Domestic Psyops

http://www.jal.org/blog/archive/2004/07/domestic_psyops.html
David Neiwert as a thoughtful piece on the psychological operations that were run and are being run on the U.S. population by the military. Well worth a read.
We have in fact known from even before the outset that the war against Iraq would prominently feature psychological warfare. Most people have assumed that this warfare would be directed against the enemy and the subject citizens. They have not stopped to consider that, by definition, it would also be directed toward the American public as well.
This reality raises a serious concern about the fragility of democracy during wartime. Because under the aegis of a seemingly eternal war, the American government has clearly been involving the public in its psychological combat, and has hijacked the nation’s press in the process. The entire meaning of the Iraq war — and by extension, the “war on terrorism” — is inextricably bound up in the psychological manipulation of the voting public through a relentless barrage of propaganda.
This is why the both the runup to the war and its subsequent mishandling have been so replete with highly symbolic media events — many of them played repeatedly on nightly newscasts — that have proven so hollow at their core, from the declarations of imminent threat from Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, to phony images of Saddam’s statue being torn down, to flyboy antics aboard airline carriers, to meaningless “handovers” of power. It also explains why certain important and humanizing symbols of wartime — civilian casualties, the returning flag-draped coffins — have been so notably absent from our views of the war.
The role of the media in this manipulation cannot be understated. The abdication of the media’s role as an independent watchdog and its whole subsumation as a propaganda organ bodes ill for any democracy, because a well-informed public is vital to its functioning.
But the fact that the military establishment, in the context of the “war on terror,” clearly views the American public as the subject of a psychological combat operation should give us all pause regarding the ability of democracy to withstand this kind of assault.
That, during times of war, domestic psyops are waged has long been known. Wartime, by definition, is a time of the breakdown of the normal operation of society, and things happen that should never be tolerated during times of peace. I still find it troublesome that “the government’s interest” is considered to include psyops on the population that supposedly is being served by that same government.
To say that, in a democracy, those governing have a legitimate interest in propagandizing to the population it supposedly serves is at the least an implicit support of an elitist theory - that those who elect the government are not capable of rationally agreeing with it unless manipulated.
Without heading off into orthogonal rantland, in general I find it disturbing that more and more high level court cases are using language regarding “the legitimate interests of the state” and “the rights of the government”. But this really should be a separate rant.
Politics July 7, 2004 10:54 AM TrackBack Copyright ©2004-2005 jal

Bush on antidepressants?
Nice One!

It is Capitol Hill Blue, so it is probably completely false, but it is an amusing article nontheless:
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”
Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Politics 04:23 PM Comments (0) TrackBack

Responsibility
Via Craig Newmark, a nice exchange on the nature of responsibility.
July 19, 2004
HELEN THOMAS: Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility fortaking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have beendetermined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full,personal responsibility --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the rightthing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.
HELEN THOMAS: Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. Itturned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the Presidenttake full, personal responsibility for this war?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in apost-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confrontthe threat.
HELEN THOMAS: There was no threat.
SCOTT McCLELLAN: The President made the decision to confront the threat.
HELEN THOMAS: Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.
SCOTT McCLELLAN: The world -- the world, the Congress and theadministration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threatposed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed theequation. It taught us, as I said --
HELEN THOMAS: The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.
SCOTT McCLELLAN: As I said, it taught us that we must confront threatsbefore it's too late.
HELEN THOMAS: So the President doesn't take full responsibility?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: The President already talked about the responsibility forthe decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair.
HELEN THOMAS: Personal responsibility?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Terry, go ahead.
Just remember, McClellan's salary is payed by you and me.