PART III
The Disinformation Campaign
CHAPTER XI
War Propaganda: Fabricating an
Outside Enemy
The US intelligence apparatus has
created its own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it
creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist
organizations which it has itself created. In turn, it has developed
a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program “to go
after” these terrorist organizations.
Counterterrorism and war propaganda are
intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the
news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be “genuine”. The
objective is to present the terror groups as “enemies of America”.
One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to fabricate an
enemy. As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy of
the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of
this illusive “outside enemy” must be dispelled.
Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but to kill the
evidence on how this “outside enemy”, namely Osama bin Laden’s Al
Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”. The
entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of an
“outside enemy”, which is threatening the Homeland.
The “Office of Disinformation”
Waged from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a fear
and disinformation campaign was launched. The blatant distortion of
the truth and the systematic manipulation of all sources of
information is an integral part of war planning.
In the wake of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created
the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or “Office of
Disinformation” as it was labeled by its critics:
The Department of Defense said they
needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories
that were false in foreign countries—as an effort to influence
public opinion across the world.1
And, all of a sudden, the OSI was
formally disbanded following political pressures and “troublesome”
media stories that “its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance
American interests.”2 “Rumsfeld backed off and said this is
embarrassing.”3 Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon’s
Orwellian disinformation campaign remained functionally intact:
“[T]he secretary of defense is not
being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military
propaganda is part of war.4
Rumsfeld in fact later confirmed in a
November 2002 press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in
name, the “Office’s intended functions are [still] being carried
out”.5
A number of government agencies and intelligence units—with links to
the Pentagon—are involved in various components of the propaganda
campaign.
Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as
“humanitarian interventions” geared towards “regime change” and “the
restoration of democracy”.
Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as
“peace-keeping”. The derogation of civil liberties—in the context of
the so-called “anti-terrorist legislation”—is portrayed as a means
to providing “domestic security” and upholding civil liberties.
And underlying these manipulated
realties, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
statements, which circulated profusely in the news chain, were
upheld as the basis for understanding World events.
The twisting of public opinion at home and around the World had
become an integral part of the War agenda. In the months leading up
to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration and its
indefectible British ally had multiplied the “warnings” of future Al
Qaeda terrorist attacks.
War propaganda is pursued at all stages: before, during the military
operation as well as in its cruel aftermath. The enemy has to appear
genuine: thousands of news stories and editorials linking Al Qaeda
to the Baghdad government were planted in the news chain.
War propaganda serves to conceal the real causes and consequences of
war.
Shortly after the OSI had been officially disbanded amidst
controversy, the New York Times confirmed that the disinformation
campaign was running strong and that the Pentagon was:
considering issuing a secret
directive to American military to conduct covert operations
aimed at influencing public opinion and policymakers in friendly
and neutral nations …. The proposal has ignited a fierce battle
throughout the Bush administration over whether the military
should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations
like Germany …. The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over
‘the strategic communications for our nation, the message we
want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it. … “We
have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into
friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We
could do it and get away with it. That doesn’t mean we should.”6
Feeding Disinformation into the News Chain
To sustain “the War on Terrorism” agenda these fabricated realities,
funneled on a day to day basis into the news chain, must become
indelible truths which form part of a broad political and media
consensus. In this regard, the corporate media—although acting
independently of the military-intelligence apparatus—is an
instrument of this evolving totalitarian system.
In close liaison with the Pentagon and the CIA, the State Department
had also set up its own “soft-sell” (civilian) propaganda unit,
headed by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs Charlotte Beers, a powerful figure in the advertising
industry. Working in liaison with the Pentagon, Beers was appointed
to head the State Department’s propaganda unit in the immediate wake
of 9/11. Her mandate was “to counteract anti-Americanism abroad.”7
Her office at the State Department was to:
ensure that public diplomacy
(engaging, informing, and influencing key international
audiences) is practiced in harmony with public affairs (outreach
to Americans) and traditional diplomacy to advance US interests
and security and to provide the moral basis for US leadership in
the world.8
The Role of the CIA
The most powerful component of the Fear and Disinformation Campaign
rests with the CIA, which secretly subsidizes authors, journalists
and media critics, through a web of private foundations and CIA
sponsored front organizations. The CIA also influences the scope and
direction of many Hollywood productions. Since 9/11, one third of
Hollywood productions are war movies:
Hollywood stars and scriptwriters
are rushing to bolster the new message of patriotism, conferring
with the CIA and brainstorming with the military about possible
real-life terrorist attacks.9
“The Sum of All Fears” directed by Phil
Alden Robinson, which depicts the scenario of a nuclear war, had
received the endorsement and support of both the Pentagon and the
CIA.10
Disinformation is routinely “planted” by CIA operatives in the
newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels. Outside public
relations firms are often used to create “fake stories”:
A relatively few well-connected
correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the
relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of
debate are set and the “official reality” is consecrated for the
bottom feeders in the news chain.11
Covert disinformation initiatives under
CIA auspices are also funneled through various intelligence proxies
in other countries. Since 9/11, they have resulted in the day-to-day
dissemination of false information concerning alleged “terrorist
attacks”.
A routine pattern of reporting had emerged. In virtually all of the
reported cases of terrorist incidents (Britain, France, Indonesia,
India, Philippines, etc.) the alleged terrorist groups are
identified as having “links to Al Qaeda”, without of course
acknowledging the fact (amply documented by intelligence reports and
official documents) that Al Qaeda is US intelligence asset.
TEXT BOX 11.1
The Secret Downing Street Memo
“The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy”
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL—UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195/02
cc: Defense Secretary, Foreign Secretary,
Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett,
Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan,
Alastair Campbell
Iraq: Prime Minister’s Meeting, 23 July
C [head of British Intelligence MI-6, Sir Richard
Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington.
There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military
action was now seen as inevitable. …
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy.
… The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s
record. There was little discussion in Washington of the
aftermath after military action.
Excerpts from the “Secret Downing Street Memo” to Prime
Minister Tony Blair, leaked in May 2005 to the London
Times. |
The Doctrine of “Self Defense”
The propaganda campaign is geared towards sustaining the illusion
that “America is under attack”. Relayed not only through the
mainstream media but also through a number of alternative Internet
media sites, these fabricated realities continue to portray the war
in Afghanistan and Iraq as bona fide acts of self-defense, while
carefully concealing the broad strategic and economic objectives of
the war.
In turn, the propaganda campaign develops a casus belli, a
justification, a political legitimacy for waging war. The “official
reality” (conveyed profusely in George W’s speeches) rests on the
broad “humanitarian” premise of a so-called “preemptive”, namely
“defensive war”, “a war to protect freedom”:
We’re under attack because we love
freedom. … And as long as we love freedom and love liberty and
value every human life, they’re going to try to hurt us.12
The National Security Strategy (NSS)
includes two essential building blocks:
– The preemptive “defensive war”
doctrine,
– The “war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda.
The objective is to present “preemptive
military action”—mean-ing war as an act of “self-defense” against
two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:
The war against terrorists of global
reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. … America
will act against such emerging threats before they are fully
formed.
… Rogue States and terrorists do not seek to attack us using
conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead,
they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction.
… The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our
civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal
norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses
on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific
objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially
more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass
destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and
the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves. … To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by
our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively.13
In early 2005, the Pentagon called for
the development of a more “pro-active” notion of preemptive warfare,
where military operations could also be launched not only against a
“declared enemy” but also against countries, which are not openly
hostile to America, but which are considered strategic from the
point of view of US interests. (See Chapter XIX.)
How is War Propaganda carried out?
Two sets of eye-popping statements emanating from a variety of
sources (including official National Security statements, media,
Washington-based think tanks, etc.) are fed on a daily basis into
the news chain. Some of the events (including news regarding
presumed terrorists) were blatantly fabricated by the intelligence
agencies. (See chapters XIX and XX.)
However, once the core assumptions of the disinformation campaign
have been embedded in the news chain, both the printed press and
network TV establish their own self-sustaining routine of
fabricating the news.
Disinformation relies on a pattern of reporting which tends to
dismiss the substance behind the news. In the months leading up to
the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the disinformation campaign
centered on two simple and catchy “buzzwords”, which were used
profusely to justify US military action:
– Buzzword no. 1. “Osama bin Laden’s
Al Qaeda” (Osama) is behind most news stories regarding the “war
on terrorism” including “alleged”, “future”, “presumed” and
“actual” terrorist attacks. – Buzzword no. 2.“Weapons of Mass
Destruction”(WMD) statements were used profusely to justify the
“pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”—i.e.,
countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea which allegedly
possess WMD. Amply documented in the case of Iraq, a large body
of news on WMD and biological attacks, were fabricated. In the
wake of the invasion of Iraq, “WMD” and “Osama bin Laden”
statements continued to be used. They have become part of the
day to day debate, embodied in routine conversations between
citizens. Repeated ad nauseam, they penetrate the inner
consciousness of people, molding their individual perceptions on
current events. Through deception and manipulation, this shaping
of the minds of entire populations sets the stage—under the
façade of a functioning democracy—for the installation of a de
facto Police State.
In turn, the disinformation regarding
alleged “terrorist attacks” or “weapons of mass destruction”
instills an atmosphere of fear, which mobilizes unswerving
patriotism and support for the State, and its main political and
military actors.
Repeated in virtually every national news report, this stigmatic
focus on WMD and Osama/Al Qaeda essentially serves as a dogma, to
blind people on the causes and consequences of America’s war of
conquest, while providing a simple, unquestioned and authoritative
justification for “self defense”.
In the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both in
speeches by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as
in the news, WMD statements were carefully blended into Osama
statements. UK Defense Minister Jack Straw had warned in early 2003
“that ‘rogue regimes’ such as Iraq were the most likely source of
WMD technology for groups like Al Qaeda.”14 Also, two months before
the March 2003 invasion, a presumed Al Qaeda cell “with links to
Iraq” had been discovered in Edinburgh, allegedly involved in the
use of biological weapons against people in the UK.
The hidden agenda of “the links to Iraq” statement is blatantly
obvious. Its objective was to discredit Iraq in the months leading
up to the war: the so-called “State sponsors of terror” are said to
support Osama bin Laden. Conversely, Osama is said to collaborate
with Iraq in the use of “weapons of mass destruction”.
Prior to the 2003 invasion as well as in its wake, several thousand
news reports had woven an “Osama connection” into the WMD stories.
The WMD pretext for waging the war was finally dismissed, shortly
before Bush’s Second Term inauguration in January 2005, by which
time the justification for having waged the war on Iraq was no
longer considered an issue. The media spin behind WMD was never
questioned, to the extent that the elimination of WMD is still
regarded by public opinion as a central objective of US foreign
policy.
TEXT BOX 11.2
The Secret Crawford-Iraq Memo from British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw to Prime Minister Tony Blair
SECRET AND PERSONAL PM/02/019/PRIME MINISTER
CRAWFORD/IRAQ
If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that
the US would now be considering military action against
Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence
to link Iraq with UBL [Osama bin Laden] and Al Qaida.
Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a
result of 11 September. What has however changed is the
tolerance of the international community (especially
that of the US), the world having witnessed on September
11 just what determined evil people can these days
perpetuate.
(Jack Straw) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, March 2002
Excerpt of Secret-Personal Memo to Prime Minister Tony
Blair from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, The
“Secret and Personal” Crawford-Iraq Memo, 25 March 2002. |
While Iraq was the main target of the propaganda campaign, North
Korea was also described, without a shred of evidence, as possibly
having links to Al Qaeda:
Skeptics will argue that the
inconsistencies don’t prove the Iraqis have continued developing
weapons of mass destruction. It also leaves Washington casting
about for other damning material and charges, including the
midweek claim, again unproved, that Islamic extremists
affiliated with Al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in
Iraq last November or late October.15
North Korea has admitted it lied about
that and is brazenly cranking up its nuclear program again. Iraq has
almost certainly lied about it, but won’t admit it. Meanwhile Al
Qaeda, although dispersed, remains a shadowy, threatening force, and
along with other terrorist groups, a potential recipient of the
deadly weaponry that could emerge from Iraq and North Korea.16
Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair listed Iraq, North Korea, the
Middle East and Al Qaeda among “difficult and dangerous” problems
Britain faced in the coming year.17
The WMD-Osama statements were used profusely by the mainstream
media. In the wake of 9/11, these stylized statements had become an
integral part of day to day political discourse, permeating the
workings of international diplomacy and the functioning of the
United Nations.
Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored this relationship in his
presentation to the Davos World Economic Forum, barely two months
before the invasion as well as in his historic February 5, 2003
speech at the UN Security Council:
Evidence that is still tightly held
is accumulating within the administration that it is not a
matter of chance that terror groups in the Al Qaeda universe
have made their weapons of choice the poisons, gases and
chemical devices that are signature arms of the Iraqi regime.18
Meanwhile,“anti-terrorist operations”
directed against Muslims, including arbitrary mass arrests, had been
stepped up:
The US and Western interests in the
Western world have to be prepared for retaliatory attacks from
sleeper cells the second we launch an attack in Iraq.19
The Smallpox Vaccination Program
In the context of these emergency measures, preparations for
compulsory smallpox vaccination were initiated in 2003 in response
to a presumed threat of a biological weapons attack on US soil. The
vaccination program—which had been the object of intense media
propaganda—contributed to creating an atmosphere of insecurity:
A few infected individuals with a
stack of plane tickets—or bus tickets, for that matter—could
spread smallpox infection across the country, touching off a
plague of large proportions. … It is not inconceivable that a
North Korea or an Iraq could retain smallpox in a hidden lab and
pass the deadly agent on to terrorists.20
The hidden agenda was clear. How best to
discredit the antiwar movement and maintain the legitimacy of the
State? Create conditions which instill fear and hatred, present the
rulers as “guardians of the peace” committed to weeding out
terrorism and preserving democracy. In the words of British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, echoing almost verbatim the US propaganda
dispatches:
I believe it is inevitable that they
[the terrorists] will try in some form or other [to wage
attacks]…. I think we can see evidence from the recent arrests
that the terrorist network is here as it is around the rest of
Europe, around the rest of the world…. The most frightening
thing about these people is the possible coming together of
fanaticism and the technology capable of delivering mass
destruction.21
Mass Arrests
The mass arrests of Muslims and Arabs on trumped up charges since
September 11, 2001 is not motivated by security considerations.
Their main function is to provide “credibility” to the fear and
propaganda campaign.
Each arrest, amply publicized by the corporate media and repeated
day after day, “gives a face” to this illusive enemy. It also serves
to obscure the fact that Al Qaeda is a creature of the CIA. In other
words, the propaganda campaign performs two important functions.
First, it must ensure that the enemy is considered a “real threat”.
Second, it must distort the truth—i.e., it must conceal “the
relationship” between this fabricated enemy and its creators within
the military-intelligence apparatus. The nature and history of Osama
bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and the Islamic brigades since the
Soviet-Afghan war must be suppressed or distorted.
“Possible” or “Future” Terrorist Attacks based on “Reliable Sources”
The propaganda campaign exhibits a consistent pattern. The objective
is to instill credibility and legitimacy focusing on supposedly
“reliable sources” of information.
The same concepts appear simultaneously in hundreds of media
reports:
-
These concepts refer to “reliable
sources” , a “growing body of evidence”—e.g., government or
intelligence or FBI
-
They invariably indicate that the
terrorist groups involved “have ties to bin Laden” or Al Qaeda,
or are “sympathetic to bin Laden”
-
The reports often point to the
possibility of terrorist attacks, “sooner or later” or “in the
next two months”
-
The reports often raise the issue of
so-called “soft targets”, pointing to the likelihood of civilian
casualties
-
They indicate that future terrorist
attacks could “take place in a number of allied countries”
(including Britain, France, Germany in which public opinion is
strongly opposed to the US-led war on terrorism)
-
They confirm the need by the US and
its allies to initiate “preemptive” actions directed against
these various terrorist organizations and/or the foreign
governments which harbor the terrorists
-
They often point to the likelihood
that these “terrorist groups possess WMD” including biological
and chemical weapons (as well as nuclear weapons).
-
The links to Iraq and “rogue states”
are also mentioned
The reports also include warnings regarding “attacks on US
soil”, “attacks against civilians in Western cities”
-
They point to efforts undertaken by
the police authorities to apprehend the alleged terrorists
-
The arrested individuals are in
virtually all cases Muslims and/or Arabs
-
The reports are also used to justify
the Homeland Security legislation as well as the “ethnic
profiling” and mass arrests of presumed terrorists.
“Sooner or Later”
This pattern of disinformation in the Western media applies the
usual catch phrases. (In the press excerpts below, catch phrases are
in italics):
Published reports, along with new
information obtained from US intelligence and military sources,
point to a growing body of evidence that terrorists associated
with and/or sympathetic to Osama bin Laden are planning a
significant attack on US soil.
Also targeted are allied countries that have joined the
worldwide hunt for the radical Muslim cells hell-bent on
unleashing new waves of terrorist strikes. … The US Government’s
activation of antiterrorist forces comes as the FBI issued a
warning Nov. 14 that a “spectacular” new terrorist attack may be
forthcoming—sooner rather than later. …
Elsewhere, the Australian government issued an unprecedented
warning to its citizens that Al Qaeda terrorists there might
launch attacks within the next two months.22
Although [former] CIA Director George
Tenet said in recent congressional testimony that “an attempt to
conduct another attack on US soil is certain,” a trio of former
senior CIA officials doubted the chance of any “spectacular” terror
attacks on US soil.23
Germans have been skittish since the
terrorist attacks in the United States, fearing that their country
is a ripe target for terrorism. Several of the hijackers in the
Sept. 11 attacks plotted their moves in Hamburg.24
On Dec. 18 [2002], a senior government official, speaking on
condition of anonymity, briefed journalists about the ‘high
probability’ of a terrorist attack happening “sooner or later”. … [H]e
named hotels and shopping centres as potential “soft targets” …. The
official also specifically mentioned: a possible chemical attack in
the London subway, the unleashing of smallpox, the poisoning of the
water supply and strikes against “postcard targets” such as Big Ben
and Canary Warf.
The “sooner or later” alert followed a
Home Office warning at the end of November that said Islamic
radicals might use dirty bombs or poison gas to inflict huge
casualties on British cities. This also made big headlines but the
warning was quickly retracted in fear that it would cause public
panic.25
The message yesterday was that these terrorists, however obscure,
are trying—and, sooner or later, may break through London’s
defenses. It is a city where tens of thousands of souls [live]. …
Experts have repeatedly said that the UK, with its bullish support
for the US and its war on terror, is a genuine and realistic target
for terror groups, including the Al Qaeda network led by 11
September mastermind Osama bin Laden.26
Quoting Margaret Thatcher: “Only America has the reach and means to
deal with Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or the other wicked
psychopaths who will sooner or later step into their shoes.”27
According to a recent US State Department alert: “Increased security
at official US facilities has led terrorists to seek softer targets
such as residential areas, clubs, restaurants, places of worship,
hotels, schools, outdoor recreation events, resorts, beaches and
planes.” 28
Actual Terrorist Attacks
To be effective, the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely
rely on unsubstantiated warnings of future attacks. It requires a
credible system of terror alerts, actual arrests of alleged terror
suspects (on trumped up charges) as well as “real” terrorist
occurrences or “incidents”, which provide credibility to the “war on
terrorism”.
Propaganda endorses the need to implement “emergency measures” as
well as implement retaliatory military actions. The triggering of
“war pretext incidents” is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. (See
Chapter XIX.)
Notes
1. Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox
News, 26 December 2002.
2. Air Force Magazine, January 2003, emphasis added.
3. Adubato, op. cit. emphasis added.
4. Ibid, emphasis added.
5. Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Secrecy
News, 27 November 2002
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html,
Rumsfeld’s November 2002 press interview can be consulted at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html
6. New York Times, 16 December 2002.
7. Sunday Times, London, 5 January 2003.
8. See US State Department at
http://www.state.gov/r/
9. Ros Davidson, “Stars earn their Stripes”, The Sunday Herald
(Scotland), 11 November 2001.
10. See Samuel Blumenfeld, “Le Pentagone et la CIA enrôlent
Hollywood”, Le Monde, 24 July 2002.
11. Chaim Kupferberg,“The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11”,
Centre for Research on Globalization, June 2002, p.19,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
12. Remarks by President Bush in Trenton, New Jersey, Welcome
Army National Guard Aviation Support Facility, Trenton, New
Jersey, 23 September 2002.
13. National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
14. Agence France Presse (AFP), 7 January 2003.
15. Insight on the News, 20 January 2003.
16. Christian Science Monitor, 8 January 2003
17. Agence France Presse (AFP), 1 January 2003
18. The Washington Post, 25 January 2003.
19. Ibid.
20. Chicago Sun, 31 December 2002.
21. Reuters, 21 February 2003
22. Insight on the News, 3 February 2003.
23. United Press International (UPI), 19 December 2002.
24. New York Times, 6 January 2003.
25. Toronto Star, 5 January 2003.
26. The Scotsman, 8 January 2003.
27. United Press International (UPI), 10 December 2002.
28. States News Service, State Department Advisory, similar
texts published on several dates, 2002-2005.
Back to Contents
|