Blogger Bill Roggio explains the problems with a blundering Washington Post article that purported to report on information operations and how he came to be in Iraq.
posted 01.30.06
DISINFORMATION OPERATIONS
In late December, The Washington Post featured an article written by Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck entitled "Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War; U.S. Recruits Advocates to the Front, Pays Iraqi TV Stations for Coverage," in which my embed in Iraq was the subject of scrutiny as a military information operation.
There are three problems with this article requiring a response: the use of incorrect facts that could have been easily checked; the portrayal of my embed as an information operation; and the equating of U.S. military information operations with al-Qaeda propaganda efforts.
The "facts"
There are several factual errors in this story, all of which could have been easily verified by direct questions to me, by reviewing my "about" pages at either ThreatsWatch.org or The Fourth Rail, or by asking some questions within their own organization.
I conducted an email interview with Mr. Finer from Iraq. This interview consisted of a single email exchange, and never once were the facts below addressed in any follow-up questions.
I am not a "retired soldier," as that would have required me to serve in the military for twenty-plus years. I spent four years on active duty and two years in the National Guard. The article also indicates that at the time of publication I was currently in Iraq and embedded with the Marines in Western Anbar. I was not. I returned home on December 20th.
I was not credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute. This would be impossible, as the needed press credentials must be provided by a media organization. A friend suggested I approach the American Enterprise Magazine, which is a periodical published by the American Enterprise Institute. We were unable to work out an agreement, so I searched for an alternative.
Another friend suggested I contact The Weekly Standard. Richard Starr was happy to help and provided the necessary credentials to embed. Also, Rod Breakenridge of the Canadian talk radio show "The World Tonight" kindly provided documentation for credentials as well. The two letters allowed me to successfully embed, and there were no questions about my credentials in Baghdad or elsewhere.
Neither The Weekly Standard nor Mr. Breakenridge established any preconditions for providing the credentials, nor did they fund my trip in any way. I wrote a single article for The Weekly Standard about election day in Barwana, and gave two phone interviews from Iraq to "The World Tonight."
Finally, The Washington Post astonishingly misrepresents the entire embed process. Captain Jeffery Pool, the Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, is quoted as saying, "A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed." Perhaps my work was reviewed before extending the invite to embed; of this I have no knowledge. However, the military has absolutely no authority to "authorize the embed" that I am aware of.
The embed process requires you to be credentialed by a legitimate media source; any citizen who obtains the proper press credentials can embed as a journalist. Once I obtained the credentials, I chose where and when I embedded, and the Public Affairs Officers merely provided assistance with facilitating the embed and movement to the different units.
The only approval required was for embeds that were of a potentially classified nature, such as a Special Forces embed, or requests to work with sensitive intelligence gathering platforms. That a media organization which must certainly deal with the embed process on a regular basis got this entirely wrong is stunning.
The facts mentioned above could easily have been crosschecked with additional inquiries to me, investigations via the web, or some simple questions within their own organization. A media organization should pride itself on obtaining the facts, particularly when they are easily obtainable.
A suggestion of impropriety
In an email to Mr. Finer expressing my displeasure with being labeled a military information operation, Mr. Finer suggested I read the entire article. I assured him that I had. The title and subtitle are not meaningless to the context of the article; it is implied I was a tool of the military, when in fact the military had no influence whatsoever in what I said from Iraq.
The details of my embed are then followed by a discussion of military information operations, the Lincoln Group's activities in paying for positive articles to be published in Iraqi publications, and the military's funding of Iraqi radio stations. The implication is clear: a blogger embedding in Iraq must be part of a nefarious scheme by the military to influence perceptions of Iraq.
The truth is far more mundane. I wasn't paid a dime to report from Iraq by the Marines, nor was I influenced in any way with respect to what I could or could not write about. I had full control over the where and when of my embeds. Never once was my work subject to the approval or review of the military. I wrote about what I experienced, both the good and the bad.
The invitation to come to Iraq was an invitation only. The invitation to embed alone did not allow me entry. As mentioned above, proper media credentials were required. This invitation merely provided motivation for me to take my coverage of Iraq to the next level. Instead of reporting from afar, I could provide some first-hand accounts from Iraq and assess the situation on the ground on my own.
I questioned Captain Pool about journalists being invited to embed with the military. He assured me that journalists have been invited to embed prior to operations, and Mr. Finer himself was invited at one point in time...an invitation Finer declined. My invitation to embed with the Marines was neither unique nor special under these circumstances.
In the past, the established media have paid Iraqi stringers who turned out to be insurgent or al-Qaeda operatives. And they have provided cover for Saddam's brutal regime in order to maintain a Baghdad office. Never have these improprieties caused the media to question the motivations of their counterparts as the motivations of my embed have been questioned.
Any suggestions that the trip was funded by a single entity, such as those hurled by the left-of-center bloggers, are both laughable and easily disproved. I kept meticulous records of those who kindly donated to assist in defraying the costs. This could have been easily confirmed by said reactionary pundits by a mere inquiry. Instead, they found it easier to hurls insults, innuendo and rumor about my means and motivations to go to Iraq than to get to the truth.
I organized the trip without any outside assistance, save that of a few trusted friends and my wife. It was funded entirely by donations from my readers. Well over 700 of them donated approximately $33,000, plus equipment and services, including plane tickets, a bullet-proof vest, and other items. The average donation was about $50. The number of readers that donated $200 or more can be counted on the digits of my four limbs, the number of $500 donations can be counted on one hand, and a single donor contributed $2,000. This contributor was an individual, not an organization or corporation.
Influence vs. propaganda
Perhaps the most disconcerting theme of the article relates not to my embed, but to the greater issue of military information operations and the equating of these efforts with al-Qaeda sponsored propaganda efforts in Iraq. Cori Dauber at RantingProfs neatly summarizes the difference:
On the one hand, finally, there's a recognition that the enemy is engaged in information operations, that there needs to be some critical reflection regarding what they do and how they do it, that there's a strategy underlying their behavior. On the other hand, that's treated with equivalence to information ops American forces engage in. The difference is American forces are trying to influence the way articles are placed by, you know, influencing the way articles are placed, while the enemy are trying to influence the way articles are placed by staging events—meaning by killing people. It ain't quite the same thing.
Equating military information operations with al-Qaeda propaganda efforts is a form of moral equivalence of the worst sort. The U.S. military is conducting an influence campaign to draw attention to the news being missed by the media on a daily basis. Their belief (one I share) is that the portrayal of events in Iraq does not reflect the actual situation on the ground. While the articles may be viewed as "favorable" to the Coalition, the real question is: Are they accurate and factual? The Washington Post does not address this issue, nor does it provide evidence that the military is running a disinformation campaign.
Richard Fernandez describes the difference between reporting and propagandizing as such: "The clear mark of a propagandist is one who consistently misrepresents events, allowing for occasional errors which every human being must make. Track record matters."
Al Qaeda is running a sheer disinformation campaign that uses human beings as props in events such as beheadings and execution-style killings. It manufactures events, like the faux uprising in Ramadi in the beginning of December. The truth is not relevant to al-Qaeda's propaganda operations; only results matter.
Critics of my writings on Iraq have every right to criticize, but in fairness they should judge the accuracy of my analysis and reporting. Those who question what I witnessed in Iraq can, with some effort, contact the soldiers and Marines I talked to and wrote about to confirm that the events took place as I describe. Time will show whether my reporting from Iraq was truthful reporting or propaganda.
A review of my analysis of operations prior to embedding in Iraq will show that I was able to predict the timing and order of operations in Western Iraq over the late summer and fall of 2005. At one point during Operation Steel Curtain, I halted my predictions out of fear I might be compromising operational security. I did this based on my own concerns about compromising operational security, not at the request of the military, despite the fact that being "right" would have enhanced my credibility. Some things are more important than reputation.
The information I used in my analysis didn't come from inside or classified sources, but from a careful study of the situation in Anbar province and the political and military situation, which included the growth of the Iraqi Army, the importance of the Euphrates Ratline to al-Qaeda and the insurgency, and the desire of the Iraqi government and U.S. military to put a dent into the most dangerous and deadly elements of the insurgency.
Perhaps Messrs. Finer and Struck should have asked Colonel Stephen Davis why he extended the invite to embed. It was my analysis of the operational situation which prompted the invite from the Marines. The rest of the embed was my own doing. My opinions and experiences were entirely my own. [Add your comment]
Reprinted by permission of the author from ThreatsWatch.org, where Bill Roggio reports on tactics and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Roggio served in the U.S. Army from March 1991 to December 1995 and in the New Jersey National Guard from January 1995 to March 1997.
Receive updates about new articles posted to this site
The disputed Washington Post story
See also "Smearing the Competition" by Bill Quick
Read A Practical Guide to Winning the War on Terrorism edited by Adam Garfinkle
Read Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World by Hugh Hewitt
Read Blogosphere: Best of Blogs by Peter Kuhns and Adrienne Crew
Gifts Books on liberty All books—and all else, also
