Sunday, July 27, 2008

War Propaganda: Fabricating an Outside Enemy

Art by David Dees -,,,,,,Dees Archive

War Propaganda: Fabricating an Outside Enemy

By kainsa

The Disinformation Campaign

War Propaganda: Fabricating an Outside Enemy

The US intelligence apparatus has created its own terrorist organ-izations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warn-ings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program “to go after” these terrorist organizations.

Counterterrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be “genuine”. The objective is to present the terror groups as “enemies of America”.

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to fabricate an enemy. As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy of the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive “outside enemy” must be dispelled.

Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but to kill the evidence on how this “outside enemy”, namely Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”. The entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of an “outside enemy”, which is threatening the Homeland.

The “Office of Disinformation”

Waged from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a fear and disinformation campaign was launched. The blatant distortion of the truth and the systematic manipulation of all sources of information is an integral part of war planning.

In the wake of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or “Office of Disinformation” as it was labeled by its critics:

The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign coun-tries-as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.(1)

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and “troublesome” media stories that “its pur-pose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests.”(2) “Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing.”(3) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon’s Orwellian disinformation campaign remained functionally intact:

“[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war.(4)

Rumsfeld in fact later confirmed in a November 2002 press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the “Office’s intended functions are [still] being carried out”.5
A number of government agencies and intelligence units-with links to the Pentagon-are involved in various components of the propaganda campaign.

Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as “humanitarian interventions” geared towards “regime change” and “the restoration of democracy”.

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as “peace-keeping”. The derogation of civil liberties-in the context of the so-called “anti-terrorist legislation”-is portrayed as a means to providing “domestic security” and upholding civil liberties. And underlying these manipulated realties, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements, which circulated pro-fusely in the news chain, were upheld as the basis for understanding World events.

The twisting of public opinion at home and around the World had become an integral part of the War agenda. In the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration and its indefectible British ally had multiplied the “warnings” of future Al Qaeda terrorist attacks.

War propaganda is pursued at all stages: before, during the mil-itary operation as well as in its cruel aftermath. The enemy has to appear genuine: thousands of news stories and editorials linking Al Qaeda to the Baghdad government were planted in the news chain.

War propaganda serves to conceal the real causes and conse-quences of war.

Shortly after the OSI had been officially disbanded amidst con-troversy, the New York Times confirmed that the disinformation campaign was running strong and that the Pentagon was:

considering issuing a secret directive to American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy-makers in friendly and neutral nations…. The proposal has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany…. The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over ‘the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it…. “We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn’t mean we should.”(6)

Feeding Disinformation into the News Chain

To sustain “the War on Terrorism” agenda these fabricated reali-ties, funneled on a day to day basis into the news chain, must become indelible truths which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media-although of this evolving totalitarian system.

In close liaison with the Pentagon and the CIA, the State Department had also set up its own “soft-sell” (civilian) propa-ganda unit, headed by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Charlotte Beers, a powerful figure in the adver-tising industry. Working in liaison with the Pentagon, Beers was appointed to head the State Department’s propaganda unit in the immediate wake of 9/11. Her mandate was “to counteract anti-Americanism abroad.”7 Her office at the State Department was to:

ensure that public diplomacy (engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences) is practiced in harmony with public affairs (outreach to Americans) and traditional diplomacy to advance US interests and security and to provide the moral basis for US lead-ership in the world.[8]

The Role of the CIA

The most powerful component of the Fear and Disinformation Campaign rests with the CIA, which secretly subsidizes authors, journalists and media critics, through a web of private founda-tions and CIA sponsored front organizations. The CIA also influ-ences the scope and direction of many Hollywood productions. Since 9/11, one third of Hollywood productions are war movies:

Hollywood stars and scriptwriters are rushing to bolster the new message of patriotism, conferring with the CIA and brainstorming with the military about possible real-life terrorist attacks.(9)

“The Sum of All Fears” directed by Phil Alden Robinson, which depicts the scenario of a nuclear war, had received the endorse-ment and support of both the Pentagon and the CIA.(10)

Disinformation is routinely “planted” by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels. Outside public relations firms are often used to create “fake stories”:

A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the “official reality” is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain.(11)

Covert disinformation initiatives under CIA auspices are also funneled through various intelligence proxies in other countries. Since 9/11, they have resulted in the day-to-day dissemination of false information concerning alleged “terrorist attacks”.

A routine pattern of reporting had emerged. In virtually all of the reported cases of terrorist incidents (Britain, France, Indonesia, India, Philippines, etc.) the alleged terrorist groups are identified as having “links to Al Qaeda”, without of course acknowledging the fact (amply documented by intelligence reports and official documents) that Al Qaeda is US intelligence asset.



The Secret Downing Street Memo

“The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”


From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195/02

cc: Defense Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard
Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally
Morgan, Alastair Campbell

Iraq: Prime Minister’s Meeting, 23 July

C [head of British Intelligence MI-6, Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable….

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intel-ligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

…. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthu-siasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after mili-tary action.

Excerpts from the “Secret Downing Street Memo” to Prime Minister Tony Blair, leaked in May 2005 to the London Times.


The Doctrine of “Self Defense”

The propaganda campaign is geared towards sustaining the illusion that “America is under attack”. Relayed not only through the mainstream media but also through a number of alternative Internet media sites, these fabricated realities continue to portray the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as bona fide acts of self-defense, while carefully concealing the broad strategic and economic objec-tives of the war.

In turn, the propaganda campaign develops a casus belli, a jus-tification, a political legitimacy for waging war. The “official real-ity” (conveyed profusely in George W’s speeches) rests on the broad “humanitarian” premise of a so-called “preemptive”, namely “defen-sive war”, “a war to protect freedom”:

We’re under attack because we love freedom…. And as long as we love freedom and love liberty and value every human life, they’re going to try to hurt us.12)

The National Security Strategy (NSS) includes two essential building blocks:
- The preemptive “defensive war” doctrine,
- The “war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda.

The objective is to present “preemptive military action”-mean-ing war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of ene-mies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:

The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration…. America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

… Rogue States and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction.

… The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend our-selves…. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.(13)

In early 2005, the Pentagon called for the development of a more “pro-active” notion of preemptive warfare, where military opera-tions could also be launched not only against a “declared enemy” but also against countries, which are not openly hostile to America, but which are considered strategic from the point of view of US interests. (See Chapter 19.)

How is War Propaganda carried out?

Two sets of eye-popping statements emanating from a variety of sources (including official National Security statements, media, Washington-based think tanks, etc.) are fed on a daily basis into the news chain. Some of the events (including news regarding pre-sumed terrorists) were blatantly fabricated by the intelligence agen-cies. (See Chapters 19 and 20.)

However, once the core assumptions of the disinformation cam-paign have been embedded in the news chain, both the printed press and network TV establish their own self-sustaining routine of fabricating the news.

Disinformation relies on a pattern of reporting which tends to dismiss the substance behind the news. In the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the disinformation campaign centered on two simple and catchy “buzzwords”, which were used profusely to justify US military action:

- Buzzword no. 1. “Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda” (Osama) is behind most news stories regarding the “war on terrorism” including “alleged”, “future”, “presumed” and “actual” terrorist attacks.

- Buzzword no. 2.”Weapons of Mass Destruction”(WMD) state-ments were used profusely to justify the “pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”-i.e., countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Amply documented in the case of Iraq, a large body of news on WMD and biological attacks, were fabricated.

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, “WMD” and “Osama bin Laden” statements continued to be used. They have become part of the day to day debate, embodied in routine conversations between cit-izens. Repeated ad nauseam, they penetrate the inner consciousness of people, molding their individual perceptions on current events. Through deception and manipulation, this shaping of the minds of entire populations sets the stage-under the façade of a functioning democracy-for the installation of a de facto Police State.

In turn, the disinformation regarding alleged “terrorist attacks” or “weapons of mass destruction” instills an atmosphere of fear, which mobilizes unswerving patriotism and support for the State, and its main political and military actors.

Repeated in virtually every national news report, this stigmatic focus on WMD and Osama/Al Qaeda essentially serves as a dogma, to blind people on the causes and consequences of America’s war of conquest, while providing a simple, unquestioned and author-itative justification for “self defense”.

In the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both in speeches by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as in the news, WMD statements were carefully blended into Osama statements. UK Defense Minister Jack Straw had warned in early 2003 “that ‘rogue regimes’ such as Iraq were the most likely source of WMD technology for groups like Al Qaeda.”(14) Also, two months before the March 2003 invasion, a presumed Al Qaeda cell “with links to Iraq” had been discovered in Edinburgh, allegedly involved in the use of biological weapons against people in the UK.

The hidden agenda of “the links to Iraq” statement is blatantly obvious. Its objective was to discredit Iraq in the months leading up to the war: the so-called “State sponsors of terror” are said to support Osama bin Laden. Conversely, Osama is said to collaborate with Iraq in the use of “weapons of mass destruction”.

Prior to the 2003 invasion as well as in its wake, several thousand news reports had woven an “Osama connection” into the WMD stories.

The WMD pretext for waging the war was finally dismissed, shortly before Bush’s Second Term inauguration in January 2005, by which time the justification for having waged the war on Iraq was no longer considered an issue. The media spin behind WMD was never questioned, to the extent that the elimination of WMD is still regarded by public opinion as a central objective of US for-eign policy.

Read More

No comments:

Post a Comment