The Ultimate Information Warfare Tactic

Sunday, December 04, 2005
OSM summarizes reports on the Ramadi "uprising". Bill Roggio says:


The reported “mini-Tet offensive” in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate. In fact, it has been anything but. The Associated Press reported a massive citywide insurgent attack, and Reuters and other news outlets quickly picked up on the story.

Captain Jeffery Pool, Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, disputed the claims in the harshest of terms, and rebuked the media for its mis characterization of events. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse.”


The underlying story appears to be this: someone distributed film of a few insurgents of some stripe walking down a road and firing a few mortar rounds, along with a story about how the insurgents had taken back the city of Ramadi. This story ran on the major networks. The problem is that when asked about it, the US military in Ramadi said, basically, "what attacks? We've got some operations of our own running, but that didn't happen." As Cori Dauber points out,
Tonight CBS's new glamour girl, Lara Logan, has a piece centered around (well, actually, exclusively composed of) their exclusive acquisition of combat footage from Ramadi, in Anbar province. The footage is from mid-November, and we're told it's from a date when Congressman Murtha was in Iraq (although whether he was in Ramadi, or ever aware of this particular engagement is left ambiguous.) What we aren't told orally (I don't think, I was writing pretty furiously at the time) but what is quickly flashed on the screen is that the source of the footage is Time magazine's Michael Ware.

....

But the other reason the story was of interest to me is that it seemed to me that the introduction to the piece (again, ambiguous) was a reference to the bold action taken by insurgents on the streets of Ramadi today. What makes this particularly ironic is that the story on CBS's web site regarding Ramadi is already updated to account for DOD claims (as reported on Fox, but not on their web site that I can see) that the footage available earlier in the day of insurgents brazenly walking about the city streets, and the reports that went with it that they had successfully attacked government buildings, appear now to have been a hoax.
(Emphasis mine.)

The usual rant here would be to talk about the apparent seditionist leanings of the legacy media — which I'll leave as an exercise for the interested reader — but instead I want to note something else.

This war has apparently gotten to the point that the insurgents don't need to actually do military operations at all in order to produce the information warfare effects they want. It's infinitely much less taxing if you can get coverage of your "massive assault" by producing some home movies that don't even show combat. Or at least, it's much less taxing if you can depend on someone deciding the footage is "too good to check."

I think truepeer's point is made, once again, by this story: there is an information war going on; for whatever reasons, it looks increasingly like the legacy media is on one side, and the people who hope for victory in Iraq and liberty for the Middle East are on the other.

16 comments:

terrye said...

And what is going to happen if the people Iraq decide they don't want to play this game? where will the media be then?

David Thomson said...

“...for whatever reasons, it looks increasingly like the legacy media is on one side..”

The MSM are indeed committed to the defeat of the coalition forces in Iraq. However, these professional journalists may not even be consciously aware of it! They instinctively despise our western values. Also, only a fool fails to realize that left-wing journalism is amply rewarded. Both the MSM and the national Democratic Party are, on a practical basis, enemies of Western Civilization. It really is that simple. Are they moral individuals? I am not God and care little about engaging in such a debate. It’s best to stick with the objective facts.

Rick Ballard said...

Terrye,

What's going to happen? I'm hoping that they start with a bounty for al-Jazeera and AP stringer scalps. They can work up from there.

Our media are killing ten times the number of Iraqis in comparison to American lives lost due to their propaganda. If I were an Iraqi I believe that I would feel it a ptriotic duty to polish off as many Baathist/al Queada supporters as possible.

Peter UK said...

If the Democrat's only strategy to win the election is to lose the war,what will they do to administer the peace?
There seems to be a major media offensive right now Hardly coincidental with the Murtha of all Retreats.

gumshoe1 said...

the saving grace
is the ~*WHY*~.

Iraqi elections coming up.

MORE,objective,
non-"Progressive"
PROGRESS.

how can they claim it for themselves.
'must claim it for ourselves!'

they can't!!!

:0o

clarice said...

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3811

Home movie as Tet?



How awful is the Iraqi war reporting? The always interesting YARGB blog does an analysis of the fake insurgency in Ramadi, concluding:

This war has apparently gotten to the point that the insurgents don’t need to actually do military operations at all in order to produce the information warfare effects they want. It’s infinitely much less taxing if you can get coverage of your “massive assault” by producing some home movies that don’t even show combat. Or at least, it’s much less taxing if you can depend on someone deciding the footage is “too good to check.”

I think truepeer’s point is made, once again, by this story: there is an information war going on; for whatever reasons, it looks increasingly like the legacy media is on one side, and the people who hope for victory in Iraq and liberty for the Middle East are on the other.

Clarice Feldman 12 04 05





» Go Back

truepeers said...

The legacy media have to protect their legacy. That means being the one who gets to speak while everyone else listens. It is tough to be the only one getting heard, unless you can convince yourself that you are holier than thou. That's why there is a natural tendancy to self=deception and delusion in the name of liberalism.

Syl said...

And then the MSM complains about OUR SIDE planting TRUE stories in Iraqi media!

There is definitely something wrong here.

gumshoe1 said...

"That means being the one who gets to speak while everyone else listens."

'Yesterday...all my troubles
seemed so far away...'

one-to-many = yesterday

many-to-many = today

the news anchors don't know how
to read a calendar.

Anonymous said...

The problem of the onesidedness of the legacy media is now fairly well known. The way to sidestep them and find more real and relevant information is known to those intrepid souls who FREQUENT the internet. What is the next step in this evolution of information?

I for one am generally able to follow the net sometimes for hours at a time. What about those who cannot?

Dorf

Doug said...

Great Post,
Talk about a house of cards.
More and more frequently, the entire newscycle is one lie built on top of others.

Wilson/Plame is scary in that it shows how long so many can go on believing ever more fervently in entire narratives based on easily checkable falsehoods.

Love syl's comment:

Point 1
Complain about telling positive stories even though they are true, when the fact is that is the ONLY WAY positive stories will ever see the light of day.

Point 2
"And then the MSM complains about OUR SIDE planting TRUE stories in Iraqi media!
There is definitely something wrong here.
"

Doug said...

Dorf,
This post is a pretty good example of the type of thing needed to draw in a casual reader.

Although one might not take the time to check out the entire on the ground story at Roggios, this post summarizes it, then adds the kicker of the ongoing and OBVIOUS MSM Deceit.

clarice said...

Yes, doug. All of the posts on this cite are great, but we have to recognize that most readers are swapped with information and you have to grab his/her attention.Then, when the reader has more time, he can read the longer stuff.

clarice said...

"Site", not cite ..SOrry,

Doug said...

clarice,
We come to swap information and share cites. ;-)

clarice said...

I think this is one of the most interesting and informative blogsites out there, Doug.