Costs of COIN

Here's the crucial part of Armed Liberal's dismissal of folks upset about the fact that teevee networks were putting "military analysts" up on screen purporting to be neutral observers when they were, in fact, acting as administration spokespeople:

I don’t think it’s wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of truth to this. If you think, as John McCain and George Bush and about 30 percent of Americans do, that an indefinite American military operation in Iraq is a good idea then you need to engage in a lot of propaganda operations. After all, realistically we are much more likely to leave Iraq because politicians representing the views of the 70 percent of the public who doesn't think that an indefinite American military operation in Iraq is a good idea than we are to be literally driven out by Iraqis who oppose the U.S. presence.

This is just one of the ways in which a protracted Iraq-style engagement tends to undermine the small-d and small-r democratic and republican values on which the country was founded. You see this in the way that David Petraeus has become a key official administration spokesman and you see it in the Times story about semi-covert operations happening on our cable networks. During Vietnam, of course, we had the government's security apparatus spending time working against anti-war groups, and for all we know this sort of thing is why the Bush administration is so eager to wiretap people without warrants.

This is the kind of thing that happens when an ongoing war becomes a key subject of political controversy, but at least the Civil War and World War I were conflicts that ended. The hawks' vision of a "Long War" means that we can expect them to continue these kind of emergency measures and abuses forever and ever.

Comments

Of course this is in part because Americans as a whole are not really a warlike people. Sure, we will support a periodic "just war" like WWII, the first Gulf War, and Kosovo, but war for the sake of national glory and conquest really isn't our thing. Indeed, we are very much a nation of merchants not warriors, meaning by far our preferred mode of interaction with other countries is trade as opposed to war--which I think is to our credit, but it does tend to frustrate the Pattons, Dubyas, and McCains our culture also periodically produces.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 11:51 AM

What could go wrong?

Posted by Ben | April 21, 2008 11:58 AM

What, you don't think The War On An Abstract Noun will be won quickly and easily?

Posted by Warren Terra | April 21, 2008 11:59 AM

I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

Sounds suspiciously like "the end justifies the means." The question is, what if the end is not justified? Sure, we had propaganda and disinformation out the wazoo in WWII, which was "a good war." But the goal of defeating fascism excused the propaganda. The propaganda did not enoble the goal.

I would have hoped that the higher-ranking members of our military would have some grasp of that, out of a sense of professional pride if nothing else.

Posted by Roddy McCorley | April 21, 2008 12:00 PM

I don’t think it’s wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

In one way, they're correct. It is absolutely appropriate for the gov't to pitch their views and ideas. A leader needs to try to convince people that they are doing what's right for the country.

The problem the Bush administration has is that Babbling George can't sell it. Instead of honest approach, having other people openly speak for the administration, they lie and plant people who have some appearance of objectivity. It's part of a pattern. We all remember Talon News, right? Or the "news" broadcasts that the gov't produced and supplied to the media?

Can you imagine the howls of the right-wingnuts if a Democratic President did this on an issue they disagreed with? The right-wing of this country really has left every last vestige of morality and honesty behind in their rabid pursuit of power.

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 12:04 PM

Of course this is in part because Americans as a whole are not really a warlike people.

Bwahahaha!!! Are you serious? America declares war on social issues. Other countries have policies that address drugs, poverty, crime...America has wars. It really serves to focus the American imagination.

Aside from that, perhaps you missed the 20th century in Latin America. A more warlike people is hard to come by (though obviously not impossible).

Posted by nolaboyd | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM

they were, in fact, acting as administration spokespeople

Of course, this is a complete and utter lie. They were, in fact, neutral observers. The Times - and Matthew - are just pissed off that they decided to believe the Administration rather than the left-wing spin du jour that is usually perpetrated by the MSM.

This is directly related to the left-wing treatment of ABC after the last debate. If there is one thing that the left-wing - people like Matthew and the Times - can't abide, it is seeing someone in the media failing to perpetuate the media's usual left-wing spin. That why you see the left-wing MSM get so utter pissed off at Gibson and Stephanopouls: "oh no, they're not kissing Obama's behind!" Same here: "oh no, they're not portraying the war as a complete and utter debacle!" If you are in the media and not kissing Obama's behind and portraying the war in the worst possible light, the MSM feels completely betrayed. And so you get what we've seen over the last few days: lashing out at the traitors. You see the Times and Matthew and the rest of the MSM saying: "get back to kissing Obama's behind and saying the war is a failure, we can't have anyone off message like this!"

Posted by Al | April 21, 2008 12:10 PM

The hawks' vision of a "Long War" means that we can expect them to continue these kind of emergency measures and abuses forever and ever.

It's not just the hawks, as that term is normally used. You can bet that whatever Democratic administration commences early next year, there will be little difference when it comes to the Long War and the necessity of executive power and secrecy resulting therefrom.

Posted by Marshall | April 21, 2008 12:15 PM

Al writes : "they were, in fact, acting as administration spokespeople.
Of course, this is a complete and utter lie. They were, in fact, neutral observers."
---------------
this leaves a pertinent fact out. the ex-military officers all had ties to various defense contractors. they had a financial interest in being propagandists. they were hardly "neutral observers."

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 21, 2008 12:24 PM

Seriously, Matt, that most recent dump by today's Al was pure hackery. He misrepresents the slant of what he calls "the MSM", he misrepresents the Democratic complaints about ABC, and he misrepresents the Times story about the analysts.

All he has is vehement assertion: Of course, this is a complete and utter lie. They were, in fact, neutral observers. He repeats the phrase "left-wing" four times.

No evidence at all, no indication that Al had even read the Times piece. Nothing. Nothing to learn from, nothing to argue with. Pure provocation. What kind of person would find any value-added in that?

I have no idea why you let that guy junk up the place. Crooked Timber tried to tell you.

[Cue Al's free-speech and tolerance whine].

Posted by John Emerson | April 21, 2008 12:25 PM

Easy acceptance of government secrecy and lies is just one of the many high costs of war, i.e. one more reason why invading Iraq wasn't worth doing, one more reason why starting wars was not a good approach to preventing anti-American terrorism.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 21, 2008 12:27 PM

A government in a democracy is only as strong as the faith of the people - a government that breaks faith with the people will not last - at least as a democratic one, anyway. This happened during Vietnam - both Johnson and Nixon ultimately squandered their goodwill and effectiveness because the American population became tired of being lied to and manipulated and became exrtremely cynical. So sure, the government can resort to such tactics, but at what cost - destroying the village in order to save it?

For people who place such faith in the "marketplace", it seems that by resorting to such tactics the government doesn't really have faith in it's military policies in the marketplace of ideas - a well-functioning and honest marketplace of ideas also being essential to the well-funcioning of a democracy.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | April 21, 2008 12:30 PM

I don’t think it’s wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

The perception to be shaped as part of a counterinsurgency is supposed to the perception of the population of the country where the insurgency is taking place, i.e. Iraq. Not the population of the country combatting the insurgency. There does not, to my knowledge, appear to be an armed insurgency taking place inside the United States, so I fail to see the need to shape the American public's perceptions as part of any counterinsurgency campaign.

Posted by Stefan | April 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Al writes : "they were, in fact, acting as administration spokespeople.
Of course, this is a complete and utter lie. They were, in fact, neutral observers."

Interesting. Since "Al" believes that the source of their paychecks had no bearing on their "neutrality", we can therefore reasonably assume that our friend "Al" is also receiving a weekly paycheck from the Pentagon. After all, since he supports their position, why wouldn't he contact them and ask to be paid for his propaganda on their behalf?

I'd guess that the quality and persuasive thoughtfulness of his trolling must be worth at least $0.47 per week...

Posted by RKU | April 21, 2008 12:36 PM

nolaboyd,

First, I think the fact we prefer our "wars" to be of the metaphorical variety actually proves my point.

Second, obviously we were plenty warlike when conquering our way over to the Pacific, but that was indeed a prior era.

Third, I actually think our efforts in Central and South America also prove the point. There were expansionists who wanted to include Central and South America within the scope of the "manifest destiny" of the United States, but it took events like the explosion of the Maine and a lot of yellow journalism to get the bulk of the populace to go along with something like the Spanish-American war. Meanwhile, powerful figures (from the likes of Mark Twain to Andrew Carnegie) opposed American imperialism, and in the end the United States settled for a pretty modest set of colonies relative to what the other world powers of the time were acquiring.

Now, of course we have long sought to manipulate events where we have commercial interests, including Central and South American, and undoubtedly will continue to do so. But actual wars really have been a relatively tough sell in America, which is why they tend to take so much deception and propaganda in all but the most compelling cases.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 12:36 PM

I wonder if the "long war" terminology was purposely chosen to mirror the Peloppenisian (sp?) war. In which case, the dangers to democracy of empire was clear to them from the start.

Posted by CalDem | April 21, 2008 12:44 PM

I don’t think it’s wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

To expand what I said above, what the Pentagon was doing in crafting a propaganda campaign against the American people may well have been illegal under the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, which makes the domestic propagation of propaganda illegal. (The Act was passed in part because we had seen how easily propaganda enabled the Nazi governmentsto manipulate the Germans in the war). Since 1951 the appropriations acts passed each year by Congress include language stipulating: "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress."

Posted by Stefan | April 21, 2008 12:53 PM

Al, there are honest arguments for the Iraq War. But don't pee in my cereal bowl and call it milk.

That Times article established pretty clearly that these people were being placed in high-paying lobbying positions where it was at least perceived that they needed to speak the party line to keep their positions.

Now, despite that, they may well honestly believe what they are saying. Who knows? But there certainly is such a thing as a bought-and-paid-for opinion in Washington, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that this is one such case.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 21, 2008 12:54 PM

this leaves a pertinent fact out. the ex-military officers all had ties to various defense contractors

So the scandal is...? What, that some people who are asked by the MSM to comment on news stories have undisclosed financial interests in the subject of the news? This is a scandal - really???

So, if a scientist comments on TV about global warming, and he is given grant money by the government to study global warming (as many, many scientists are)... what, exactly? The scientist shouldn't go on TV discussing global warming if he takes money from the government to study global warming? If a lawyer is paid to take death penalty cases, that should prevent him from commentating on the death penalty?

The fact is, there is no - zero - evidence that anybody was paid anything to proffer any particular opinion. The networks and the rest of the MSM have considered this type of financial tie should prevent a military analyst (or any other outside commentator) from commenting - and they have (wisely) decided against it. After all, most "experts" - in all fields - have some type of financial interest in the subject they commenting on. Global warming experts get paid to study global warming. Death penalty experts get paid to take death penalty cases. Military experts...

Posted by Al | April 21, 2008 1:02 PM

I don’t think it’s wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

Isn't he admitting that he considers the American people to be the enemy?

Posted by ChrisWWW | April 21, 2008 1:04 PM

I think it would be better for us if we sucked more at COIN. Like, so bad that we wouldn't even think of fighting one. Maybe we give up empire too.

Posted by Phil | April 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Shorter Armed Liberal: "Better to come up with ever more complex rationalisations for being duped than to admit it."

The fact is, there is no - zero - evidence that anybody was paid anything to proffer any particular opinion.

Ooh, today's Al-bot is channelling the infamous. Gary Ruppert.

I really want to see an investigative report on paid trolls before the election.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 21, 2008 1:12 PM

That Times article established pretty clearly that these people were being placed in high-paying lobbying positions

Uh, no. The Times not only doesn't "establish[] pretty clearly that these people were being placed in high-paying lobbying positions" it refutes it entirely. There is no evidence that anybody in the Pentagon got anybody any job with any lobbying firm - and in fact the evidence from the article is that these people already had their jobs prior to being given access.

Posted by Al | April 21, 2008 1:13 PM

Is there any reason to believe that Al even read the article?

Posted by John Emerson | April 21, 2008 1:16 PM

Al writes : "this leaves a pertinent fact out. the ex-military officers all had ties to various defense contractors

So the scandal is...? What, that some people who are asked by the MSM to comment on news stories have undisclosed financial interests in the subject of the news? This is a scandal - really???

they had a financial interest in being propagandists. they were hardly "neutral observers." they were in a position that they would stand to profit directly if they advocated in favor of the war. a death penalty lawyer's opinion on the death penalty [to use one of al's examples] doesn't effect his bottom line.

Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

The several dozen military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 21, 2008 1:19 PM

they were in a position that they would stand to profit directly if they advocated in favor of the war. a death penalty lawyer's opinion on the death penalty [to use one of al's examples] doesn't effect his bottom line.

Huh? Of course it does - if he goes on TV and advocates all kind of pro-prosecutor positions on the death penalty, he's going to lose potential clients. If a global warming scientist convinces everyone that there's no such thing as global warming, he's not going to get any more grants to study something that doesn't exist.

Posted by Al | April 21, 2008 1:30 PM

The commentators were not presented as employees of military contractors nor as mouthpieces for the military (which many of them clearly were), nor were they balanced by military experts without those ties and affiliations.

Posted by John Emerson | April 21, 2008 1:38 PM

I don’t think it’s wrong to be concerned about the government shaping the news. I think it’s necessary to shape perception as a part of any successful counterinsurgency.

To expand what I said above, what the Pentagon was doing in crafting a propaganda campaign against the American people may well have been illegal under the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, which makes the domestic propagation of propaganda illegal. (The Act was passed in part because we had seen how easily propaganda enabled the Nazi governmentsto manipulate the Germans in the war). Since 1951 the appropriations acts passed each year by Congress include language stipulating: "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress."

Posted by Stefan | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM

Lawyers like Al are the reason why no one trusts lawyers to be honest about anything or have a soul. His point is basically "everyone is a lying asshole because it pays? What are the definitions of corruption and propaganda?"

"If a global warming scientist convinces everyone that there's no such thing as global warming, he's not going to get any more grants to study something that doesn't exist.

Posted by Al | April 21, 2008 1:30 PM"

If a global warming scientist did this, he would get money from the likes of Exxon to keep on saying it and a plum job at an industry-backed think tank. You know this, but don't respect our collective intelligence enough to not be a jackass.

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 1:54 PM

So, if a scientist comments on TV about global warming, and he is given grant money by the government to study global warming (as many, many scientists are)... what, exactly? The scientist shouldn't go on TV discussing global warming if he takes money from the government to study global warming?

This is of course the wrong analogy. The correct analogy to what those retired officers did would be a scientist employed by an oil company and the recipient of secret briefings by Cheney's office going on the air to refute global warming, knowingly presenting positions that he knows to be false because he knows that if he doesn't he'll lose his cushy job with the oil company, all the while being presented by the media as an independent expert with no disclosure of his ties to the oil company and Cheney.

Posted by Stefan | April 21, 2008 2:01 PM

For people like Al who don't have time to read the Times article, Think Progress explains what the problem is.

Posted by John Emerson | April 21, 2008 2:17 PM

That Times article established pretty clearly that these people in high-paying lobbying positions needed to speak the party line to keep their access to the pentagon briefings.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 21, 2008 2:49 PM

During Vietnam, of course, we had the government's security apparatus spending time working against anti-war groups, and for all we know this sort of thing is why the Bush administration is so eager to wiretap people without warrants.

This is one of the shoes that has yet to drop. Though it's obvious that it wasn't anti-war groups (small and feeble as they are) but the media that has been targeted.

Posted by jlw | April 21, 2008 3:35 PM

Matt: "realistically we are much more likely to leave Iraq because politicians representing the views of the 70 percent of the public who doesn't think that an indefinite American military operation in Iraq is a good idea than we are to be literally driven out by Iraqis who oppose the U.S. presence."

Was that snark, Matt? I can't tell.

Assuming it wasn't, first, find me some politicians who represent the seventy percent of the population who want us out. I don't know any outside of Ron Paul. It sure isn't Obama or Clinton.

Second, it's FAR more likely that the Iraqis will drive the US out. That should happen within the next two years - or sooner, if Bush and Cheney attack Iran this year, as I expect. It will take FAR longer for the politicians to get the US out.

The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because 1) Sistani held back the Shia in order to get the Shia into power, and 2) the Sunni-Shia conflict distracted the Sunnis from continuing the insurgency.

1) is no longer operative. 2) is not likely to hold forever - indeed, if the nationalists sweep into power this fall and next year, as is predicted, they will order the US out within the year. If the US doesn't leave, they will drive us out - and this time, they will have Shia help from Sadr and even Iran may order ISCI and Dawa to help.

The only alternative scenario is a general civil war with Shia against Shia and the Sunnis, and the Sunnis against the Shia, with the Kurds against everybody. And in that situation, the US will be driven out as well.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM