Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia.militare
Titolo: dal NYT :Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations

dal New York Times 16/12/2002
Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
— The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to
the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing
public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries,
senior Pentagon and administration officials say.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet decided on the
proposal, which has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush
administration over whether the military should carry out secret
propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany, where many of the
Sept. 11 hijackers congregated, or Pakistan, still considered a haven
for Al Qaeda's militants.
Such a program, for example, could include efforts to discredit and
undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that have
become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism
across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. It might even include setting
up schools with secret American financing to teach a moderate Islamic
position laced with sympathetic depictions of how the religion is
practiced in America, officials said.
Many administration officials agree that the government's broad strategy
to counter terrorism must include vigorous and creative propaganda to
change the negative view of America held in many countries.
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."
As a military officer put 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."
It is not the first time that the debate over how the United States
should marshal its forces to win the hearts and minds of the world has
raised difficult and potentially embarrassing questions at the Pentagon.
A nonclandestine parallel effort at the State Department, which refers
to its role as public diplomacy, has not met with so much resistance.
In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of
Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news items,
and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public
sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply
frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for
molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global
campaign against terrorism and militancy.
Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the
military in carrying out what it calls information operations against
adversaries, especially before and during war, as well as routine public
relations work in friendly nations like Colombia, the Philippines or
Bosnia, whose governments have welcomed American troops.
In hostile countries like Iraq, such missions are permitted under policy
and typically would include broadcasting from airborne radio stations or
dropping leaflets like those the military has printed to undermine
morale among Iraqi soldiers. In future wars, they might include
technical attacks to disable computer networks, both military and
civilian.
But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at
allies has divided the Pentagon — with civilians and uniformed officers
on both sides of the debate.
Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists
to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside
contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in
support of American policies.
The current battlefield for these issues involves amendments to a
classified Department of Defense directive, titled "3600.1: Information
Operations," which would enshrine an overarching Pentagon policy for
years to come.
Current policy holds that aggressive information tactics are "to affect
adversary decision makers" — not those of friendly or even neutral
nations. But proposed revisions to the directive, as quoted by senior
officials, would not make adversaries the only targets for carrying out
military information operations — abbreviated as "I.O." in the document,
which is written in the dense jargon typical of military doctrine.
 
 "In peacetime, I.O. supports national objectives primarily by
influencing foreign perceptions and decision-making," the proposal
states. "In crises short of hostilities, I.O. can be used as a flexible
deterrent option to communicate national interest and demonstrate
resolve. In conflict, I.O. can be applied to achieve physical and
psychological results in support of military objectives."
Although the defense secretary is among those pushing to come up with a
bolder strategy for getting out the American message, he has not yet
decided whether the military should take on those responsibilities, the
officials said.
There is little dispute over such battlefield tactics as destroying an
enemy's radio and television stations. All is considered fair in that
kind of war.
But several senior military officers, some of whom have recently left
service, expressed dismay at the concept of assigning the military to
wage covert propaganda campaigns in friendly or neutral countries.
"Running ops against your allies doesn't work very well," Adm. Dennis C.
Blair, a retired commander of American forces in the Pacific, advised
Pentagon officials as they began re-examining the classified directive
over the summer. "I've seen it tried a few times, and it generally is
not very effective."
Those in favor of assigning the military an expanded role argue that no
other department is stepping up to the task of countering propaganda
from terrorists, who hold no taboo against deception.
They also contend that the Pentagon has the best technological tools for
the job, especially in the areas of satellite communications and
computer warfare, and that the American military has important interests
to protect in some countries, including those where ties with the
government are stronger than the affections of the population.
For example, as anti-American sentiment has risen this year in South
Korea, intensified recently by the deaths of two schoolgirls who were
crushed by an American armored vehicle, some Pentagon officials were
prompted to consider ways of influencing Korean public opinion outside
of traditional public affairs or community outreach programs, one
military official said. No detailed plan has yet emerged.
Those who oppose the military's taking on the job of managing
perceptions of America in allied states say it more naturally falls to
diplomats and civilians, or even uniformed public affairs specialists.
They say that secret operations, if deemed warranted by the president,
should be carried out by American intelligence agencies.
In addition, they say, the Pentagon's job of explaining itself through
public affairs officers could be tainted by any link to covert
information missions. "These allied nations would absolutely object to
having the American military attempt to secretly affect communications
to their populations," said one State Department official with a long
career in overseas public affairs.
Even so, this official conceded: "The State Department can't do it.
We're not arranged to do it, and we don't have the money. And U.S.I.A.
is broken." He was referring to the United States Information Agency,
which was absorbed into the State Department.
One effort to reshape the nation's ability to get its message out was a
proposal by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is
chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Hyde is
pushing for $255 million to bolster the State Department's public
diplomacy effort and reorganize international broadcasting activities.
"If we are to be successful in our broader foreign policy goals," Mr.
Hyde said in a statement, "America's effort to engage the peoples of the
world must assume a more prominent place in the planning and execution
of our foreign policy."
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
dunque, andiamo con ordine...
Durante un conflitto ritengo più che normale eliminare i mezzi della
propaganda nemica e diffondere la propria propaganda. Questo aiuta a
smuovere le popolazioni contro il loro governo. Certo è che se può
funzionare in una nazione come l'IRAQ, dove la popolazione è all'oscuro di
ciò che succede al di fuori del loro paese e può contare solo
sull'informazione trasmessa dalla tv di stato, tale pratica non potrebbe
avere effetti in altri stati nei quali la popolazione ha accesso alle tv via
satellite (e daltronde in questi stati sarebbe ben difficile far attecchire
un regime dittatoriale...)
La faccenda descritta nell'articolo, secondo la quale il pentagono sarebbe
intenzionato a condurre missioni per influenzare le nazioni amiche, può
avere senso solo fino ad un certo punto...
Prima si accusano gli USA di monitorare il mondo con echelon, adesso di
voler manovrare le nazioni amiche...sono la prima potenza al mondo
praticamente su tutti i campi, ok, ma Bush non è padreterno....
e poi, altra cosuccia insignificante che mi viene sempre da pensare in
questi casi...
come può il NYT venire a conoscenza delle decisioni segrete prese dal
Pentagono riguardo alle loro strategie propagandistiche? che sono tutti
idioti al pentagono che vanno a spifferare tutto al primo giornalista che
passa?
qualcuno potrà dire "c'hanno gli informatori"...magari un tizio che è stato
"degradato" e che per ritorsione getta fango sui superiori? naaaaa.....
comunque, se veramente gli USA vogliono influenzare l'opinione pubblica
degli stati amici, che vengano qui a far sparire "il sogno dell'angelo" da
LA7 e "L'eredità" da rai1.....
bye
Raffaele

 "degradato" e che per ritorsione getta fango sui superiori? naaaaa.....
Capisco che ti stupisci. In Italia in effetti ci sono rimasti pochi
giornalisti in grado di fare il loro vero mestiere (quando glielo fanno
fare senza essere buttati fuori dalla televisione). Gli altri campano
facendo domandine innocue e accomodanti oppure semplicemente porgono il
microfono al politico (vedi Pionati o Anna La Rosa...)
bye
S.
P.s.: per il noto "Comandante".. l'articolo e' del NYT ... sovversivi
d'oltreoceano!!!
 
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 microfono al politico (vedi Pionati o Anna La Rosa...)
mi sfugge la connessione tra il testo quotato e la tua risposta...
ad ogni modo in fatto di giornalisti non mi pronuncio, dato che raramente
leggo il nome dell'autore di un articolo...
bye
Raffaele

 mi sfugge la connessione tra il testo quotato e la tua risposta... 
che un giornalista deve fare il suo mestiere e quindi indagare, ficcare il
naso dappertutto etc e non fare il reggi microfono. Negli USA ancora c'e'
chi fa il suo mestiere bene senza guardare in faccia a nessuno. In Italia
sono rimasti davvero in pochi a comportarsi cosi'.
bye
S.


 sono rimasti davvero in pochi a comportarsi cosi'.
capito...
e cmq bisogna vedere quali sono sti giornalisti che fanno il loro
mestiere...
bye!
Raffaele