|

Monday, December 05, 2005

It's Called PsyOps For A Reason

One of the most misunderstood, and seldom talked about elements of the war on terror is PsyOps. The program is integrated into the military as well as the CIA, and its purpose is to influence, persuade, and shape opinion without violence. It has been around since recorded history with great warriors like Sun Tsu and Genghis Khan. (Hey, I didn't say they were good people, I said they were great warriors) Modern versions of PsyOp techniques would be such diverse tactics as the air dropped pamphlets in Vietnam and Iraq, to the use of media with the likes of "Tokyo Rose" and "Baghdad Bob." The pamphlets might say something along the lines of "The Americans are here to help you", or Tokyo Rose would broadcast radio tirades during WW2 and tell the GIs their girlfriends and wives were cheating on them. Simple stuff really, but it can be effective. Sun Tzu understood dealing with perceptions and weaknesses of the mind, as well as how to exploit them:

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him." - Sun Tzu, the Art of War Two great websites on the history and uses of PsyOp warfare can be found here and here. The idea has always been about deception and most importantly winning. As usual, the MSM sees it differently. Recently the MSM "uncovered" a story where American intelligence paid Iraqi newspapers to print planted news. And the problem here is....What? Apparently the MSM has forgotten (not that I believe they ever cared) who and what we are fighting for, or even if we win or lose. By the way, what do they think the VOA (Voice of America) does? Isn't it slanted just a tad toward being favorable to American views? The forgetfulness of the MSM, I think, is most evident on Sunday mornings. For the most part, Sunday morning talk shows are mind numbing affairs. Usually it's nothing more than talking heads (from both sides of politics) spouting off about useless matters. There was a time when shows like these were useful: That would be 1970. But thanks to cable news and the internet, I get more information now in one hour surfing (chanel and web) then when I filled up for the week on Sunday with David Brinkley, Charles Kuralt, and The McLaughlin Group. Every once and awhile you stumble across someone who makes me question the "Sunday talkies are crap" stance. In this case, it's John McCain. I cringe to think I'm quoting John McCain about the whole PsyOp thing, but he nails it on the head: Tim Russert, of Meet The Press, asked McCain: "But here we are trying to teach democracy and freedom of the press and the lack of state-sponsored censorship, if you will, and we're paying Iraqis to print articles?" McCain shot back (rather brilliantly, I might add): "If these are accurate stories then we should make every effort to get them out. We are in a propaganda war. This is a war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people as well." Russert, apparently not getting the answer he wanted asked again: "But in principle you have no problem paying the Iraqis?" And McCain repeated for the either deaf, slightly retarded, or braindead Timmy (Timmay!) Russert, "If that's the standard procedure in Iraq - if that's what you need to do to get a story in one of these newspapers . . . . then I'm not terribly offended by it." The MSM has become a farce over the years. With alternative sources of news, it doesn't take a genius to see that. It also doesn't take much digging to come up with American news manipulation stories designed to harm instead of promote the good. Here's a few of the ones I found: The Washington Post - which won a Pulitzer Prize for its series on Little Jimmy, the 8-year-old heroin addict - which the paper had to give back once star Post reporter Janet Cooke admitted she'd faked the whole story. NBC aired video of an exploding GM truck gas tank - which was faked by their reporters. CBS has not yet discovered just who it was who forged President Bush's National Guard records - before Dan Rather committed professional suicide by putting them in the air. In a deliciously ironic twist of fate, shortly before airing a segment aimed at embarrassing the Bush administration by suggesting that it had staged a video conversation between the president and soldiers in Iraq, the Today show was caught staging . . . a video stunt. What bothers me about the story planting is not that we are doing it, but the White House reaction. They are playing this as a wrong that will be corrected. Why anyone would want to shut down something that would benefit America is beyond the grasp of my tiny conservative caveman brain. At least the plus side of the story is this: It's a non story. It means nothing to the average American. It only became a story because screeching, liberal news monkeys, decide to publish something that may or may not be true, but may also harm our troops. But, there's nothing new about that, is there? Story #2: The following cracks me up a bit. This is quite possibly the finest example of PsyOps. A poem in a school textbook has been removed by embarrassed education officials in Pakistan after it was found that the first letters of each line spelt out "President George W Bush." The 20-line anonymous poem, The Leader, lists the qualities of "a man who will do what he must" and bears a passing resemblance to Rudyard Kipling's If. Here's the poem. A little sappy, but still funny. THE LEADER by anonymous Patient and steadfast by all he must bear, Ready to accept every challenge with care. Easy in manner, yet solid as steel, Strong in his faith, refreshingly real, Isn't afraid to propose what is bold, Doesn't conform to the usual mold, Eyes that have foresight,for hindsight won't do, Never back down when he sees what is true, Tells it all straight, and means it all too, Going forward and knowing he's right, Even when doubted for why he would fight, Over and over he makes his case clear, Reaching to touch the ones who won't hear, Growing in strength, he won't be unnerved, Ever assuring he'll stand by his word, Wanting the world to join his firm stand, Bracing for war, but praying for peace, Using his power so evil will cease: So much a leader and worthy of trust, Here stands a man that will do what he must. I blame Karl Rove for this one. I can see him sitting awake at 3 in the morning, wanting to finish the poem, and thinking: "What rhymes with unnerved?" Then saying "Screw it. Word will work." and finishing off the remaining six stanzas. Pure genius!

4 Comments:

Blogger wanda said...

"CBS has not yet discovered just who it was who forged President Bush's National Guard records - before Dan Rather committed professional suicide by putting them in the air."

Since Dan is still working (as an anchor no less) one couldn't actually say he committed professional suicide. More likely it was a failed attempt to commit professional murder. By the way, it's interesting that not only hasn't anyone ever been charged with the 'forgery' but no one ever disputed the actual accuracy of the information contained in the documents.
As for the planting of stories by the military/CIA/whoEVER, it seems to me to be much ado about nothing. It certainly pales in comparison to so many other things that have been done.
I have little doubt that Karl Rove could have been the author of this little ditty, but while he may have used Gdubya's name, you know he was thinking of himself. Although he might want to reconsider a few of those lines. Starting with Growing in strength, he won't be unnerved, since the man can hardly make it through a press confrence without putting his foot in his mouth and his popularity is dropping by leaps and bounds. Then there Bracing for war but praying for peace. What a farce! More like Praying for war, even just a little piece! Lets not forget Ever assuring he'll stand by his word. Sure just the way he stood by his promise that "anyone in this administration involved in this leak will be fired". Not anyone charged or convicted but "involved". Yep he sure stood by his word on that one didn't he? Lasly there is the one line that rings loud and clear, Here stands a man who will do what he must. Oh so very true. He will do whatever it takes (even if that means slandering REAL genuine war heros, using inflated or outright falsified intelligence to make the case for war,and when his poll numbers drop low enough, just watch him do what he must in order to keep his warm comfy seat in the WH), yes there is little doubt this is a man who will do what he must. Yep that would be our [Chickenhawk] Fearless (what's to be afraid of when your ass is safe and highly protected) Leader.
That people actually admire this man boggles the mind.

12/05/2005 12:36:00 PM  
Blogger Rooster Cashews said...

Since Dan is still working (as an anchor no less) one couldn't actually say he committed professional suicide.

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't he gone from the CBS news anchor chair? Political or professional suicide simply means you trade down or out from a position of power. That is exactly what Danny did. And the best part of his failed career: He still believes the memos are real.

As far as the accuracy of the memo... Yes, it has been disputed, by the family of the man who supposedly wrote it, as well as computer font experts (thanks originally to bloggers) who say the "memo" is not old enough to be real based on the age and style of the font type.

The rest of your reply is too much of a strain on the eyes for me to make a comment. Remember, paragraphs and the space bar are your friends.

All of what you offer here is personal opinion with no facts. Personal opinion is fine as a comment, and I gladly accept your thoughts here, but I'm looking for factual rebuttal from the liberal side. I have yet to see any. It seems to me you're heading off into the realm of the nutty with your statements, and appears the best you can do is rant of your hatred of Bush. I guess that's not new, but I'd like to be able to expect more form the people who wander through here.

I found the poem humorous from the position of me thinking of Rove as the author, based on the liberal view of him as some kind of malevolent puppet master. You offer bile without seeing the joke. Chill out. You almost sound as wacky as Cindy Sheehan.

Finally, I always ask this of anyone who stops by here:
Give me something tangible and credible with your rant, such as a real news outlet that voices your view, and supports any claim you make. You have done none of the above in your reply. And by real media, I don't mean Al Gore's Current TV or the Village Voice editorial page, ok?

By the way, I admire the man on several levels. Mainly it's for his steadfastness to do what I believe is correct, and not following polls the way "some" former presidents did.

Thanks again for your comments.

12/06/2005 07:58:00 AM  
Blogger Scott said...

Rooster, you wrote to wanda...

"Give me something tangible and credible with your rant, such as a real news outlet that voices your view, and supports any claim you make. You have done none of the above in your reply. And by real media, I don't mean Al Gore's Current TV or the Village Voice editorial page, ok?"

So if a "real news outlet" does not voice or support a claim then a claim is not tangible or credible? Yikes. And after that you do the selecting on which of any real news sources are credible? Double Yikes. Rooster, perhaps your dayjob is being the Government of China - for example?

12/10/2005 08:16:00 AM  
Blogger Rooster Cashews said...

Scott,

All I ask for is facts. Period. The only "fact" voiced by Wanda is her own opinion, wacky as it is. I ask that she, and you bring me more than what has been supplied in her post as shown below.

(too lazy to html her quotes. I'll just enclose my comments)


but no one ever disputed the actual accuracy of the information contained in the documents.

(Really? I said above the man's family said they were falsified, along with multiple people who know the difference between an 1970's IBM Selectric (sp?) typewriter, and a Microsoft Word document.)

(Still talking about the memo)

It certainly pales in comparison to so many other things that have been done.
(Such as what? What pales in comparison? She offers nothing to back up her statements)

he may have used Gdubya's name, you know he was thinking of himself.

(another non-fact with general ranting)

putting his foot in his mouth and his popularity is dropping by leaps and bounds.

(popularity is on the way up, about 10 points from last month, and it will go down, and back up again. I don't trust polls no matter who does them, or what they say. It's nothing more than a snapshot that changes the next day.)

What a farce! More like Praying for war
(proof, anyone?)

Not anyone charged or convicted but "involved". Yep he sure stood by his word on that one didn't he?

(Is Libby still Chief of Staff to the VP? Don't think so. Has anyone else "yet" been associated or charged with the leak? Nope. So who else should go?)

He will do whatever it takes even if that means slandering REAL genuine war heros

(Such as? Again, nothing to back up the claim. You think veterans groups might be up in arms if he slandered one of their own)

using inflated or outright falsified intelligence to make the case for war

(If anyone can prove that he falsified info, it's cause for impeachment. I've said before, I'd be in line for that. But, nobody has any proof of that occuring. You might also want to check on statements made by Clinton, Kerry, Mrs Clinton, Albright, the french, Germans, British, Russians, just to name a few, who held the same belief of Iraq's desire to get, or that they may already have, nuclear capabilities not so long ago. I offer you this:

http://roostercashews.blogspot.com/2005/11/for-my-new-friend-you-know-who-you-are.html

if you want the facts of who said what and when.)

just watch him do what he must in order to keep his warm comfy seat in the WH

(Again, all I ask for is factual statements in your arguments. Nothing more. Prove to me with facts, and not 'from the gut reactions.' Wacky statements are fine. I use them all the time. But when you want to say I'm off base, don't come here yelling about black helicopters, memos you believe are true that have been disproved, and Bush's evil cabal.

Here's the breakdown of a real news outlet: Any organization that refuses to take sides on any argument, and lets the reader or viewer decide. That means no group commited to an agenda like Current TV, MTV, The Daily Show, editorial comments, or gossip rags like the Village Voice and New York Post.

I'm guilty as hell on the above by using, among others, The Wall Street Journal for some commentary. But I expect anyone who comes here to show me facts in where I, and my source material, was wrong by showing a trustworthy news opposition piece other than shouting the Bush lied, people died rhetoric. Try combatting me with Time, Newsweek, most major newspapers, CNN, FOX, or any network news outlet.

And, believe it or not, I really do appreciate you and Wanda stopping by.)

12/10/2005 02:33:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Web Site Counter
Counters
eXTReMe Tracker