Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at [email protected]. In Vietnam, victory was eluded by the will of the American people and the ineptitude of those in authority. Americans were unable to endure a long occupation with their hands tied behind their backs. So in 2002, during the initial planning for the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration developed a plan to defeat the media and sway the American public.
According to a recent in-depth article by The New York Times, the Department of Defense and the Pentagon deliberately “recruited” military analysts from the major media outlets such as Fox News, ABC, CNN and NBC as “surrogates” in order to generate favorable public opinion. Furthermore, in most cases, unbeknownst to their media employers, the same military analysts had ties to defense contractors or lobbies.
Amazingly, this has not stirred a whole lot of controversy. Virtually the only news organization to cover the story outside The New York Times has been Reuters. This has most likely been a consequence of The New York Times article’s claim that the other news organizations are largely at fault for carelessly hiring the military analysts in the first place.
This article is only the climactic tip of the iceberg. The Bush administration – in particular, the Department of Defense – has been rife with controversy not seen since Robert McNamara’s stint during the Vietnam War. The administration has done everything in its power to mislead, deceive and outright lie to the American public. Examples are abundant and do not need explanation. They include everything from controversy over weapons of mass destruction to an inadequate number of troops in the invasion to the lack of armor in Army Humvees.
The Times article uses as its primary sources thousands of documents obtained after suing the Department of Defense. Those documents include e-mail correspondence, transcripts and memos. In addition, The Times sought interviews with all the parties involved. These documents and interviews proved quite revealing.
Starting with preparations to invade Iraq, the Department of Defense began establishing correspondence with potential media military analysts. They realized they could not “convert” the average journalist, so they sought military analysts to disseminate their propaganda. They wanted to give the American public the impression that the mainstream journalist was ignoring reality. Technically, they did nothing illegal. They did not pay military analysts to support the war and their policies. It was more subtle than that.
They told The Times that their numerous meetings and disclosing of information with the analysts was nothing more than an “earnest attempt to inform the American people.” However, many of those analysts had doubts. As the war progressed, they began to notice a divergence of information between what the Pentagon was providing and what was becoming public through other sources such as books and confessions. On the same token, many analysts had doubts about the war from the beginning, especially after hearing details of the “incriminating” evidence against Iraq.
Nonetheless, most of the analysts quenched their doubts and misgivings when it came to providing their “independent” military analysis on the air or in newspapers. Some feared that if they voiced any opposition, they would be kicked out of the posse and lose their access, as Fox analyst retired Marine Col. William Cowan unceremoniously was. During one tour of Iraq, information leaked that the Army was resorting to using sandbags and Kevlar blankets for added protection in the unarmored Humvees. Not a word of that information or other potentially critical information was passed to the press.
Every time a controversy arose, the analysts were at then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld’s or the administration’s side. The administration would generously provide their “moles” with talking points and selective information to resist the media and sway public opinion. They soaked it all in. After the “Generals’ Revolt,” analysts met with Rumsfeld and later came on the air to give their support of Rumsfeld. They claimed these generals represented only a small portion of the military. They unanimously came on the air to voice their opposition to adding more troops in Iraq and to impeaching Rumsfeld.
I won’t rehash the entire article; it is available online at The Times Web site. The important point to realize is that these “objective” military analysts have all this time simply been extensions of the Bush administration, a “media Trojan horse” as the Department of Defense called them. Many military thinkers without business interests or lobbying commitments have criticized the conduct of the Iraq War. Whatever the opinion on the invasion of Iraq or the current occupation, these military analysts have been used, some unwittingly, to mislead the American public. Some were misled by the government; others misled the public intentionally. Despite the resignation of Rumsfeld, they are still being used, especially by the commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petreaus. Ultimately, this campaign of deception is only the climactic tip of the iceberg for a Bush administration that has been full of deceit.