By Michael Tuck
purplesage23@yahoo.com

On April 20, the New York Times published a revelatory, and since then largely ignored, article detailing the Pentagon's systematic propaganda campaign to promote the Iraq war and manipulate public opinion through the use of retired military officers as "independent" network analysts and commentators

Shortly afterward, citizen journalists and researchers at the History Commons began aggregating any pieces they found that had a bearing on the subject. The result at this point, from hundreds of sources, is an in-depth look at the Pentagon campaign—much more than a single media outlet might provide. Our examination, which is still ongoing, can be found here.

The military analysts issue led to an additional Commons investigation into U.S. government use of propaganda. That investigation goes back (so far) to late 1990, when the government used false stories of Iraqi atrocities against Kuwaiti infants to inflame public opinion against Iraq in preparation for the first Gulf War. It includes material about the government's use of public relations firms such as Hill & Knowlton and The Rendon Group, the Pentagon's introduction of psyops officers into CNN and other broadcast media outlets, how government and military officials intimidated and cajoled media executives and journalists into presenting the government's messages, the influence of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress in the run-up to the Iraq war, the White House Iraq Group, the use of surrogate "journalists" by the government to influence and falsify media reports, and more.

The Pentagon Military Analysts Program: What We Know

The profile of the Pentagon propaganda operation is incomplete. It has been reported that a former Pentagon public relations official, Torie Clarke, originated both the military analysts program and the "embedded journalists" program, and envisioned them as "bookends" for the same overall propaganda operation. We know that many of the media's military analysts have ties to defense contractors, and that many of these contractors have financial interests in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have learned of connections between the propaganda campaign and White House political guru Karl Rove. We have been deeply disappointed (but not particularly surprised) to see the virtual shunning of the story by the broadcast media, and the backhanded attention paid it by the print and Internet media, but we continue to dig for information.

What is the History Commons?

The History Commons has tracked issues like this for years. The organization is an experiment in open-content civic journalism, where anyone can investigate political and social issues, and collaborate with others to produce in-depth coverage of issues and events. Contributors own their content; the Commons provides a searchable information base where disparate material can be brought together in a single repository. It has been cited by investigative journalists and authors such as Peter Lance, Anthony Summers, and Craig Unger as a resource for their own research. Unger, the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud" and "The Fall of the House of Bush," has written of the Commons: "For serious research, it's hard to think of a more valuable resource than the timelines assembled by the History Commons. The material they provide is a welcome antidote to the misinformation and disinformation that has been coming out of Washington in recent years and they are essential tools in assembling a counternarrative that more honestly addresses the crises we face." Currently the site is undergoing a redesign to make it more user-friendly.

The 9/11 Project

One of the largest areas of the Commons is its 9/11 project, perhaps one of the most comprehensive information resources about the events and issues surrounding that tragic event. The project manager, Paul Thompson, testified in a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 911 Commission's final report.

Other Investigations

The site also hosts in-depth examinations of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation, the nuclear network hosted by Pakistani black marketer A.Q. Khan, the erosion of American civil liberties, the torture and abuse of prisoners by the U.S., and many others. Recently created projects range from a Watergate timeline to an examination of the 2008 credit crisis and the documentation of the neoconservative influence on U.S. foreign policy. The projects are updated regularly, with new events and information constantly augmenting older material. A reader can browse a wealth of information on a topic, arranged chronologically and interlinked for easy perusal.

The military analysts story and others are still developing. Click here to see the History Commons, or to take part in it.

Michael Tuck is a project manager for the History Commons. E-mail: purplesage23@yahoo.com

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

The Pentagon Military Analysts Program Posted by Don Capps 07/11/2008, 12:22 PM As a retired military officer, my initial thought when this story hit was, "Well, Doh! This was obvious to even The Untrained Eye! Why the sudden surprise?" That continues to be my thinking, even as this story sinks like a stone in a very deep part of the ocean. I am also in the interesting position of fully admitting that: I found watching the military analysts to be, to be blunt, a waste of time since it was a no-brainer predicting what would be said; and, rarely bothering to watch the news on television any more, whether network or cable. A little goes a very long way, in my considered opinion. My tendency is towards print, whether in electrons or on paper, a quasi-Luddite viewpoint, given that I will often print an on-line story I find interesting. That the news organizations, network and cable, are offering defenses that rate right up there with, "The dog ate my homework!" concerning this is actually rather amusing. Some originality, "The cat barfed on my homework!" -- which actually happened to our son's homework, by the way -- such as admitting it seemed interesting that all the military analysts seemed to be of the same opinions and rarely critical of the Pentagon and involved with defense contractors of some sort, which should have been a tip off that tripped a few alarms and didn't means mea culpa.... Instead, this story continues to live only amongst a small cadre trying to get to the bottom of this, History Commons, Kurtz, and a few others. Otherwise, it is proof that the all-news-all-the-time-whether-it-is-news-or-not syndrome tends to relegate stories such as this one -- lacking any young, blond female miltary analysts missing under mysterious circumstances -- to the outer darkness never to be seen again. As several of the former military analysts who did not parrot the Pentagon line have mentioned, they seem to be lumped in with the propagandists, which is another of life's ironies. That many within the media will now mirror the military's overt dislike and distrust of it, or perhaps simply deepen those already existing feelings, a question that might be asked is: Okay, who will the media ask for analysis on military matters? Outside a small cadre within the media (usually on the print side) truly conversant with "national security" affairs, how will the media get "smarter" and know what is "analysis" and what is, well, "propaganda?" To not expect knuckledragging generals to provide knuckledragging analysis, well....

Re: analysts program Posted by Michael Tuck 07/12/2008, 01:07 AM Author here. Don, you're even more cynical than I am :) I'm glad you found the article interesting, and I share your exasperation that this was as big a surprise to some as it apparently was. I am not surprised, however, that the story "sank like a stone." The fact that the generals were (and still are, to an extent) all singing from the same hymnal on the news broadcasts night after night, week after week, is no coincidence. The broadcast news organizations put them on there because, like virtually everything else, the war was (and is) a product to be marketed. You might find Glenn Greenwald's columns on Salon.com interesting. He is, to my knowledge, the only serious media presence out there who is continuing to cover this in any depth. Like us, he doesn't do blondes and he doesn't do shark attacks. You ask, "Outside a small cadre within the media (usually on the print side) truly conversant with 'national security' affairs, how will the media get "smarter" and know what is "analysis" and what is, well, 'propaganda?' " I'm not sure that most of the media executives bother to make the distinction between analysis and propaganda. On a more general note, the Domestic Propaganda and Military Analysts investigation has more gaps than coverage in it. There are no entries on Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman, to name two extremely well-known examples of military/media propaganda collusion. And there are plenty of others, and plenty of other investigations needing coverage. We're working as diligently as we can to cover these and other stories that we have yet to explore (and I'm working on some coverage of both the Lynch and Tillman debacles), but we're outmanned by events--things happen faster than the handful of us at the Commons can keep up with. If any Nieman reader would like to join us in our efforts to document the events of our time and try to bring some focus and clarity to the disparate tangle of events and issues that surround us, we'd love to have you on board. http://www.historycommons.org/volunteer.jsp ... Or just drop me an e-mail.

Cynical Posted by Don Capps 07/16/2008, 04:22 PM "Don, you're even more cynical than I am" Ah, but it is cynicism developed and finely tuned over decades while wearing a uniform....

The Terror Timeline Posted by Marvin Regalbudo 07/17/2008, 06:31 PM A GOOGLE book search for THE TERROR TIMELINE shows a whole lot of books from many different disciplines--like Political Science and History--reference the book. This work was the 2004 printed version of the Complete 911 Timeline. History Commons is a succesful experiment in civic journalism.

The Terror Timeline Posted by Marvin Regalbudo 07/17/2008, 06:33 PM A GOOGLE book search for THE TERROR TIMELINE shows a whole lot of books from many different disciplines--like Political Science and History--reference the book. This work was the 2004 printed version of the Complete 911 Timeline. History Commons is a succesful experiment in civic journalism.

Re: Posted by Michael Tuck 07/20/2008, 01:51 AM Don, everyone in my family, including my dad, brother, and wife, served in the military. I'm virtually the only civilian in the bunch (so I say I outrank them all). I know what you mean about cynicism in uniform. Marvin, thanks for your kind words. Paul's is an excellent book, but of course there's been a ton of material added to the 9/11 project since that book was published. I have plans for my own book from the Commons, though it's still in gestation. Don't wish me luck; wish for me the time to get it written. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list