to eliminate these people have been given.

Forgetting all partisanship, this means there are people all the way up and down the CoC who are perfectly okay with slaughtering innocents in order to win a press war. Is this not something that would leak from a thousand wounds and get into the open press rather quickly? Those pictures of Iraqi POWs sure did, and this is a whole lot worse.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: BBond
None are as blind as those who refuse to see...
Haha. Please. Those who take unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as fact without any real evidence being viewed are worse than blind. Ms. Klein is asserting that there are people in the military chain of command who are authorizing and carrying out the deaths of innocent civilians (your doctors, clerics and journalists). It's one thing to point to a couple of instances of Iraqis being killed mistakenly or arrested for reasons unknown. It's another to bring forward evidence that orders to eliminate these people have been given.

Forgetting all partisanship, this means there are people all the way up and down the CoC who are perfectly okay with slaughtering innocents in order to win a press war. Is this not something that would leak from a thousand wounds and get into the open press rather quickly? Those pictures of Iraqi POWs sure did, and this is a whole lot worse.
Unsubstantiated but more than likely true. When the American Government is involved it usually takes a generation to prove or substantiate the truth.

 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: BBond
None are as blind as those who refuse to see...
Haha. Please. Those who take unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as fact without any real evidence being viewed are worse than blind. Ms. Klein is asserting that there are people in the military chain of command who are authorizing and carrying out the deaths of innocent civilians (your doctors, clerics and journalists). It's one thing to point to a couple of instances of Iraqis being killed mistakenly or arrested for reasons unknown. It's another to bring forward evidence that orders to eliminate these people have been given.

Forgetting all partisanship, this means there are people all the way up and down the CoC who are perfectly okay with slaughtering innocents in order to win a press war. Is this not something that would leak from a thousand wounds and get into the open press rather quickly? Those pictures of Iraqi POWs sure did, and this is a whole lot worse.

Like the doctors who were killed not long ago by sniper fire. Like lambs to the slaughter. May not have been sniper fire but that's retarded to argue.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: BBond
None are as blind as those who refuse to see...
Haha. Please. Those who take unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as fact without any real evidence being viewed are worse than blind. Ms. Klein is asserting that there are people in the military chain of command who are authorizing and carrying out the deaths of innocent civilians (your doctors, clerics and journalists). It's one thing to point to a couple of instances of Iraqis being killed mistakenly or arrested for reasons unknown. It's another to bring forward evidence that orders to eliminate these people have been given.

Forgetting all partisanship, this means there are people all the way up and down the CoC who are perfectly okay with slaughtering innocents in order to win a press war. Is this not something that would leak from a thousand wounds and get into the open press rather quickly? Those pictures of Iraqi POWs sure did, and this is a whole lot worse.

Like the doctors who were killed not long ago by sniper fire. Like lambs to the slaughter. May not have been sniper fire but that's retarded to argue.

yllus needs to go back and read the OP. Ms. Klein told of journalists, doctors, and clergy being arrested and removed from areas where the U.S. was waging their aggression. There were certainly journalists, doctors, and clerics killed by U.S. forces since the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, but yllus failed to simply read the information right in front of him before making irresponsible claims.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
yllus needs to go back and read the OP. Ms. Klein told of journalists, doctors, and clergy being arrested and removed from areas where the U.S. was waging their aggression. There were certainly journalists, doctors, and clerics killed by U.S. forces since the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, but yllus failed to simply read the information right in front of him before making irresponsible claims.
I am not the one propogating claims of a conspiracy to silence innocent civilians that could ruin many a professional career - no, that would be Ms. Klein. If it's irresponsible to question unsubstantiated claims, well then string me up!

Again, it's one thing to point to a few instances of people being "eliminated", but it's another to prove an assertion that some military commander is ordering the death or detainment of innocent civilians. Where is the proof of that order? Instead, we get statements like this:
On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja".
Clearly not simply an action undertaken to stop the feeding of misdirected hatred into a populace. :roll: THAT is evidence? Try documents, audio, video, anything that proves that there is some order out there to silence these people.
 
You are very very naive. Or very very brainwashed. Or both. The evidence is before your eyes, now you demand documents, audio, video...where do you expect anyone to get those when the U.S. military is arresting and removing journalists, doctors, and clerics from the areas where these abuses occur?

Pointing out instances of a conspiracy to silence any opposing view or truth about American abuses (which have been documented by the very soldiers carrying it out in some cases) is evidence of those practices.



 
Originally posted by: BBond
You are very very naive. Or very very brainwashed. Or both. The evidence is before your eyes, now you demand documents, audio, video...where do you expect anyone to get those when the U.S. military is arresting and removing journalists, doctors, and clerics from the areas where these abuses occur?

Pointing out instances of a conspiracy to silence any opposing view or truth about American abuses (which have been documented by the very soldiers carrying it out in some cases) is evidence of those practices.
Oh, I see. So you want the world to "just believe." Actual evidence isn't necessary when you can point to a random set of events hand-picked to corroborate your claim.

Okay. I would like to claim that people with beards in Iraq are being eliminated. Here's my "proof"!

Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.
They all had beards. The nurses were male nurses. This is all the info I'm providing, so you'll have to "just believe".

Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters.
All had beards.

On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested.
Huge, absolutely massive actually, beard.

Hey, it's a random set of events but I'm linking them together to support my claim! This is your "evidence".
 
For the sake of argument, let's assume that it's all true. We stop the spread of information that could potentially hurt our cause during a time of war. That shouldn't be news to anyone. If they're not, they probably should be, from a military point of view.
 
You don't easily prove a statement when the proof is buried or arrested. BUT... there is proof of a sorts. It is called circumstantial proof.
What are we being told and by whom. Are there any 'proof' to substantiate this proof?
Why is there less being told and what is being told can have plausible denial attached. Always with the Plausible Denial attached. Why is that? You might argue... 'What statements are these you mention?' I respond... every statement made by either side or sides is without any direct proof but only one side seems to make certain that there is just enough 'wiggle' room attached to deny the generally accepted meaning of the statement made... the question is which side is which and why...
 
Originally posted by: BBond
They aren't random events. They are planned U.S. military actions.

The problem is, it is applying a generalization to an exception. Because a few journalists, doctors, and clerics have been killed in a war zone, Ms. Klein concludes that the general case is that the US military is eliminating journalists, doctors, and clerics who count bodies. First, she has not shown that those who were killed were those involved with counting bodies. Second, there are lots of journalists, doctors, and clerics still in Iraq. Some of them are still counting bodies, why are these not being eliminated if that is the intent of the US military?

Using 25 casualties, out of approximately 15,000 civilian casualties and an approximately 25 million population is not enough to prove a general trend. As of 1993, there were 1659 people per doctor, which would put Iraq at about 15,000 doctors.

I can believe that the US military is confiscating mobile cells and discouraging the counting of bodies, but to then extend that to say that the US military is eliminating those doing so is a bit of a jump.
 
David Miller: Information Dominance
Monday, 29 December 2003, 3:17 pm
Article: David Miller

Information Dominance: The Philosophy Of Total Propaganda Control?

By David Miller

The concept of ?information dominance? is the key to understanding US and UK propaganda strategy and a central component of the US aim of ?total spectrum dominance?. It redefines our notions of spin and propaganda and the role of the media in capitalist society. To say that it is about total propaganda control is to force the English language into contortions that the term propaganda simply cannot handle. Information dominance is not about the success of propaganda in the conventional sense with which we are all familiar. It is not about all those phrases ?winning hearts and minds?, about truth being ?the first casualty? about ?media manipulation? about ?opinion control? or about ?information war?. Or, to be more exact - it is about these things but none of them can quite stretch to accommodate the integrated conception of media and communication encapsulated in the phrase information dominance.

Information dominance is a concept of elegant simplicity and at the same time complex interconnectedness. It plays a key role in US military strategy and foreign policy. The now quite well known statement of this is contained in the Pentagon?s Joint Vision 2020, where the key term is ?full spectrum dominance? which ?implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains ? space, sea, land, air and information?. [1]

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ?information is an element of combat power?. [2] The Army defines Information Operations as: ?the employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to affect or defend information and information systems, and to influence decision making?.

This already suggests a range of activities wider than those traditionally associated with propaganda. A suggestion reinforced by the aim of information operations, which is to secure ?information dominance?
. The US military are not terribly open about this agenda and tend not to speak about it in public. It doesn?t feature in the ?approved for public release? manual on Information Operations. But internally there has been a tong term debate about information dominance. To the outsider discussions about how ?information dominance? differs from ?information superiority? might seem arcane, but they are revealing. For example, in a paper written back in 1997 Jim Winters and John Giffin of the US Space and Information Operations Directorate argued that information superiority was insufficient: ?at some base point ?superiority? means an advantage of 51-49, on some arbitrary metric scale. That is not enough of an advantage to give us the freedom of action required to establish ?Full Spectrum dominance??. Dominance implies ?a mastery of the situation? Superiority ?only an edge?. According to Winters and Giffin ?We think of dominance in terms of "having our way" - "Overmatch" over all operational possibilities. This connotation is ?qualitative? rather than ?quantitative?. When dominance occurs, nothing done, makes any difference. We have sufficient knowledge to stop anything we don't want to occur, or do anything we want to do.? (my emphasis) [3] This could hardly be any clearer about the agenda of the US military. There are two new elements to information dominance compared to traditional conceptions of propaganda. The first is the integration of propaganda and psychological operations into a much wider conception of information war. The second is the integration of information war into the core of military strategy.

Traditional conceptions of propaganda involve crafting the message and distributing it via government media or independent news media. Current conceptions of information war go much further and incorporate the gathering, processing and deployment of information including via computers, intelligence and military information (command and control) systems. The key preoccupation for the military is ?interoperability? where information systems talk to and work with each other. Interoperability is a result of the computer revolution which has led to the ?Revolution in Military Affairs?. Now propaganda and psychological operations are simply part of a larger information armoury. As Col Kenneth Allard has written, the 2003 attack on Iraq ?will be remembered as a conflict in which information fully took its place as a weapon of war? Allard tells a familiar story in military writings on such matters: ?in the 1990s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff began to promote a vision of future warfare in which C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems would be forged into a new style of American warfare in which interoperability was the key to information dominance?and information dominance the key to victory.? [4]

According to Lt Gen Keith B. Alexander, the US Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence the way forward for integrating intelligence and information across the military is the creation of ?Information Dominance Centers?. There are already 15 of these in the US and in Kuwait and Baghdad. [5] Information dominance is not something dreamt up by the bush gang in the White House ? or even by their ideologues in the Project for a New American Century. It is mainstream US military doctrine. In fact it is even used by the Democrats in pronouncements on ?progressive internationalism?. [6] Although it originates in the US, information dominance is also embraced in the UK. Given the close integration of US and UK global propaganda during the attack on Iraq, it could hardly be otherwise. [7] However the thinking underlying UK propaganda operations has transformed in the past decade and both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have staff assigned to ?information operations?. In future conflicts, according to the British Army, ?maintaining moral as well as information dominance will rank as important as physical protection?. [8] Or as John Spellar MP, the Minister for the Armed Forces put it in a speech in January 2000 ?we shall depend increasingly, not on simple numerical superiority in firepower, but on information dominance?. [9]

The interoperability of the various types of ?weaponized information? [10] has far reaching, if little noticed, implications for the integration of propaganda and media institutions into the war machine. The experience of Iraq in 2003 shows how the planned integration of the media into instruments of war fighting is developing. It also shows the increased role for the private sector in information dominance, a role which reflects wider changes in the armed services in the US and the UK. [11] Information dominance provides the underpinning rationale for all information related work. As applied to traditional media management activities the key to dominance is that ?nothing done makes any difference?. In practice this means that the US and UK can tolerate dissent in the media and alternative accounts on the internet. Dissent only matters if it interferes with their plans. As US military authors Winters and Giffin put it: ?Achieving ID involves two components: 1) building up and protecting friendly information; and 2) degrading information received by your adversary.? Both of these refer not simply to military information systems but also to propaganda and the news media.

Integrating the media: 1. The system of embedding

Seen in the context of information dominance embedding is a clear means of building up and protecting ?friendly? information. The Faustian pact allows journalists better access to the fighting than in any conflict since Vietnam. But the access is on military terms, can be rescinded if it does not meet the interests of the military. Although rarely highlighted in discussions of embedding, the Pentagon issued a fifty point document titled Public Affairs Guidance listing what could and could not be reported. [12] They also insisted that all embeds sign a contract which does not mince its words, noting that reporters must: 'follow the direction and orders of the Government'. [13] In fact the tendency was for reporters to become fully integrated into military command structures as this comment from embedded reporter Richard Gaisford, on BBC News 24 confirms: ?We have to check each story we have with them [the military]. And if they're not sure at the immediate level above us - that's the Captain who's our media liaison officer - he will check with the Colonel who is obviously above him and then they will check with Brigade headquarters as well.' [14] ?The key phrase here is ?the level above us?.

Furthermore the system of embedding made the journalists dependent on the military for transport, food and crucially physical protection. BBC reporter Ben Brown relates his experience:

There was an Iraqi who ? jumped up with an RPG and he was about to fire it at us because we were just standing there and this other Warrior just shot him with their big machine gun and there was a big hole in his chest. That was the closest I felt to being almost too close to the troops ... because if he hadn?t been there he would have killed us and?afterwards I sought out the gunner who had done that and shook his hand. [15]

Others journalists got closer and crossed the line from reporting to engaging in combat. Clive Myrie of the BBC has admitted:

There was bullets flying everywhere. We get out of the, out of the Land Rover and we hide in a ditch. One of the marines said; why don't you make yourself useful? And he's throwing these flares at me. And he's throwing the flares at me and I'm throwing them at the guy who's got to light them and send them off into the sky, and I'm thinking, why, what am I doing here? [16]

Perhaps most strikingly, Gavin Hewitt of the BBC has admitted picking out targets for the military:

I shouted across to the Captain 'that truck over there ? I think these guys are going to attack us'? Within seconds a Bradley fighting vehicle was opening up ? tracers were flying across the field? eventually the truck went up ? boom ? like this? And of course all the unit were delighted. From then on the bonding grew tighter. [17]

By all official accounts on both sides of the Atlantic embedding was a great success. [18] The Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, D Notice committee in the UK reported that

despite the hundreds of embedded journalists and unilaterals in theatre, there had not been a single serious breach of security by any part of the UK media. The system and the advice in the five standing DA-Notices had proved entirely adequate, and as able to fulfil their role in such operations as in other conflicts and in peace. [19]

The UK Ministry of Defence even engaged a private firm to assess how successfully embedding had worked to manipulate coverage. According to the results of the exercise: ?commercial analysis of the print output? produced during the combat phase shows that 90% of embedded correspondents? reporting was either positive or neutral? [20]

Integrating the media: 2. ?deny, degrade, destroy?

The second part of achieving information Dominance is the ?ability to deny, degrade, destroy and/or effectively blind? enemy capabilities?. [21] Enemy or adversary capabilities in the philosophy of information dominance do not distinguish between actions of declared adversaries and those of independent media. The ?unfriendly? information must be destroyed wherever it comes from. This is perhaps best illustrated by the attack on Al Jazeera office in Kabul in 2001 which the Pentagon justified by claiming al Qaeda activity in the al Jazeera office. As it turned out, this referred to broadcast interviews conducted by al Jazeera with Taliban officials. [22]

The various attacks on Al Jazeera in Kabul, Basra and Baghdad should be seen in this context. [23] As should as the killings of unilateral journalists and the attempt to discredit other critics. For example the British minister of Defence attempted to discredit the leading independent reporter Robert Fisk,when he uncovered missile fragments fired by the US into a crowded marketplace in Baghdad killing over 60 civilians. These efforts are consistent with the doctrine of degrading or destroying enemy information capabilty. It is not critical information and commentary that is feared by the US and UK, rather it is information that might hamper their ability to ?do anything we want to do?. If anything the evidence is that the targeting of independent media and critics of the US is widening. The Pentagon is reportedly co-ordinating the production of an Information Operations Roadmap drafted by the Information Operations office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to Captain Gerald Mauer, the Assistant Deputy Director of the office, the roadmap noted that information operations would be directed against an ?adversary?.

He went on to say that when the paper got to the office of the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy (Douglas Feith), it was changed to say that information operations will attempt to ?disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial decision making?

?In other words?, notes retired US Army Colonel Sam Gardiner, ?we will even go after friends if they are against what we are doing or want to do?. [24] No doubt the misinformation campaign against the French government in the US press in 2003, is the result of such decisions. In the UK according to Major Nigel Smith of the 15 Psychological Operations Group based at Chicksands, staffing is to be expanded and ?strategic information operations will take on a new importance?. [25]

Integrating the media: 3. Towards freedom

Interoperability is central to the post conflict phase of ?reconstruction? in Iraq too. Here we also note the integration of the media into the propaganda apparatus of the US. The collapse of distinctions between independent news media, public affairs (PR) work and psychological operations is striking. The ?reconstruction? of Iraqi media began on the 10th April with the first broadcast of Towards Freedom a joint US/UK television project broadcast on the same frequency as the former Iraqi state television service. The service included programming supplied by ABC, CBS, Fox and PBS networks in the US. The UK element was produced by the private company already contracted by the foreign Office to provide satellite propaganda arund the world. CBS president Andrew Heyward reportedly became convinced that ?this is a good thing to do? a patriotic thing to do? after conversations with ?some of the most traditional minded colleagues? at CBS. [26] Only CNN refused to join in. A spokesperson noted ?we didn?t think that as an independent, global news organisation it was appropriate to participate in a United States government video transmission?. [27] And of course that is what it was, transmitted into Iraq by means of Commando Solo the psyops aircraft used to broadcast propaganda by the US psyops operation.

But Towards Freedom was a stop gap to be replaced by a new television service for Iraq. In keeping with the philosophy of information dominance this was paid for by the Pentagon and supplied, not by an independent news organisation but, by a defence contractor, Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Its expertise in the area - according to its website - is in ?information operations? and ?information dominance?. [28] The SAIC effort quickly ran into trouble however. Its Iraq Media Network, which cost $20million over three months, was not obsequious enough for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Within weeks ?occupying authority chief L. Paul Bremer III placed controls on IMN content and clamped down on the independent media in Iraq, closing down some Iraqi-run newspapers and radio and television stations.? [29] According to Index on Censorship ?Managers were told to drop the readings from the Koran, the ?vox-pop? man-in-the-street interviews (usually critical of the US invasion) and even to run their content past the wife of a US-friendly Iraqi Kurdish leader for a pre-broadcast check. The station rejected the demands and dug in their heels.? [30] But this did not stop Bremer and further incidents have shown the preoccupation with control, culminating in a nine point list of ?prohibited activity issued by Bremer in June 2003.

It decreed that publishing material that ?is patently false and is calculated to provoke opposition to the CPA or undermine legitimate processes towards self government? would henceforth be prohibited. This is not too dissimilar to the Nazi press law introduced in German in 1933. It stated that journalists must ?regulate their work in accordance with National socialism as a philosophy of life and as a conception of government?. [31]

As Index on Censorship notes: ?Bremer will "reserve the power to advise" the IMN on any aspect of its performance, "including any matter of content" and the power to hire and fire IMN staff. Thus the man in absolute authority over the country's largest, richest and best equipped media network is also his own regulator and regulator of his rivals, with recourse to the US Army to enforce his rulings.?

In particular the assault on Al Jazeera continues. In September the Iraq governing council voted to ban reports from al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya on the grounds that they incite violence. As evidence of this, one member of the Iraqi National Congress (INC ? set up by the PR agency the Rendon group funded by the US government ) who voted for the ban, noted that the television stations describe the opposition to the occupation as ??the resistance?. They?re not the resistance, they are thugs and criminals? he said. [32] This is a statement pregnant with irony, since the head of the INC Ahmed Chalabi is a convicted fraudster. In November, as casualties mounted, 30 media organizations, lead by the Associated Press, complained to the Pentagon that they had ?documented numerous examples of U.S. troops physically harassing journalists?. The letter was signed by representatives from CNN, ABC and The Boston Globe, amongst others. [33]

Information dominance achieved?

It is evident that the US and its UK ally are intent on ruling the world and that information control has become central to that effort. The key to understanding information dominance is to be clear that it is not dissent in itself that the US planners object to. Rather it is dissent that hampers their ability to do whatever they want that matters. As the military themselves put it: ?When dominance occurs, nothing done, makes any difference? In other words it is not the expression of dissent that is a problem, but the expression of dissent which is part of a movement which challenges US dominance. As the experience of the Iraqi Media Network shows, dominance does not always occur where there is resistance. Resistance from journalists, resistance from nation states, direct resistance to occupation and resistance in the form of the anti-war movement. All of these are obstacles in the way of information dominance. Although the US and UK regimes have massive resources at their disposal to pursue information dominance they are faced at every turn by resistance and that in the end is the only thing which can stop the US achieving final information or full spectrum dominance.

************

FOOTNOTES:

1. http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm

2. Headquarters, Department of the Army (2003) Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, November, FM 3-13(FM 100-6), piii. http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-...dll/fm/3-13/fm3_13.pdf

3. Jim Winters and John Giffin ISSUE PAPER: INFORMATION DOMINANCE vs. INFORMATION SUPERIORITY, 1 Apr 97. http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/re...inance/issue-paper.htm

4. Col. Kenneth Allard ?Battlefield Information Advantage? CIO Magazine Fall/Winter 2003. http://www.cio.com/archive/092203/allard.html

5. Dawn S. Onley ?Army exec insists on data sharing to give soldiers ?full power? Government Computer News 10/13/03; Vol. 22 No. 30. http://www.gcn.com/22_30/dodcomputing/23815-1.html

6. New Dem Daily | October 31, 2003, Idea of the Week: Progressive Internationalism. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cf...7&contentid=252147

7. See D. Miller (2004) ?The Propaganda machine? in Miller, D. (ed.) Tell me Lies: Propaganda and media distortion in the attack on Iraq, London: Pluto.

8. Soldiering - The Military Covenant - Chapter 2, Operational Trends. Last reviewed 10 May 2002. http://www.army.mod.uk/serving...s_values_adp5_2_w.html

9. ADDRESS TO THE SEAPOWER CONFERENCE ? 13TH JANUARY 2000, http://news.mod.uk/news/press/...ce.asp?newsItem_id=724

10. Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan ?A War for Information Dominance? Metropolitan Computer Times Posted 31 March 2003. http://www.mctimes.net/2003/Hy...rmation_Dominance.html

11. Ian Traynor The privatisation of war The Guardian, Wednesday December 10, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/mili...,11816,1103649,00.html

12. PUBLIC AFFAIRS GUIDANCE (PAG) ON EMBEDDING MEDIA DURING POSSIBLE FUTURE OPERATIONS/DEPLOYMENTS IN THE U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND?S (CENTCOM) AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR). February 2003 http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1631270.html

13. U.S. Department of Defense Embedding Release for Iraq 2003, RELEASE, INDEMNIFICATION, AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREMEENT AND AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE http://www.journalism.org/reso.../wartime/embedding.asp

14. BBC News 24, 01:37 GMT 28 March 2003

15. Justin Lewis, Terry Threadgold, Rod Brookes, Nick Mosdell, Kirsten Brander, Sadie Clifford, Ehab Bessaiso and Zahera Harb The role of embedded reporting during the 2003 Iraq war: Summary report Report prepared by a research team at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, and commissioned by the BBC. November 2003, p6.

16. BBC2, Correspondent: ?War Spin? 18th May 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shar...anscripts/18.5.031.txt

17. Gavin Hewitt address to conference to mark World Press Freedom day, City University, London, 2 May 2003.

18. See D. Miller (2004) ?The Propaganda machine? in Miller, D. (ed.) Tell me Lies: Propaganda and media distortion in the attack on Iraq, London: Pluto.

19. RECORD OF A MEETING HELD IN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ON 15 MAY 2003 Last Updated : 03 June 2003. http://www.dnotice.org.uk/records.htm

20. Ministry of Defence, Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future CHAPTER 10 ? THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN http://www.mod.uk/publications...turelessons/chap10.htm

21. Jim Winters and John Giffin, (1997) Information Dominance Point Paper This point paper has been drafted in conjunction with the development of a revised Information Operations(IO) concept that focuses on Information Dominance (ID).
http://www-tradoc.army.mil/dcscd/spaceweb/informat.htm

22. Phillip Knightley, (2004) ?History or Bunkum?? in Miller, D. (ed.) Tell me Lies: Propaganda and media distortion in the attack on Iraq, London: Pluto.

23. See ?Faisal Bodi (2004) ?Al Jazeera?s War? and Tim Gopsill ?Target the media? both in Miller, D. (ed.) Tell me Lies: Propaganda and media distortion in the attack on Iraq, London: Pluto.

24. Sam Gardiner (2003) Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II, October 8, 2003. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/p...rs/documents/truth.pdf

25. Ibid.

26. American "free press" in action. US networks agree to serve as Pentagon propaganda tool in Iraq. By Henry Michaels World socialist Web Site, 15 April 2003 www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/med-a15.shtml

27. ibid.

28. http://www.saic.com/natsec/dominance.html

29. ?Exporting Censorship to Iraq: The press system we allow the Iraqis is far from free.?
By Alex Gourevitch Issue Date: 1 October 2003 http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/9/gourevitch-a.html

30. Rohan Jayasekera Gives with one hand, takes away with the other
Index on Censroship 11 June 2003 http://www.indexonline.org/news/20030611_iraq.shtml

31. Oron J. Hale (1964) The Captive Press in the Third Reich, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 86.

32. Richard Lloyd Parry ?Iraqi council bans al-Jazeera reports?, The Times, September 23, 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a...0,,7374-827520,00.html

33. ?30 Media Outlets Protest Treatment in Iraq?, By: Staff, Editor and Publisher, Date: 11/13/2003
http://www.independent-media.t..._desc=Under%20Reported<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00216.htm"> Information Dominance: The Philosophy Of Total Propaganda Control?
</a>
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
For the sake of argument, let's assume that it's all true. We stop the spread of information that could potentially hurt our cause during a time of war. That shouldn't be news to anyone. If they're not, they probably should be, from a military point of view.

How can it hurt you? You mean like, on the public relations front? Aren't you saving them from terrorism? And you're perhaps not wrong, you know, russia did/does the same.
 
Back
Top