Talk:Psychological operations/Archive 1

message: This is a badly organized article. It appears to have just happened rather than be organized in any logical form. 
* If it is to cover multiple nationalities (which is reasonable), put them in alphabetical order - Germany, United Kingdom, United States would be reasonable. UK, US, Germany is just random.
* Descriptions of Campaigns such as "U.S. Psychological Operations in Afghanistan" and similar stubs for WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, and others should be subs of US Army or whatever organization they belong to.
* Detailed particulars such as the diatribe about a particular operation in Afghanistan should properly be referred to their own articles.
I am, unfortunately, too much of a newby to start this project, but I am willing to assist a more talented author - Luxomni 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Organization of the Article 

message: * Does anyone know if the Marine's actually have PSYOPs, as of 5 years ago I don't believe they do, but maybe things have changed? --A User
* I don't know if Commando Solo really should be under the Airforce header. Or if the Airforce should be said to have PSYOP. Do they? I believe the Army runs the operation on Commando Solo, the Airforce just own and fly the plane. That doesn't really make them Airforce PSYOP, they just drive the Army PSYOP around. I spent my time on a PSYOP team on the ground so I don't know exactly how the Commando Solo operation works, but that was always my impression. - atfyfe
ANSWER:
My Army PSYOP company spent 2003 attached to the 1st Marine Division because the Marines lacked tactical PSYOP, so the answer is no. A few PSYOP guys wore some Marine uniforms only because their own BDUs and brown t-shirts had been rendered unservicable and we were in a Marine supply line not Army. At first opportunity the company resupplied Army clothing and Marine clothing was disgarded.
As for Commando Solo, I agree, the AF "technically" doesn't "do" PSYOP. They supply the plane, pilot, etc., while the Army does the actual product development. Be that as it may, they have the assets dedicated to an important PSYOP mission. User:Virgil
I disagree Virgil, when my TPT was attached to a Marine company we wore marine style BDU's but used army name tapes and insignia.  Our reason was to create a more uniform appearance while working with the Marines.  it really is a matter of commander's discression. Jocosetad 17:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Army, Airforce, Marine PSYOP 

message: "less acceptable usage" == NPOV. No justification given.
--babbage 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in the US, apparently. The British Armed Forces appear to use PSYOPS. See here. Don't automatically equate American usage with general usage. -- Necrothesp 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSYOP and PSYOPS 

message: Who here is or has been a psyoper?
I am in an american reserve unit.--65.220.54.20 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  psyoper's editing

message: I removed the Marine Corps as having organic PSYOP units in the United States.  Army PSYOP teams may be attached to the Marines and sometimes even wear Marine style uniforms during this time. (but the name tape still says Army)  This no doubt caused the confusion.  
Also for clarification to a previous comment the 193rd Special Operations Wing of the Air Force owns and uses the equipment on Commando Solo.  Although they don't come up with the actual media used, which is still the army's responsibility, they are a unit in the Air Force with a dedicated PSYOP mission.
24.15.230.227 05:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit 

message: Point:
I'm removing this section:
U.S. PSYOP mistakes Every country's PSYOP attempts fall flat on their face sometimes. The United States is not immune to mistakes in its PSYOP operation. The most recent example of a U.S. PSYOP misstep is the public burning of enemy bodies in Afghanistan. While the bodies had been left on the battlefield and were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns, the decision by a tactical PSYOP team with the 173rd Airborne to burn the bodies in public to try and lure enemy fighters to attack has become a public relations nightmare for the U.S. Army.   
During the War on Terror U.S. PSYOP teams often use the broadcasting of inflammatory messages over loudspeakers to try tempting enemy fighters into a direct confrontation where the Americans have the upper hand. In the Afghanistan incident, a PSYOP sergeant read out the following inflammatory message to the Taliban:
"Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."    
    
U. S. authorities were to investigate the incident which may have contravened the Geneva convention.  
pending further facts. There are a couple of other errors/issues I address below, but my main gripe is that this incident is still under investigation, and that the benefit of the doubt should be granted until such time as an investigation report is available. There were subsequent reports in the press that contradicted some of the facts in the initial story or added richer context, like the assertion that the bodies were not recovered by the village inhabitants because they were interloping Pakistanis. Either way, let the TV/press websites bicker the finer points for now- there's no need to echo that process here in WP.
Whether or not this is a PSYOP 'mistake' I think is unclear; whether or not it is still a 'PR nightmare' is quite clear: not now (as I write this not one month after the incident); if it even ever was one. For it to be a PSYOP mistake, it would have to be shown to be inneffective to the point of interfering with the supported commander's mission and intent. (Keep in mind, we are only talking about the PSYOP team's use of the burned bodies as fodder for their LS taunt broadcasts - the actual act of burning the bodies was conducted by the supported unit -see below.) If the broadcasts had succeeded in riling up the Talibanis enough to take on the 173rd, and they were subsequently defeated with minimal cost to the supported unit, then it would have been a tactical success. That success could then be overshadowed by the strategic level/big picture problem of perception that the US is insensitive to Islamic burial rites; if this had never hit the media the way it did, that would never have been a problem at all. That perception could cut 2 ways:
** Lessened cooperation in the GWOT by Muslims b/c of 'outrage'.(bad)  ^or^
** Lessened enrollment in terrorist organizations by devout muslims fearing a resultant cremation.(good)
Only time will tell the balance.
My other gripes - 
**This: The most recent example of a U.S. PSYOP misstep is the public burning of enemy bodies..., ...the decision by a tactical PSYOP team with the 173rd Airborne to burn the bodies in public to try and lure enemy fighters to attack... is directly contradicted by the  article itself: Members of the U.S. 173rd Airborne said they burned the bodies of the suspected militants for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, according to the program.
218. Graves Registration Service - Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the 
double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body. Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead. They shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found."" (FM 27-10) 
They seem to have followed the letter of the law. 'If possible' gives the commander leeway on cremating muslims, I would think.
**The United States is not immune to mistakes in its PSYOP operation. Reads in the mind as "Psychological operations operation" Perhaps: - The United States is not immune to mistakes in conducting PSYOP. There are other places where it's a clumsy read, but I'd prefer the whole incident not be included yet. I'm sure there are other instances of more clearly cut PSYOP mistakes that could be used. -user 12.208.168.37
----------------------------
Response:
 
“this incident is still under investigation”
It appears rather clear cut to me, or would the fact it is under investigation really warrant it being cut from the entry. Even if there are a few minor details left undetermined (and it isn’t clear to me that there are any details left unclear), the major points are clearly known.
“the benefit of the doubt should be granted until such time 
as an investigation report is available.”'''
The original posting of this information did not grant the benefit of the doubt to the soldiers. I edited it making it sound as neutral as possible, however, in my eyes I think what the soldiers did was just fine. I spent plenty of time in Iraq trying to lure insurgents out to fight just like these PSYOPers were trying to do. So I am not giving them the “benefit of the doubt”, I am flat out agreeing with their actions. However, I worded the article entirely neutral. If you find it critical I think you are reading that into the information, it was last edited by someone (me) who agrees with their actions.
“the assertion that the bodies were not recovered by the 
village inhabitants because they were interloping Pakistanis.” 
Does that fact even matter? What does it matter why the village inhabitants didn’t retrieve the bodies? Not that I believe their story anyway. Anytime any attack happened in Iraq the locals would always blame it on foreigners. Either way, this information does not matter to the article. The point is that the locals did not retrieve the bodies so the soldiers had to dispose of them.
“Whether or not this is a PSYOP 'mistake' I think is unclear; 
whether or not it is still a 'PR nightmare' is quite clear”'''
This is not a bias opinion, this is simply stating what is obvious. I don't know how to argue this point other than to ask you to consider the coverage of this event again.
“For it to be a PSYOP mistake, it would have to be shown to be inneffective to the point of interfering with the supported commander's mission and intent.” 
Yes it may have lead enemies out of hiding, (a tactical success) but surely this was “overshadowed by the strategic level/big picture problem of perception that the US is insensitive to Islamic burial rite.” I agree it was a good tactical decision, but part of PSYOP is taking in account the broader strategic consequences of your actions. At the very least PSYOP made the mistake of doing this PSYACT in the presence of media!
“had never hit the media the way it did, that would never have been a problem at all.” 
But it did. The PSYOPers did the act with media presence. Maybe that was their only mistake, but regardless this was a mistake.
“Also: “directly contradicted by the [2] article itself: Members of the U.S. 173rd Airborne said they burned the bodies of the suspected militants for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, according to the program.”” 
You misquote the entry. Right before it says the PSYOPers burned the bodies publicly to lure out the enemy, it says “were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns”. So the information was there. 
"They seem to have followed the letter of the law. 'If possible' gives the commander leeway on cremating muslims,"
I agree with you that the act was within the law and a sound tactical decision. Perhaps that information should be put into the entry, but it was still a mistake. 
(1) Your right, there are other examples of PSYOP mistakes that can be included. However, you haven’t written about them, so this is all there is. (2) Plus this is a topical example. It has the advantage of being a current event. (3) Someone added this to the article. They took the time, and so the presumption should be in favor of cleaning it up if needed rather than deleting. I thought the original posting was poorly done, so I edited it rather than deleting it. 
I am not putting this back in yet. But depending on people’s reaction to our little debate here I might. Anyone else’s thoughts?
------------------
Response C-point:
You misquote the entry. Right before it says the PSYOPers burned the bodies publicly to lure out the enemy,...
Misquote? That was verbatim from the article. Please show me where the article specifically states that the PSYOP team burned the bodies, or where my quote varies from the text of the article. 
It appears rather clear cut to me, or would the fact it is under investigation really warrant it being cut from the entry. Even if there are a few minor details left undetermined (and it isn’t clear to me that there are any details left unclear), the major points are clearly known.
I appreciate the fact that you tried to NPOV this, but to me, it's a turd - and no amount of polish will make it shine. It's not that it's under investigation, it's that the investigation could yield a lot more important details, or put current ones in better context. At this time, we have only one primary source for the story, Mr. Dupont, the reporter. All other stories, including the japantoday internet one quoted here, are based on his account. If you peruse the stories that are out there, you may find as I have that the details don't always agree. For that reason, I feel that it is premature to include this incident, and moreso to classify it as a mistake, at least a PSYOP one. 
This is my read of the sequence of events, based on the reporting that is out there to date:
# the people were killed in action prior to the date of the story
# 24+ odd hours later, they were starting to get 'ripe'.
# the supported unit commander ordered the bodies burned for hygiene reasons
# his troops carried this out
# the reporter filmed that event
# later, how long is not defined, the PSYOP team conducted their taunt broadcast(s), which were also filmed
# later still, the PSYOP team discussed what was broadcast with the reporter
GEORGE NEGUS: Do you think they understood the ramifications of what they're doing? The burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca and going to the trouble of reading to you in English the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the Taliban? STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think the airborne unit that were responsible with the burning of the two Taliban soldiers weren't really thinking in that way. I think the psychological operations unit, who were responsible for the broadcast along with some other broadcasts to the Taliban, they're quite well aware of it. They're older guys. That's their job. They're PsyOps. They use it as a weapon. And the Americans are so frustrated. They're frustrated because they can't find the enemy. They're chasing shadows all the time. GEORGE NEGUS: The guys burning the bodies probably did they think were doing it for reasons of hygiene that were mentioned in the story? STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe that. That was the feeling I got as I climbed up the hill. As I got to the crest of the hill, they started burning the bodies. My initial reaction was, "My God, I've got to film this. This is really important stuff. It's my responsibility as a journalist to - GEORGE NEGUS: The PsyOps had a different purpose? STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe so. Niece(sic) guys - they said to me, "We've been told to burn the bodies, the bodies are have been here for 24 hours and they're starting to stink so, for hygiene purposes, this is what we've got to do." Later on, when I was down with the PsyOps operations people, they used that as a psychological warfare I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west -...
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2005-10-19&headlineid=1037
(Even the direct quote from the transcript leaves it up in the air as to who did the burning. When Dupont starts with 'I Believe so...' he had just been interrupted by another question from Negus, it looks to me like he was finishing the thought from the last question and segued into the new one, and that may give the impression the PSYOP team burned the bodies. But the 'Look, I think...' line pretty clearly shows who did the burning.)
Calling it a 'PSYOP Mistake' I think gives them too much blame. Like in baseball, you can have something go bad for the team, but it still doesn't qualify as an 'error' unless someone flubbed something they should have by all rights made happen. Allow me to expand on what I previously qualified as a PSYOP mistake: 
#The incident should be classifiable as bad PSYOP, in concept or execution.
#PSYOP personnel should be primarily responsible for the problem, even in spite of getting approval from supported unit for the operation.
For the first, I think we agree that the broadcast was tactically sound PSYOP, even if, as some accounts say, the messages did not produce the desired effect of inciting the enemy to engage in battle. I think we also agree that it became problematic on the strategic level, due to the event becoming an international news story. This is a constant dichotomy - good tactical level PSYOP can be bad strategic PSYOP, and vice versa. For the second part, this is where I would like to see more information before declaring this a PSYOP mistake. I believe that it was not the decision of the PSYOP team to burn the bodies. They may have advised the SU commander against it, and been overrulled. They may have discussed the ramifications amongst themselves and opted to withhold protest - "Yeah, this could become a bad thing for the Army, but we still have to stay on this hill with these funky bodies. Let the grunts burn them...". They could 
have given incorrect cultural advice, in re. to the facing or positioning of the bodies, or Muslim burial rules. Disrespecting Muslim burial rites? Probably an Army mistake. PSYOP's fault? Undetermined.
The PSYOPers did the act with media presence.
While I respect the need for secrecy where appropriate, is the lesson to be drawn here that no PSYOP can be conducted in the presence of outside media? At worst, this may be classifiable as an unavoidable mistake - the guys were faced with two poor choices - do nothing, or do what they can of their job even though the media is there.
re. 'PR nightmare' This is not a bias opinion, this is simply stating what is obvious. I don't know how to argue this point other than to ask you to consider the coverage of this event again.
My point is that this was a story for a week or less, and now it's almost forgotten. (Google it and see!) It didn't cause the uproar or death that the 'flushed Koran' story or 'Abu 
Ghraib' did. That's not to say that it won't pop up again, or get worse. But it's not as you say 'obvious' - that's a highly subjective judgment. The coverage has been, in 'big picture' 
terms, no big deal.
re. 'topical example/current event' - I think it's too topical. For it to be an effective example of PSYOP Mistake, we need more facts. It doesn't make a good 'teachable anecdote'. As it is, it's an open answer essay question that people would answer with the PSYOP version of "I'd move quickly and quietly down the hall". (I'd pick the perfect mix of 2 mutually exclusive goals'.) Real life doesn't work that way...  
(22 November 2005- 12.208.168.37)
Addition; 11/27/2005: The other shoe has dropped, CENTCOM has issued their report. 
Right click/save as here: http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/News%20Release/Nov05/Investigation%20into%20the%20Gumbad%20Incident.pdf
I still maintain the mistake here makes a poor example for learning purposes.
"Action #2: The broadcast of PYSOPS (sic) message pertaining to the burning of enemy
combatant remains subsequent to the firefight in Gumbad. 1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. psychological operations forces did broadcast two loudspeaker messages designed to incite fleeing Taliban to fight. These messages mentioned the burning of enemy remains and were in violation of standing policies for the content of loudspeaker messages. 2) The criminal investigation revealed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the remains were burned for the purpose of providing content for the loudspeaker message. However, the investigation did reveal that the loudspeaker operator did willfully violate known standards for message content and standards for reporting his activities during the conduct of missions. Additionally the operator and his supervisor failed to follow documentation and reporting procedures surrounding this incident. Their conduct falls well below the acceptable standards of behavior for Soldiers." (pp. 4-5)
Bold examples are emphasized by me. This is a poor example because without being able to state what the 'standing policies' were, and then to specify how their actions violated them, it's hard to definitively point out what the mistake was. I can surmise it's a broad 'don't act against other culture's religious mores' but it also just could have been that they were prohibited by policy from using derogatory names like 'lady boys'. 
--12.208.168.37 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over burning bodies section 

message: How do alleged "gatekeepers" fit in with Psyop? Schizombie 07:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put an AfD on the Gatekeepers article.  Probably going to get kept or kept by reason of no consensus, I have a suspicion, since people are allowed to outnumber WP policies, however sound.  Sigh. Шизомби 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also Gatekeepers?