Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States The Internet Government Politics Your Rights Online

U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed 473

Posted by Zonk from the keep-the-net-ditch-the-government dept.
geniese writes "The BBC is reporting on a recently declassified document that details the U.S. Military's intentions regarding warfare and the Internet." From the article: "Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. 'Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience,' it reads."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed More

U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed

Comments Filter:

  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:52PM (#14582136)
    Who cares? Honestly, it's not like you can just "target the Internet" to only those people you want. That's what makes it such a powerful medium, in a way.

    -Erwos

    • Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)

      by johnpaul191 ( 240105 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:23PM (#14582497) Homepage
      what if they have an army of backhoes? http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/164 3215/ [slashdot.org]

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sbrown123 ( 229895 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:50PM (#14582789) Homepage
      Actually, you can target the internet very easily. We will take Slashdot or any other web medium that allows users to comment on news. Psyops officers and paid contractors could work daily to post counter-messages to any discenting view about , say, the War in Iraq. This includes lying, spreading FUD, and posting links for people to "go get their facts straight". The links go to sites that, guess what, support their view 100%. It is very easy for them (the Pyops officer or contractor) to find these sites since they are owned or contracted by the DoD (often through various sub-contractors).

      The GOP did something similar a few years back for the presidental elections. Howard (the Scream) Dean had this supposed huge following by people on the internet. Suddenly, out of nowhere, hundreds of blogs showed up supporting Bush/Cheney. This would, under normal circumstances, seem nothing odd except for the fact that many of these blogs were owned by only a handful of "special interests" groups. Now why the hell, as an individual, would you want more than one blog? The GOP, unlike their Democrat rivals, also do not use the idea of the "cosistant message". This is a message that all senators, talk show hosts, and radio personnel who support the GOP have to say on a given day or event. By spreading a similar message it gives the appearance to common folk that a majority of people feel one way on a given topic.

      Now, we must understand that this is not new for the DoD to be engaged in propoganda wars on its own people. This was done, what, like every war? I think it stinks and if weren't for Bush breaking the law with the wiretapping crap, I think this would be just water under the bridge. But I think people are really starting to wonder if our government is taking it just a little too far...

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:32PM (#14583255) Homepage
        Now, we must understand that this is not new for the DoD to be engaged in propoganda wars on its own people.

        Exactly. When I read the description of the article, my mind replied in a sarcastic tone, "There's a real shocker".

        Seriously, if you don't know that our military (and to varying extents, other branches of government) interface through the public through very ruthless PR machines (both with external PR firms and internal work) that are willing to do almost anything if they think that it will help them with their current policy objectives, you've not been paying attention.
      • Wait wait, how do we know you're not an anti-GOP counter-Psyops conspiracy agent? Hmm?

        Or perhaps that's what you *want* us to think...

        • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by typical ( 886006 )
          Because educated, tech-savvy Internet users disproportionately dislike Bush. See Slashdot, Usenet, K5, etc. Granted, the DNC would plausibly astroturf on major forums if it didn't already have lots of people pissed off at Bush...

  • Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fak3r ( 917687 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:53PM (#14582145) Homepage
    This is like the old dropping the leaflets out of the planes with the "Surrender or you will be attacked" in different languages. Still, during the current conflict the US has been found to have been paying newspapers to print positive stories about the war to influence public opinion - but with more and more ppl getting news from the internet spreading it there makes sense too. I don't like it though, think about it, we're fighting for "Iraqi's freedom" yet we shortcircut their right to freedom of the press? I know that's probably not a popular opinion around here, but wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on positive stories that no one was forced to write? Perhaps I'm being nieve.

    Of course I'm also reminded of, "You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha Ha Ha Ha" which makes me smile.
    • We haven't taken away freedom of the press in Iraq. In fact, we're teaching them valuable rules about capitalism - The guy with the biggest bribes makes them.
    • but wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on positive stories that no one was forced to write?

      a. there is nothing positive

      b. there are many positive things but 'schools and hosptitals rebuilt' doesnt sell papers in the way that '50 dead due to u.s. incompentence' does.

    • Yeah but Sunni aren't likely to write positive stories because they've lost horribly as a result of the war. So we can either have:

      a) A truly free press which inflames the Sunnis against us
      b) A manipulated press

      A free press is a huge asset to a society. I don't see why we want to make out enemies more effecient.

    • Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:15PM (#14582381)
      yet we shortcircut their right to freedom of the press

      What, not to be confused with the thoughtful, even-handed coverage from Al Jazeera? Come on. Regardless, there are over 100 independent newspapers in Baghdad alone [bbc.co.uk], and people throughout that country get their news from all sorts of media outlets. If PR officers working in the country make a point of getting local journalists to also present the positive things that are going on, I can hardly find fault there. No one is suggesting that false news is being delivered, only that in a handful of outlets, there's incentive to also bother reporting on things like new electricity grid connections, newly built schools, newly graduated classes of police officers, newly built bridges, new water pumping stations, the vast influx of new personal vehicles and merchants, etc. Don't confuse it with propoganda, and don't forget the overwhelmingly negative spin that outlets like Al Jazeera employ to rile up (and keep) an audience... and which need the counterweight of some actual reporting on positive developments within the country.

      But regardless, surely you're not suggesting that there was anything even remotely resembling a free press under Saddam? People were put through industrial shredders in front of their children for pointing out in a leaflet or simple conversation that Saddam's strapping young sons were doped-up, homicidal, mysoginistic rapists and thoroughly corrupt punks. Now, people can write about that all they want, they can print and distribute political cartoons all they want, and they can hop on the internet and blog to their heart's content about anything they want. The contrast is startling, and the 79% of the population that just ratified their new constitution (with far, far more of them voting per capita than in the US on any subject) spent the weeks leading up to that and other votes forming their opinions through the newly born local press as well as other channels.

      • Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Informative)

        by tsm_sf ( 545316 ) * on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:29PM (#14582564) Journal
        From a secular, liberal Arabic point of view Al Jazeera kicks much ass. This is what we are saying we'd like to encourage over there, and I'm totally baffled that people over here dislike it. The alternative is state-run religious content, and I'm sure they'd totally leave the US out of their commentary (he said sarcastically).

        Check out their web site [aljazeera.net] sometime, instead of taking FOX's word for everything.

        • Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:4, Interesting)

          by tenchiken ( 22661 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:43PM (#14582700)
          A couple of quick notes,
          a) Al Jazeera.net is not the same as Al Jazeera broadcast.
          b) Al Jazeera is popular in the states with corrupt govenments because it points thoose out.
          c) Al Jazeera is not popular in Iraq. Iraqi's often complain that Al Jazeera encourages terrorists.

        • Better than really bad is not the same as good. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:19PM (#14583115)
          The alternative is state-run religious content

          I don't think that's the only alternative.

          A network that treats the release of a new Bin Laden tape like some sort of surprise Super Bowl isn't entirely helping matters. They certainly don't want to chase away their Arab viewership, but calling every Palestinian that blows up a bus a "martyr" only makes matters worse, not better. So what if they host talk shows that provide equal access to all flavors of idealogy in the Arab world? Not all flavors are rational or would even tolerate Al Jazeera's existence on soil they would rule, given the chance. I'm all for allowing idiots to air their opinions, the better to examine their idiocy, but the celebration (through endless airplay loops, followed by masked readings of last words by the killers) of things like suicide attacks on children and police cadets is absurd, and can't be construed as "liberal" nor helping secularism.

          That Al Jazeera is, by local cultural standards, independent-minded and "edgy" in their editorial policies does not make them supportive of those people that are actually striving to produce states in which freedom of expression is built into the constitution. Making heros out of people that wantonly and indiscriminantly kill the people working on such is BS. They can and should do better, if they truly want their Arab brothers and sisters to enjoy the independence and relative liberty that they, in their sponsored coziness in Qatar, already have.
        • > From a secular, liberal Arabic point of view Al Jazeera kicks much ass. This is what we are saying we'd like to encourage over there, and I'm totally baffled that people over here dislike it.

          I suppose it's kind of like the way we want them to have democracies - only so long as they elect the people we want.
    • It is similar to the leaflets. There is a huge downside to this method. By planting stories of dubious truthfulness(truthiness?) that can filter back to decision makers we risk having a self-reinforcing propaganda service. I.E. Our propagandists pay for a reporter in Iraq to say something is true, then spy services and politicians start acting as if it wre true.

      All in all, not a good outlook for the future.

    • Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:20PM (#14582451) Homepage
      This is like the old dropping the leaflets out of the planes with the "Surrender or you will be attacked" in different languages.

      An upgrade of the leaflet idea is actually in the document. There is a requirement for a precision-guided leaflet canister. (That's easy to do. The "smart bomb" kit, the Joint Direct Attack Munition [boeing.com], is actually a strap-on unit for dumb bombs. All that's needed is a compatible leaflet can.)

      "This message has been delivered by a precision-guided leaflet bomb aimed at you. If this had been a real bomb, you would now be dead. If you want to surrender, drop your weapons and walk east. Have a nice day."

    • Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tiger4 ( 840741 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:20PM (#14582458)
      "we shortcircut their right to freedom of the press?"

      Disagree. We aren't short cicuiting anything. Every major enterprise in the world has a public relations function of some kind. The isn't just governments, that is large corporations, small buisnesses, and individuals. At least the ones that have any money to gain or lose based on popular opinion. They do these things called "Press Releases" that put the organization's spin on events. Why the refinery explosion isn't as bad as it seems, how the layoffs are going to help the economy, why discovering the tainted baby formula shows the system really works. The US government is no different in that respect at all.

      The only "legs" in this story is that it somehow offends US media sensibility to find out that newsies in other countries accept money for stories. It wasn't so long ago in the US that newspapers and radio were radically and obviously partisan (W R Hearst anyone? How about Rupert Murdoch?). If you walk into some strugling paper in Iraq or elsewhere and plunk down $1000 and say "run this", most will bite. I suspect you can still do it in the US too, but the Gods of Media have decreed it to be impossible and immoral and therefore nonexistent.

      • Still are, and always were, biased. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @07:01PM (#14584150) Journal
        A nit:

        It wasn't so long ago in the US that newspapers and radio were radically and obviously partisan (W R Hearst anyone? How about Rupert Murdoch?).

        Papers were partisan then. Papers are still partisan. Papers were partisan centuries ago. Papers have been partisan since there were papers.

        The constitutional mandate for a free press was installed by a group that included (at least) one publisher of a very partisan paper.

        The benefit of a free press is that ANY partisin viewpoint can get published, rather than ONLY those that agree with the partisan position of a limited number of powerful people.

        = = = =

        As you point out, a free press isn't shortcircuited by buying placement for a story. (That actually increases it, both by getting another viewpoint out and supporting the publishers operation, reducing the risk it will fold.)

        What WOULD shortcircuit the free press would be to pay (or intimidate) publishers to NOT run a competing story - or do it to enough of them that the story gets suppressed.
    • I know that's probably not a popular opinion around here, but wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on positive stories that no one was forced to write?

      I think the U.S. is paying them to cover the positive stories that are there, and true. It would be nice if James Carville said nice things about the Republicans, and Bill O'Reily said nice things about liberals, but it isn't likely, even when those nice things are true. Paying the Iraqi press to cover positive events is just balancing their coverage. Th

    • This is like the old dropping the leaflets out of the planes with the "Surrender or you will be attacked" in different languages.

      Propaganda is apparently often more insidious than that [vho.org]. The British propaganda messages of WWI spectacularly backfired in WWII: if you lie in WWI about industrial production of glue from human bodies by the Germans, nobody will believe you if you tell them in WWII that the Germans are gassing the Jews and turning them into soap. The part about the soap is an untruth, btw, and one

  • Psyops and CNN. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:53PM (#14582148)
    CNN had until 2000 played host to members of Psyops who helped in the presentation of news for the U.S. Public. This has been characterized as a training program for Psyops and no more. While it is unclear whether they actually directed CNN to report the news in one way or another. Their role in "packaging" the news is. As such it represents a long history of such biasing work. See articles here [fair.org] and here [counterpunch.org].
    • CNN had until 2000 played host to members of Psyops who helped in the presentation of news for the U.S. Public.

      Oh, I'm glad they stopped. But what about all of these "headlines" [google.com]?

    • Re: ex-CNN anchor: Yeah we lie - So what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:35PM (#14582622)
      CNN ANCHOR SAYS WHAT WE ALL KNOW - THE 'NEWS' IS A GAME THAT DOESN'T WANT SUBSTANCE

      ... "Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News. Brown said he tried to give viewers a balanced diet of light and serious news with NewsNight. "But I always knew when I got to the Brussels sprouts, I was on thin ice," he said."... ..."Many Americans on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints, he said. "You'd think that it's no more complex than good vs. evil," he said"...

      http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/new s/brown0126.html [palmbeachdailynews.com]

    • And we know CNN colored their news to favor Saddam (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      See here [nytimes.com] how CNN sold biased coverage to Saddam in order to keep their newsmen in Baghdad.

      Geez, I guess that's what passes for balanced "news" today.

      Take bribes from both sides.

    • Re:Psyops and CNN. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by monkeydo ( 173558 )
      Yes, CNN has plenty of experience as a mouthpiece for propaganda [washingtonpost.com].

  • The Internet Fights Back, World Totally Crippled (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:54PM (#14582155)
    And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

    Why go through all the fuss of briefing journalists, thought manipulation and the destruction of networks when all they really need to do is just hire Magneto. [marveldirectory.com]

  • Overdone, but never more applicable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:54PM (#14582161)
    War Is Peace

    Freedom Is Slavery

    Ignorance Is Strength

  • Damn straight! (Score:5, Funny)

    by lewp ( 95638 ) * on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:56PM (#14582182) Journal
    My government can beat up your Internet.

  • It's just old tactics on new medium (Score:4, Insightful)

    by saridder ( 103936 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:56PM (#14582184) Homepage
    Nothing new. From the propaganda side, we've been doing this type of stuff for years - Voice of America, for radio, etc... This is just a new medium. From the disruption of service side, we've also been doing this for years, most recently we debated weather to knock down Al Jazeera.

  • Translation... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PalefaceWhitey ( 949975 )
    1. We spew propaganda worldwide and are surprised that it's being picked up by American media outlets, and
    2. We don't know what to do about this situation. ;) ;)
    Oh, and 3. We'd love to build a system that would let us completely dominate everything operating in the electromagnetic realm. In fact, we're working on plans.
    • 1. I don't see where the article says the government is "surprised" by anything. In fact, it's a planning document, not a report, so there are no revelations. Since it was declassified only 3 years after it was written it's clearly not an important document.

      2. Having been in the military for many years, I'm not surprised that the document does not contain specifics. It's a strategic overview (and pretty high level since Rumsfeld signed off on it). The details are left to those who handle the implement
  • The US government announces the launch of Operation Screaming Fist.
  • The "Free" people of the United States are misinformed and manipulated by their governement and its military.
    Q: Well what's new ?
    A: Nothing for most of the other "free" peoples.

  • eh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jotok ( 728554 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @03:59PM (#14582224)
    From TFA:

    The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.
    This makes more sense if you replace "every telephone" etc. with "specific devices in order to accomplish tactical objectives," and append "knock out" with "manipulate" or "eavesdrop upon."

    Which is not to say that it's necessarily a good thing...but it's probably not even likely to happen. The US military establishment spends a lot of time talking about doing things like this, but rarely actually takes the proper steps to accomplish its goals.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmeranda ( 120061 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:00PM (#14582235) Homepage
    Why is this even news? Military propoganda is as old as military history. It is, or should be, a very important component of any successful military strategy. And if the US military wasn't doing that, then they weren't doing their jobs (for which we taxpayers are paying them to do).

    Really, the only thing which is interesting is that the US national media seem to be picking up military propoganda more and more as it's distributed abroad, and then repackaging and redistributing it to the US market. So that's a sign that either the propoganda is very successful, or that the US media is rather poor on fact checking. Of course the media rebroadcast military propoganda quite a bit back in the World Wars, but I think it was common knowledge that it was being done. Today, the media does a very poor job of informing the public where or how it obtains its information.

    That they are "targeting" the net should not be surprising either. It is their jobs to plan how to counter-attack any possible attack of the enemy. And frankly this should include what to do if the enemy manages to infiltrate the Internet as we know it. This planning should not be misinterpreted as thinking the US military wants to take down the Internet. Instead they want to be prepared if the enemy takes it down, or takes it over.

    • Really, the only thing which is interesting is that the US national media seem to be picking up military propoganda more and more as it's distributed abroad, and then repackaging and redistributing it to the US market.

      That's newsworthy in my book.

      If the military is increasingly duping the organism that controls it, that's a problem. That means the military has more control than it's supposed to.

      Further, our laws don't really have anything to stop this. (Suggesting action.)
      • LOL, the military isn't holding guns to reporters heads at CNN to republish this stuff. Reporters, in my experience, are usually lazy and prefer to repackage and reprint others' work to meet a deadline rather than do original research. That's why companies use BusinessWire and publish press releases-- they know that their stuff will get reprinted or paraphrased.

        The military has a mission to achieve, and psyops (otherwise known as "winning hearts and minds") is a part of that. Journalists need to grow up and
        • The military has a mission to achieve, and psyops (otherwise known as "winning hearts and minds") is a part of that. Journalists need to grow up and take responsiblity for their jobs. The military isn't unique in doing it, they're not even uncommon.

          We don't control journalists. We do control the military. (Or at least, it's supposed to work that way.) It is their responsibility to obey us, not to fool us.

          If our military is manipulating us, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, then it is our job to
    • Actually during the first world war we had a media which was giving the people accurate information. Hence the need for Woodrow Wilson to launch the red scare to crush the domestic free press (among other goals).

    • Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chachacha ( 833677 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:21PM (#14582474)
      Why is it news? I'll give you a good reason:

      The US Government acknowledges that in the effort to misinform non-americans whom they disagree with, they are actually spreading misinformation to their own people. Since they can no longer apply psyops with precision, they will try to spread misinformation globally - across all media - to everyone, including to their own people. The enemy can't be targed, so they'll target everyone. If they target everyone who are they serving and protecting? Themselves and business, under the guise of "a way of life for us all". That's basically fascism. And that's news.

    • Why is anything news? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gorimek ( 61128 )
      Why is this even news? Military propoganda is as old as military history.

      You have very high standards for news. Look at todays headlines. Can you find anything that hasn't happened before? Crimes, wars, elections, earthquakes, all of these things have happened many times before, and should by your standards not be reported.
    • You know you can still get charged for making death threats don't you?

      Stating you plan to disrupt people's communications or monitor them in hopes of illiciting a response (Or even as a real plan!) is pretty dastardly.

      Especially when it seems clear that a lot of the stuff that concerns them about the internet is speech they can't regulate...

  • And now, the rest of the story... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Call Me Black Cloud ( 616282 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:00PM (#14582237)
    ...regarding the propaganda:

    The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write.

    It's not quite like the summary seems to imply.
  • At the end of the article, there's this section:

    And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

    US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

    Consider that for a moment.

    The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked com

  • Why is this a surprise to anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Androclese ( 627848 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:01PM (#14582245)
    We have plans on how to invade and conquer Canada. The Military has battle plans for every single contingency. That is how they work.

    Truth be told, I would be worried if they *didn't* have plans for the Internet.
    • Exactly. For example if there would be a giant asteroid heading towards Earth, they'd know who [imdb.com] to call.
    • We have plans on how to invade and conquer Canada.

      In other news, Canada has announced the release of a new Terrance & Phillip movie...
    • We have plans on how to invade and conquer Canada.

      Yeah, we did that when I was in the Boy Scouts too. The next year we made go-karts out of spare parts.

    • We have plans on how to invade and conquer Canada.

      NO BLOOD FOR BACON!

    • The Military has battle plans for every single contingency. That is how they work.

      I don't think it's the fact that the military has a plan for using the Internet, I think it's the plan itself of trying to prevent the militaries own propoganda from appearing in the US. That sounds a lot like government control of a free press, so it makes a lot of us who believe in democracy nervous.

    • Re:Why is this a surprise to anybody? (Score:4, Funny)

      by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @12:26AM (#14586292)
      We have plans on how to invade and conquer Canada
      Doesn't that involve the help of Napoleon Bonaparte and having the first lady direct evacuation of valubles from a burning white house?
      The Military has battle plans for every single contingency
      So, what's the exit strategy for Iraq?

      Assuming some sort of master plan developed by an act of genius fails when it hits political expediency. The US intelligence community looks like a complete joke internationally due to political expediency skewing any reality in favour for a useful fiction (WMD - Niger Uranium etc) and calling anything of merit into question as well. The propaganda backfires when absolutely cretinous things are done. In the first gulf war a news story was fabricated about nurses getting raped in a hospitial in kuwait - with the daughter of an ambassator working as the voice actress for the story. There were plenty of real stories of real atrocities without making something up and so making others doubt the real stories. It has gotten to the point where citizens of US allies and government agencies of US allies do not trust information that comes from the USA.

      Just give horse judges and drug addicts a bit less power in these situations and you may see some decent plans.

    • The Military has battle plans for every single contingency

      Yes, but do they LOOK at them?

      I can't find a source on line, so this is my recollection of a newspaper article circa 2003. In it, a retired some-star general said he had been in charge of the contingency planning for Desert Storm, which basically consisted of the scenario: "What if a SNAFU results in our infantry accidentally overrunning Baghdad, and we conquer the country by mistake?" Bush I team came up with a detailed plan for an interim gover

  • Picture perfect (Score:5, Funny)

    by fak3r ( 917687 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:08PM (#14582310) Homepage
    I can't believe the perfect picture they have for this story of Rumsfeld! It's like he's in the middle of saying, "All your base..."

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41265000/jpg /_41265260_rumsfeld_afp203.jpg [bbc.co.uk]

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:12PM (#14582350)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Reminds me of this:

    http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc285.gif
  • ...is the u.s. fighting on the internet or against it?

    headline: U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed

  • Scarier and scarier (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ndogg ( 158021 ) <the@rhorn.gmail@com> on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:13PM (#14582367) Homepage Journal
    For a long time I had dismissed the idea of the military-industrial complex as being a mythology of overly paranoid conspiracy theorists. I don't any more. The more I learn about the Psyops program makes me wonder what else they're right about. Maybe there really is no such thing as enough paranoia when it comes to the government.

    • Re:Scarier and scarier (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:42PM (#14582691) Journal
      For a long time I had dismissed the idea of the military-industrial complex as being a mythology of overly paranoid conspiracy theorists.

      After all, the term was introduced by well known paranoid conspiracy theorist, one Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous speech [yale.edu] of 1961:

      : This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
      In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
      We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

       Honestly, 45 years later reading this is giving me creeps. Isn't the Cold War and its aftermath just the Eisenhower's dark scenario embodied?
  • When the government manufacturers its own news you know something is really wrong with the truth. The path to a fascist state is shorter in the US than most people thinks. Mostly because i suspect not that many really understand what fascism is.

  • They think we need more propoganda? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ccalvert ( 126669 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:17PM (#14582421) Homepage
    I'm not sure I understand. We live in a country in which the press went along with the President when he claimed that there was WMD when there was no WMD, when he claimed there was a nuclear threat when there was no nuclear threat, when he promoted a plan to increase pollution called the "The Clear Skies Initiative", and when he appointed lobbyists from major polluters to run key portions of the EPA. When the President, the Vice President, and the Attorney General all promoted torture, the press called it a patriotic act. How could anything possibly be more unpatriotic, more out of sync with the intentions of our founding fathers, than torture? When the President snoops on citizens in a clear and unequivocal violation of the law, the press goes along with his claims that he has a right to do so. And yet the only type of leader who would possibly have a right to do such a thing would be a dictator.

    Given this situation the government feels it needs new outlets for propaganda? If nothing else, such programs would be an obvious waste of our tax dollars. American are subjected to enough propaganda as it is. If we want to send propaganda overseas, all we have to do is let them watch our major news outlets. After all, most Americans are already listening to either Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. What else could a right wing government that promotes torture, major polluters, and snooping on its citizens possibly want for its citizens and the citizens of other countries?

  • Backhoe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thpdg ( 519053 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:17PM (#14582422) Journal
    Better call in the US Army Corp of Engineers. Last I heard, the easiest way to take down a computer network, domestic or foriegn, was through the use of Earth moving equipment. "Accidentally" cutting the uplinks while working to repair the infrastructure, sounds like a great tactic to me!
  • - Randolph Bourn 1918

    "Gotta nuke someone." - Nelson Muntz

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - Ike

  • Does this even make sense anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:21PM (#14582471)

    The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write.

    Does this even make sense anymore? What about all the people who watch BBC news or Al-Jazerra on satelite TV / digital cable?

    In this era of globalization, unless they totally block these channels (and international news websites like bbc.co.uk) out wholesale, it's kinda hard for the military to control all the information disseminated to the populace. Propeganda *is going to ge through*.

    And if they *did* block them out, it'd be pretty obvious something was going on.

  • Horrible headline. 'Fight On', not 'Fight' (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Though the headline makes it sound like the military considers the internet as an adversary, the description belies how the military fights using the internet and Info Warfare programs. There's a huge difference. With the former, it's easy to jump on the knee-jerk bandwagon and describe how stupid our government/military/Bushy/ChimpyMcHitlerstein is for wanting to fight against the internet. With the latter, it's a description of how the internet can be leveraged, and might lead to insightful discussions us

  • Looks like our government screwed up this time. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mmell ( 832646 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:25PM (#14582517)
    Ordinarily, when we create a military technology, we either: 1) classify it and keep it to ourselves as much/long as we can, or 2) ensure that we have another technology capable of disabling/defeating it before we allow our allies to share in the (probably still classified) technology.

    1) Create a new inter networking protocol to allow our many disparate computer systems to seamlessly share data across a unified "internetwork". Check.

    2) Ensure that the networking protocol is robust enough to withstand forseeable battlefield attacks while still providing seamless data access. Check.

    3) Share the technology with the world, knowing that we can disable that technology when we need --

    NO! DON'T SHARE THE TECHNOLOGY UNTIL AFTER WE KNOW HOW TO DISABLE IT!! Damn! I knew we missed something!

    Witness the fact that when we invaded Iraq, our first target (as always) was the Command and Control infrastructure. Sure, we were able to knock their radio, television and telephonic communications down, but we were never able to fully disable their internet, which was used against us in that instance.

    Now we have to deal with excessive blowback from Psyops. I'd be happy to help - d'you suppose they'd give me one of those fancy Psi-badges and let me wear gloves like the other Psi-cops? Oh, wait . . . wrong reality.

  • Like carrots containing Beta-Carrotine that is good for the eyes and lets you see better? .... as done during WW2 as an attempt at covering up that radar was allowing for advanced notice of air raids by the Germans over Britain.

    G.I.s eat carrots so can see planes coming farther.
  • What country DOESN'T have defense plans regarding their nations' network infrastructure? Elbonia?
  • I've been noticing for a few years that whenever there's any kind of lull in the good news on the war on terror or whenever there's an administration official on the hot seat, that the History Channel tends to start running more flag-waving "modern marvels of desert storm" and "engineering marvels: saddams death palace of doom" programming. In addition, there seems to be an uptick in the WWII "documentary" frequency.

    My ex wife used to call the history channel "the nazi channel" because of the endless numb

  • Distrubing Trends (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grim Beefer ( 946632 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @04:59PM (#14582878)
    Some of the reactions here remind me of a particualar Noam Chomsky quote, "State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect". I can't decide which is more troubling, the idea of the U.S. military having their finger on the power button, or the mundane apathy expressed in some of these posts. I suppose if we allowed history alone to dictate our moral responsibilites, we would have had no reason to banish slavery, allow women to vote, etc. So maybe you see why I don't really understand the "what's new about this/no big deal" quibbliing, perhaps you don't really understand the concept of democracy. It is primarily by your lack of outrage ("you" being the privaledged techocratic elite) that such things can progress, if you really want to look at the historical record.

  • Ugh. And the BBC isn't propaganda. . ? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:16PM (#14583079)
    Would somebody please name the other powerful military nation which was involved in recently pouring thousands of troops into the invasion of Iraq?

    Thank you.

    The BBC is also a psy-ops tool, so this article has a purpose and a design beyond telling the truth. --Because one of THE most important targets of a psyops war is your own population. It is essential to control the thinking of the masses if you want to keep those tax dollars flowing and your heads of state off the gallows.

    "If the heads of state don't all hang together, they'll all hang separately."
                        --Yes Prime Minister

    -FL

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close