US Military Fights Extremists…Online, Foreign and Domestic
A recent article at the New York Times highlighted an effort by the US military to engage in an information campaign with those who might be, or might be recruiting, “militant adversaries in cyberspace.”
The “war” they’re fighting?
In recent months, Mr. [Ardashir] Safavi and his teammates spotted posts that included doctored photographs of Osama bin Laden purporting to prove that Al Qaeda’s leader had not died in an American commando raid. They turned up blogs stating that the Pentagon was accelerating war plans for invading many Muslim nations, and others amplifying Taliban accusations that American troops rape with impunity across Afghanistan.
These targeted sites mentioned in the article appear to be primarily foreign language and are apparently foreign run:
The team includes 20 native speakers of Arabic, Dari, Persian, Pashto, Urdu and Russian, the latter a shared language across the Muslim countries of the former Soviet states of Central Asia…
All of the online postings carry an official stamp acknowledging sponsorship by [US] Central Command.
The article notably leaves out the fact such “propaganda” also occurs on American or English-language websites.
For example, Michael Weinstein has routinely said the permissible conduct of members of the US military emboldens America’s adversaries and even “advance[s] [their] cause.” His research assistant, Chris Rodda, published a list of accusations against the US military that “convince[s] the Muslims we’re on a crusade.”
Believe it or not, the US military occasionally engages in those domestic “information campaigns” as well. It is not unusual to see a Public Affairs officer weigh in, with name and duty title, on a blog or news article comment in an effort to correct misinformation. More specifically, the Air Force encourages its members to engage in information efforts to present an accurate image of the US Air Force. From its publication New Media and the Air Force:
All Airmen are encouraged to use new and social media to communicate about topics within their areas of expertise, or their interests…
When you see misrepresentations made about the Air Force in social media, you may certainly use your blog, their’s, or someone else’s to point out the error…
In general, the Air force views personal Web sites and blogs positively, and it respects the rights of Airmen to use them as a medium of self-expression.
Internet misrepresentations about the US military are common, whether from ignorance or an activist agenda. Correcting those errors can positively influence and protect the military mission.
It might be as simple as helping a future recruit understand what his expectations really should be, say, about how his religious beliefs will be treated in the military — when some paint the (inaccurate) picture of religious persecution in the US military.
It might be as complex as providing a balancing (and correcting) view for those who write vitriolic (and incorrect) diatribes accusing the US military of being on a “crusade” against Islam.
Efforts to undermine the military’s mission, as well as the freedoms of those in it, with “lies, misinformation or just misperceptions,” aren’t occurring just outside America’s borders.
The engagement team at CENTCOM isn’t the only one that sometimes has to “deflect baseless and often irrational insults, confront adversaries with factual evidence and expose extremist propaganda that might otherwise go unrefuted.”
Gee, JD, why would the editors of a book published by Air University Press at Maxwell Air Force Base have asked me to write a version of that list of ways in which the military has made our wars in Muslim countries look like a crusade if they didn’t think this was an important issue? That’s right, JD, an Air Force officer editing the book “Attitudes Aren’t Free,” which was to be distributed throughout the military, saw my article on the Huffington Post, and contacted me asking me to write a chapter for the book, and specifically requested that I include that list as part of the chapter.
And someone else thought it was an important issue too — General Schwarzkopf. You still haven’t answered my question about whether or not you think General Schwarzkopf was wrong when he instituted his policies about public displays of religion in the first Gulf War. I’ve asked you numerous times to give a straight answer about this, but you keep evading the question. So, I’m asking it again.
I want to see you say flat out, right here, that you think that General Schwarzkopf’s decision not to “wave a red flag in the face of religious extremists,” as he put it, was wrong. Do you think that General Schwarzkopf’s policy regarding religious services, which was “we won’t advertise them, publicize them, or let them be filmed — we don’t want them broadcast on TV for the whole Moslem world to see,” was wrong? Do you think his request to the chaplains in Saudi Arabia not not wear their crosses on their uniforms was wrong?
This is a simple yes or no question, JD. Why don’t you have the guts to answer it? Do you think that General Schwarzkopf was wrong? Yes or no.
@Chris Rodda
If you want to use that publication as a validation of your work, you’ll need to admit equal validation on the part of Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was likewise published there.
But since you brought it up, you’re referring to then-LtCol Jim Parco, who had previously received an “award” from Michael Weinstein for his MRFF advocacy while he was an instructor at USAFA, and who continues to advocate for MRFF and criticize USAFA to this day.
You ask a good question: Why would an associate of MRFF ask an MRFF employee to contribute content to such a publication, and do so without disclosing that relationship?
Nice job of highlighting that for everybody.
JD, the book was objective, presenting essays from people on both sides of the issue. So, it had a chapter written by Klingenschmitt to show both sides of the praying in Jesus’ name issue. Jim Parco was able to appropriately separate his personal opinions from his duty to remain objective in editing this book and allow both sides to be heard. The selections for the book’s content were based on issues that should be discussed, not on whether or not the editors agreed with one side or the other. The point is that the editors of this book felt that the impression given to the people of Muslim countries by the American military was an important issue to discuss and should be included in the book.
Now, back to my question, which you are once again evading. Do you think that General Schwarzkopf was wrong to implement his policies regarding religious displays in Muslim countries? YES or NO?