By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; 5:33 PM

The U.S. military in Iraq today acknowledged paying to place news articles in Iraqi publications, saying the practice was a necessary part of "information operations" to counter extensive "propaganda" by insurgents.

"The information battlespace in Iraq is contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the Coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people," said a statement issued by the U.S. military's Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad.

The statement did not make clear whether the U.S. military has paid Iraqi journalists to put certain information in their stories, as has been reported.

In Washington, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters after receiving a Pentagon briefing on the subject that he remains "gravely concerned about this situation." He expressed support for placing paid material -- equivalent to advertising -- in Iraqi newspapers to counter enemy "disinformation," but he said it would be wrong to plant stories by paying off Iraqi journalists to include certain information in their articles. He said he did not know whether that is happening, adding that "more facts are needed until that conclusion can be reached."

The U.S. military statement said that "information operations" were essential "for commanders to ensure the Iraqi population has current, truthful and reliable information."

It said, "As part of our operations, we have offered articles for publication to Iraqi newspapers, and in some cases articles have been accepted and published as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq. Third parties have been employed in an effort to mitigate the risk to publishers. The procedures for doing so undergo policy and legal review to ensure compliance with the law and regulations."

The statement said "serious allegations" suggest that "the process may be functioning in a manner different than is intended or appropriate." The allegations are being reviewed, and any improprieties will be investigated, the statement said.

"Information operations are powerful and essential to military success," the statement stressed. "As such, it requires commander involvement and discipline to ensure it is used properly."

Warner said he was concerned about "any actions that could undermine the credibility of our great nation and indeed the profession of journalism." But the military in Iraq faces "a serious problem . . . and that is disinformation," he said. "An enormous amount of information is being fed the Iraqi press, both written and television, that is just plain factually wrong."

As part of its efforts to counter this disinformation, Warner said, the military has contracted with the Lincoln Group, a private firm that deals with Iraqi publications.

He said the Pentagon briefers "told me that all material passed to the Iraqi media through the Lincoln Group is represented as originating with coalition forces." He said the Lincoln Group "is authorized to provide payment for placement of this material in Iraqi newspapers," similar to the way that "any advertiser, marketer or public relations firm would place advertisements."

Warner said he was told that part of the program was classified, but he declined to speculate on whether that part had to do with payments to Iraqi reporters.

"I'm not here to confirm that the payoffs were right or wrong or took place," Warner said. "We simply don't have all the facts."

He said in response to a subsequent question that he agreed it would be wrong if the military was "putting money into somebody's pocket to write a story."

Funny I heard Scott McClellan distinctly NOT admitting this.

And revealing this information helps our cause how...?

I think it goes to show inherent flaws in the plan to force democracy on a nation.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Propaganda has always been a tool fo war. Our media slants war coverage for free.

So we should just find them another dictator? Or just invite Khamenei to take over?

Just another f'ed up aspect of a completely f'ed up overall situation

That doesn't seem like a good idea.

Precisely, but you don't seem so hot on this forcing democracy business, so I ask what sort of government do you fancy for Iraq?

What's so fucked up about it? It's called psy-ops. And it's needed.

It's funny we should mention that our media is slanting the war in favor of the US. I'd like to know how that is. I'd be willing to bet that the newscoverage by all the major networks and cable affiliates has a ratio of negative to positive stories at around the 10:1 ration. When was the last time you can recall a positive newstory coming out of Iraq? The media's negative slant against America in the War on Terror is perfectly evident by the fact that it has completely ignored the mission going on here in Djibouti all together. Let there be one attack here though, and the world will know this base exists. It'll know an attack occured, but it won't know jack shit about all the good stuff that has come out of here.

The same goes for Iraq. It's just negative, negative, negative. And the nay-sayers get far more presstime that the supporters do. It's ridiculous.

In my opinion, that is one reason why opinion for the war has dropped. The only thing that people in America think that goes on in Iraq is a string of uncontrolled suicide attacks. They know nothing else of it.

The most important thing to do in Iraq, for the Iraqi's, is counter what the insurgency propaganda is reporting. To tell the Iraqi's all the good things that we've done, and the accomplishments that have been made. The most important thing to do is keep the people supporting what we're doing. For if we lose their hearts and minds, then we will never achieve victory, Iraq will turn into a state of despair, and it will have a tragic ripple effect against the United States far greater than the failures of this war. If that means paying newspapers to publish some articles, then so be it.

I think the most important thing to realize, is that all of these stories that are being paid for are true. That is the important part. If these were false reports, then I'd be alarmed and you'd all have a cause for concern.

One part of having a free press is the ability for people of whatever belief to buy advertising space. In this incidence it happens to be the US administration. No big deal.

Probably due to all of the stories the Insurgents have paid to have reported by our media.


So we know what's better for the Iraqis than they do? Is that what we're saying here?


Well, it looks like I have some cause for concern.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

Except that it was presented as an article by the newspaper and not paid advertising.

Personally, I'm for whatever the majority of the Iraqi people are for, because we should have no say in that.

I agree with littlewing that Psy-Ops are necessary, but I don't think we should kid ourselves about giving Iraq democracy. Democracy, as I understand it, is taken. You don't give democracy in war; you have to use these tactics that we are using! Secret European prisons, propaganda, bombs and blackouts and shit--we're at war, and there is nothing free about that. I would have preferred that we not go to war, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do about that now from my apartment in beautiful Federal Heights. We should just come out and say, "we're gonna make you motherfuckers act the way we want you to--only then may you have your freedom." That would at least be somewhat truthful. We can't say they are free while we set up propaganda offices in the pentagon and hold people without trial. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're terrorists, or whatever. We have no standard by which we measure any kind of freedom anymore, and I think we are lying to ourselves when we say that we have given Iraq democracy.

LittleWing, I agree that Iraq news is negative, but what people who aren't in the military care about is how quickly the government can stop spending their tax dollars. Regardless of all this new "timeline" and "artificial deadline" bullshit, we were told it would be a quick victory on the cheap in '03. As you know, I'm sure, the media panders to the lowest common denominator, and the US population right now is starting to take notice that the war and hurricane Katrina are going to cost each household about $12,000 over the next 20years (according to The Atlantic). I understand it's your job, but a vast majority of Americans see the war through eyes unlike your own. And I hope you guys in Djibouti don't get attacked.

Well Tom, that's the danger of the media running the government, and having politicians run the war. Many conservatives have said from the start that the only way to keep this from turning into Vietnam, was to keep the war in the generals hands and out of Washington. Thankfully, we have a president right now that will do that. The press negative for two reasons. The have an agenda, and "a whole bunch of people near the Green Zone were mercilessly slaughtered at a market" sells a lot better than, "And in other news today, Navy Seabees finished building a school that will service 500 Iraqi children."

My question is. I want to know when anybody said this would be cheap and quick. Particularly the president. When the original war plans came out, my unit was on the docket to go. We were going into Turkey, and forming the northern front and coming south into Baghdad. The Turkey thing never materialized. But even back then, in September when all the warning orders for the Marine Corp Reserve came down, the plan was to break up Operation Iraqi Freedom into at least FIVE segments. Each segment lasting five years, with projected troop numbers in Iraq exceeding 100,000 for the first two years of the operation. The outward end of the plan was eight years of presence. The entire idea of this being, "Servicemembers, buckle up. You're gonna do more than one tour." Some newer Marines with six year enlistments may see five tours in theatre or another.

I don't recall anybody EVER saying it was gonna be quick and cheap.

Just a note. There's an article in the Marine Corp times...The Marine Corp has spent 12.5 billion dollars on this war in just gear and equipment...staggering.

And if the cost is 12G's a year for the war and Katrina. What's the cost per household on social welfare?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm

Quick campaign


Mr Rumsfeld is in Europe to try to gain backing for possible military action against Iraq.

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcr ... udden.html

"Cheap" campaign

The Bush administration has been decidedly vague about how much a war with Iraq might cost. When pressed, officials have said less than $50 billion. Last year, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey caused a stir when he put the price tag at between 100 and 200 billion at best. The administration dismissed the figure, and Lindsey was soon fired.

Democracy, as I understand it, is taken. You don't give democracy in war


That short statement encapsulates so much. Great post Tom.

I dunno, he talked about the Marshall plan earlier, and we did kind of 'give' representative government to Japan, which didn't have much of a history of such. We told em they couldn't have the emperor as a political leader anymore, and that was that.

i am skeptical that this "current, truthful, and reliable" information is anything and everything but current, truthful, or reliable.

but this story reminds me of the M*A*S*H episode where hawkeye tries to diffuse a bomb that turns out to be a propaganda bomb...hehe.