John McCain brainwashed into giving more money to troops.

[Suu]

The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223?page=1

[Requia ☣]

So?

PsyOps isn't any different from a marketing department, if you want to throw in with cram and say that advertising exerts some heinous mind control force great (I can kinda see it myself), but the military doesn't have special psychic powers or anything like that to influence people with.

[Cain]

The thing about Psy-Ops is, while it was originally intended to be deployed against enemy populations, the temptations to use it within a context one implicitly understands, because one comes from a particular culture or nation and so understands its customs and intricacies better than any outside ever could, eventually becomes too overwhelming to resist.

By current estimates, most of Western Europe and North America reached that stage somewhere in the mid 1930s.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

So?

PsyOps isn't any different from a marketing department, if you want to throw in with cram and say that advertising exerts some heinous mind control force great (I can kinda see it myself), but the military doesn't have special psychic powers or anything like that to influence people with.

Thats what they want you to think.

[*GrumpButt*]

I loved that movie.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

I loved that movie.

The book was better, it was closer to reality.

[*GrumpButt*]

99% of the time the book is better. That being said, I am off to order a copy.

[Cain]

It is amazing how "troubling" blatant media manipulation becomes when no campaign contributions are involved in the process.

[Cain]

Bernard Finel, an associate professor at the National War College, gives his view:

None of this is news. I've been arguing for, literally, years that the U.S. military has been systematically targeting and manipulating U.S. public opinion — at the very least inappropriately, but potentially illegally — for years.

This is part of a bigger program, that also involves promoting the careers of friendly analysts and boosting them into positions of influence. It also involves the use of retired general officers repeating talking points for the media. It involves the cultivation of reporters through access.  It is systematic, and it has been going on for years, and virtually every important commentator and reporter on Afghanistan is fundamentally compromised.

There is a broad consensus on the legitimacy of all of this, usually covered by the bland euphemism that all this is "getting the message out." But the roots of it rest in modern counter-insurgency doctrine, which holds that battlefield victory is possible if you follow a population-centric "clear, hold, build" model of state building, but which sees the real threat to this policy as the collapse of public support at home. In this sense, the key battle is seen as one where the insurgents seeks to affect U.S. public opinion and the military's mission becomes one of defending against attacks on that "center of gravity."

This is wrongheaded on many, many scores. First, population-centric COIN rarely works, and certainly it cannot work with an illegitimate and corrupt host government. And furthermore, we lack solid techniques of state building to address those weaknesses.  Second, and more importantly for this issue, public support is almost always sufficient to sustain a successful strategy, but will ultimately turn against failed strategies. Yes, in the case of Vietnam, public support ultimately collapsed. But as is perfectly clear from documents released since, the collapse of public confidence in the war lagged by years the collapse of confidence by officials in the government. This is usually the case in failed COIN campaigns.

And believe me, this is the case today as well. The level of frustration and discouragement among senior military leaders today with progress in Afghanistan is high. Is it universal? No, of course not. There are some true believers. But what you hear from insiders in private is almost universally more pessimistic than what they say in public. It is almost as if they feel that the American public can't be trusted with the truth. They know the war is going badly, but seem wedded to the notion that American public opinion should not be allowed to affect military operations.  Sorry, but in a democracy that is not how it works. And this broad consensus that public opinion should be manipulated even when military leaders themselves are skeptical of the strategy in Afghanistan is yet another sign of the deep sickness of civil-military relations in the United States today.

There is another element here that is really troubling. All this manipulation of U.S. public opinion is almost certainly, at least in part, illegal. Here is an important quote:

Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators | Rolling Stone Politics

Under duress, Holmes and his team provided Caldwell with background assessments on the visiting senators, and helped prep the general for his high-profile encounters. But according to members of his unit, Holmes did his best to resist the orders. Holmes believed that using his team to target American civilians violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was passed by Congress to prevent the State Department from using Soviet-style propaganda techniques on U.S. citizens. But when Holmes brought his concerns to Col. Gregory Breazile, the spokesperson for the Afghan training mission run by Caldwell, the discussion ended in a screaming match. "It's not illegal if I say it isn't!" Holmes recalls Breazile shouting.

This is an important reflection of the corrosive effect of Bush-era policies. Is torture illegal? Not if the president says it isn't. Is spying on the American public in direct contravention of existing law illegal? Not if the president says it isn't. This view of law as a mere inconvenience to be avoided or ignored when the chain of command so orders it becomes rapidly a general attitude. It is impossible to overstate the dangers of this attitude once it becomes entrenched in any organization, but particularly the military.

The worst part, of course, is that we can't just blame this on Bush. This is now a bipartisan consensus. If the President does it, it isn't illegal. "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense. The use of the military to manipulate domestic public opinion is not inappropriate. Indefinite detention without a trial is legitimate.  The president can unilaterally order the murder of American citizens deemed enemy combatants without trial or review. And no official can be held accountable.

I would agree, and perhaps go even further.  As far back as the late 90s, Chalmers Johnson was arguing that the Pentagon was essentially trying to place itself above the law, both within and outside of the USA.  Outside of the US, SOFA (Status of Force Agreement) Treaties were used to make US soldiers immune to local prosecution and even in the case of highly serious crimes (rape, murder) the Pentagon would just fly the accused soldier out rather than let them face trial.  And within the US, lobbyists for the Pentagon would push to immunize the Pentagon from various laws which, if it went through the process of application, probably would be waived for it on the grounds of national security anyway (such as being exempt from certain environmental regulations).

The Pentagon and CIA are essentially lawless organizations.  And who do they serve?  Who do they take commands from again?  Yup.  if the President's private hit squads are above the law, doesn't that essentially make the President above the law too?

[Jenne]

...you're 169% right, Cain...and what's scary is that there are those of us who THOUGHT, WRONGLY, as it happens, that the Obama people "got it" and were totally against this sort of business.  Turns out, no, they are just as greedy for this sort of power and THEN some.  As soon as I saw the anti-transparency policies going down the first few months Obama was in the White House, that's when I knew that this was ALL a sham--the shit Obama ran on was slicker than snot on a doorknob and mere stumping for votes.

It really had little to do with so-called ideals and "doing things the RIGHT way" or at least "as advertised."