Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuiding Obama into Global Make-Believe
Guiding Obama into Global Make-Believe
Exclusive: The Orwellian concept of information warfare holds that propaganda can break down enemies and decide geopolitical outcomes, a strategy that has taken hold of the U.S. governments approach to international crises, especially the Ukraine showdown, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
ConsortiumNews, March 14, 2015
CIA Director John Brennan told TV host Charlie Rose on Friday that, on assuming office, President Barack Obama did not have a good deal of experience in intelligence-related matters, adding with remarkable condescension that now he has gone to school and understands the complexities.
If thats the case, I would strongly suggest that Obama switch schools. Judging from his foreign policy teams inept and increasingly dangerous actions regarding Ukraine and the endless stream of dubious State Department and senior military cry-wolf accusations of a Russian invasion, Obama might be forgiven for being confused by the complexities.
He should not be forgiven, though, if he remains too timid to bench his current foreign policy team and find more substantively qualified, trustworthy advisers without axes to grind. He is, after all, President. Has he no managerial skill no guts?
This U.S. pattern of exaggeration making scary claims about Ukraine without releasing supporting evidence has even begun to erode the unity of the NATO alliance where Germany, in particular, is openly criticizing the Obama administrations heavy-handed use of propaganda in its information warfare against Russia.
The German magazine Der Spiegel has just published a highly unusual article critical of the NATO military commander, Air Force General Philip Breedlove, entitled Breedloves Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine.
It is becoming clearer day by day that the Germans are losing patience with unsupported and alarmist U.S. statements on Ukraine, particularly in the current delicate period when a fledgling ceasefire in eastern Ukraine seems to be holding tenuously.
The Spiegel story was sourced to German officials who say Breedlove and his breed are making stuff up, adding that the BND (the CIA equivalent in Germany) did not share Breedloves extreme assessment of Russian actions. Spiegel continued:
For months now, many in the Chancellery simply shake their heads each time NATO, under Breedloves leadership, goes public with striking announcements about Russian troop or tank movements. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO and by extension, the entire West in danger of losing its credibility.
Scaring the Europeans
The Obama administrations erratic and bellicose approach to Ukraine caused German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande to take matters into their own hands in February to press for a ceasefire and an agreement on how to resolve the crisis politically, rather than following the U.S. strategy of having the regime in Kiev escalate its anti-terrorist operation against ethnic Russian rebels in the east who are supported by Moscow.
Fearing the conflict was spinning out of control with the prospects of a showdown between nuclear-armed Russia and the United States on Russias border Merkel traveled to the White House on Feb. 9 seeking assurances from President Obama that he would not fall in line behind his tough-talking aides and members of Congress who want advanced weaponry for Ukraine.
Though Obama reportedly assured Merkel that he would resist the pressure, he continues to keep slip-sliding into line behind the war hawks and letting his subordinates feed the propaganda fires that could lead to a more dangerous war, especially Gen. Breedlove and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 4, 2015, Nuland presented her usual black-and-white depiction of the Ukrainian civil war, claiming Russia had manufactured a conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy equipment. She added that Crimea and eastern Ukraine live under a Reign of Terror.
Of course, the core problem with how Nuland and pretty much the entire U.S. establishment present the Ukraine crisis is that they ignore how it got started. Nuland, Sen. John McCain and other U.S. officials egged on western Ukrainians to destabilize and overthrow the elected President Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was in the south and east, including Crimea.
The coup opened historic fissures in this deeply divided country where hatreds between the more European-oriented west and the ethnic Russian east go back many generations, including the unspeakable slaughter during World War II when some western Ukrainians joined with the Nazis to fight the Red Army and exterminate Jews and other minorities.
Despite the U.S. claims over the past year about unprovoked Russian aggression, Russian President Vladimir Putin was not the instigator of the conflict, but rather he was reacting to a violent regime change on his border and to Russian fears that NATO would seize the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea.
But Nuland and other neocon hardliners have never been interested in a nuanced presentation of reality. Instead, they have treated Ukraine as if it were a testing ground for the latest techniques in psychological or information warfare, although the propaganda is mostly aimed at the U.S. and European publics, getting them ready for more war.
Mocking Merkel
As for Merkel and her peace efforts, Nuland was overheard during a behind-closed-doors meeting of U.S. officials at a security conference in Munich last month disparaging the German chancellors initiative, calling it Merkels Moscow thing, according to Bild, a German newspaper, citing unnamed sources.
Another U.S. official went even further, the report said, calling it the Europeans Moscow bullshit.
The tough talk behind the soundproof doors at a conference room in the luxurious Bayerischer Hof hotel seemed to get the American officials, both diplomats and members of Congress, worked into a lather, according to the Bild account.
Nuland suggested that Merkel and Hollande cared only about the practical impact of the Ukrainian war on bread-and-butter issues of Europe: Theyre afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia.
Another U.S. politician was heard adding: Its painful to see that our NATO partners are getting cold feet with particular vitriol directed toward German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen as defeatist because she supposedly no longer believed in a Kiev victory.
Sen. McCain talked himself into a rage, declaring History shows us that dictators always take more, whenever you let them. They cant be brought back from their brutal behavior when you fly to Moscow to them, just like someone once flew to this city, Munich, a reference to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains appeasement of Adolf Hitler.
According to the Bild story, Nuland laid out a strategy of countering Merkels diplomacy by using strident language to frame the Ukraine crisis in a way that stops the Europeans from backing down. We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them, Nuland reportedly said.
NATO Commander Breedlove was quoted as saying the idea of funneling more weapons to the Kiev government was to raise the battlefield cost for Putin, to slow down the whole problem, so sanctions and other measures can take hold.
Nuland interjected to the U.S. politicians present that Id strongly urge you to use the phrase defensive systems that we would deliver to oppose Putins offensive systems. But Breedlove left little doubt that these defensive weapons would help the Ukrainian government pursue its military objectives by enabling more effective concentration of fire.
Russian artillery is by far what kills most Ukrainian soldiers, so a system is needed that can localize the source of fire and repress it, Breedlove reportedly said. I wont talk about any anti-tank rockets, but we are seeing massive supply convoys from Russia into Ukraine. The Ukrainians need the capability to shut off this transport. And then I would add some small tactical drones.
Nulands Rhetoric
Before the Ukraine coup in February 2014, Nuland was overheard in a phone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should become the countrys new leaders Yats is the guy, she said about Arseniy Yatsenyuk who became the post-coup prime minister while also criticizing the less aggressive European approach with the pithy phrase, Fuck the EU.
Nulands tough-gal rhetoric continues, including her bellicose testimony before Congress this month, along with the alarmist (and unproven) reports from Gen. Breedlove, who claimed that well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery having been sent to the Donbass in eastern Ukraine.
The Nuland-Breedlove allies in Kiev are doing their part, too. Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko recently claimed that around 50 tanks, 40 missile systems and 40 armored vehicles entered east Ukraines breakaway Luhansk region from Russia via the Izvaryne border crossing.
This rhetoric strategy follows the tried-and-true intelligence gambit known as the Mighty Wurlitzer, in which false and misleading information is blasted out by so many different sources like the pipes of an organ that the lies become believable just because of their repetition.
The Ukraine story has followed this pattern with dubious claims being made and repeated by U.S. and Ukrainian officials and then amplified by a credulous Western news media, persuading people who otherwise might know better even when supporting evidence is lacking.
Similarly, Official Washingtons chorus of loud demands for ignoring Merkel and sending sophisticated weapons to Ukraine continues to build with the latest member of the choir, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
On March 4, Clapper broke the important ethos of professional intelligence officers scrupulously avoiding policy advocacy when he told an audience in New York that the U.S. should arm the Ukrainians to bolster their resolve and bolster their morale that, you know, we are with them.
Clapper offered this endorsement as his personal opinion, but who cares about James Clappers personal opinion? He is Director of National Intelligence, for Gods sake, and his advocacy immediately raises questions about whether Clappers personal opinion will put pressure on his subordinates to shape intelligence analysis to please the boss.
We saw a possible effect of this recently when journalist Robert Parry contacted the DNIs office to get an updated briefing on what U.S. intelligence has concluded about who was at fault for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
Blaming the Russians
In prepared testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary Nuland had insinuated that the Russians and the ethnic Russian rebels were to blame. She said, In eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage; MH-17 was shot down.
This may have been another example of Nuland using rhetoric to shape the debate, but it prompted Parry to ask the DNIs office about what evidence there was to support Nulands finger-pointing in this tragic incident that killed 298 people.
Kathleen Butler, a DNI spokesperson, insisted that the U.S. intelligence assessment on MH-17 had not changed since July 22, 2014, five days after the shoot-down when the DNIs office distributed a sketchy report suggesting Russian complicity based largely on what was available on social media.
Parry then sent a follow-up e-mail saying: are you telling me that U.S. intelligence has not refined its assessment of what happened to MH-17 since July 22, 2014? Butler responded: Yes. The assessment is the same. To which, Parry replied: Thats just not credible. [See Consortiumnews.coms US Intel Stands Pat on MH-17 Shoot-down.]
But the DNIs response does make sense if later U.S. intelligence analysis contradicted the initial rush to judgment by Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials blaming Russia and the rebels. The Obama administration might not want to surrender a useful propaganda club to bash Moscow, or as Nuland might say, an important piece of anti-Russian rhetoric.
As for Brennan and his appearance before the stuffy Council on Foreign Relations fielding questions posed by Charlie Rose as the presider, the CIA director seemed more concerned about the flak his agency has been getting for having a cloudy crystal ball and not anticipating how the Ukraine crisis would unfold, saying:
Now I know that many would like the CIA to predict the future answering questions such as will Crimea secede and be annexed by Russia and will Russian forces move into Eastern Ukraine. But the plain and simple truth is that virtually all events around the globe, future events including in Ukraine are shaped by numerous variables and yet-to-happen developments as well as leadership considerations and decisions.
But the prospect of CIA analysts seeing events clearly both understanding what may have caused an event in the past and perceiving the complex forces that may shape the future are diminished when the U.S. intelligence community becomes politicized and exploited for propaganda purposes, when it gets enlisted into information warfare.
Obama could surely use some experienced, mature help in putting an end to this potpourri of you-pick-your-favorite-statement about Russian aggression. The disarray and deceit on such an important issue does nothing to bolster confidence that he has been tutored well, that he understands the value of sober intelligence work, or that he is in control of U.S. foreign policy.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He worked primarily on Russian and European issues during his 27 years as a CIA analyst; he also prepared the Presidents Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is now a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
SOURCE w/links, details: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/14/guiding-obama-into-global-make-believe/
NOTE: ConsortiumNews allows DUers to reprint articles in full.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 690 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Guiding Obama into Global Make-Believe (Original Post)
Octafish
Mar 2015
OP
Octafish
(55,745 posts)1. From 2002: The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency
The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency
How the hawks plan to find a Saddam/al-Qaida connection.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002, at 2:42 PM PT
You've got to hand it to Donald Rumsfeld and his E-Ring crew at the Pentagon. They know all the stratagems of bureaucratic politics, and they play the game well. In their latest maneuver, reported on the front page of last Thursday's New York Times, the secretary of defense has formed his own "four- to five-man intelligence team" to sift through raw data coming out of Iraq in search of evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida terrorists.
SNIP...
In 1969, President Richard Nixon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to build an anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) system to intercept incoming Soviet warheads. They had several motives, but one of themand the easiest to sell publiclywas to protect our ICBMs from being destroyed in a Soviet first-strike. The problem was, the Soviets had no first-strike capability. A new version of the Soviet SS-9 missile, then in development, could carry three warheads apiece. If each of those warheads could be fired at a separate targetif they were MIRVs (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle)a case could be made that they posed a first-strike threat. But the CIA concluded that the warheads were just MRVs (not independently targetable); each missile could lay down only a cluster of explosions over a single area. So, National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird arm-twisted the CIA to change its analysis and describe the SS-9s as MIRVs. The pressure worked. The sales pitch for the ABM could proceed. (It turned out the SS-9s were MRVs. The Soviets would not deploy MIRVs until 1976, six years after we did.)
Vested interests can be ideological as well as institutional. In the mid-1970s, a group of well-known hawks, mainly former policy-makers and retired officers, started clamoring that the Soviets were acquiring a first-strike capability and that the CIA was gravely underestimating their prowess and might. President Gerald Ford, under growing pressure from the right, succumbed to what seemed a modest demandto let a team of their analysts examine the same data that the CIA had been examining and come up with alternative findings. It was sold as an "exercise" in intelligence analysis, an interesting competitionTeam A (the CIA) versus Team B (the critics). Yet once allowed an institutional footing, the Team B players presented their conclusionsand leaked them to friendly reportersas the truth, which the pro-detente administration was trying to hide.
The Team B report read like one long air-raid siren: The Soviets were spending practically all their GNP on the military; they were perfecting charged-particle beams that could knock our warheads out of the sky; their express policy and practical goal was to fight and win a nuclear war. (One Team B member, former Air Force Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. George Keegan, had briefed officials on the thousands of hidden Soviet missiles back in the '50s.)
Almost everything in the Team B report turned out to be false. Yet it provided the rallying cry for a movement against detente and arms-control accords. Its spokesmen became outspoken figures of opposition during the Jimmy Carter years (most notably, Paul Nitze and his Committee on the Present Danger) and senior officials in the Ronald Reagan administration and beyond.
Paul Wolfowitz was one of the 10 senior staff members on Team B. Another member of Rumsfeld's intelligence team, Douglas J. Feith, was counsel to Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, a longtime impresario of anti-detente forces. (Perle is still influential as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board.)
CONTINUED...
https://web.archive.org/web/20021129211149/http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238
Lot of reading, yes, but if you care about democracy, it's worth knowing.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)2. Victoria Nuland serves to bridge that Then to this Now.
From ISP's RightWeb:
Our woman in Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan
Robert Kagan's brother is Frederick Kagan
Frederick Kagan's spouse is Kimberly Kagan
Brilliant people, big ideas, etc. The thing is, that's a lot of PNAC. And the PNAC approach to international relations means more wars without end for profits without cease, among other things detrimental to democracy, peace and justice.