“Hidden Hand” (Updated)

I doubt I’m the only one interested in this story.

To the public, [retired military officers] are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

The article goes much further, giving examples and naming some names, so read it if you want. Commentary below the fold.

As always, I’m going to outsource my commentary to those who know better.
First is Phil Carter:

On the first issue, I’m shocked – shocked – to see news analysts and commentators trading flattering comments for access. Such practices are hardly abnormal. But, there is something particularly unseemly about retired military officers playing this game in wartime. For better or worse, we hold these men and women to a higher moral standard. Their opinions are worth something on the air precisely because we expect these retired officers to know something about what’s going on and to tell the truth about it. I know this is politics-as-usual, but I’m still disappointed.

Second, the Times article raises the specter of impropriety for the retired officers with ties to government contractors with business before the Pentagon. I don’t know that this rises to the level of a procurement integrity issue; there seems to be little evidence on that point. But this certainly ought to raise major concerns for the media organizations that hired these guys. They owe the public a lot more due diligence when they pick pundits, and I hold them somewhat responsible here. I’m told these kinds of access-for-coverage deals (let alone the potential conflicts of interest) would be a firing offense in any newsroom — and yet, these major broadcast news organizations ignored them. Why?

[...]

There is a legitimate place in warfare for this kind of activity. In describing the trinity necessary for a nation to make war (the army, the state and the people), Clausewitz understood the role of domestic public opinion. Political and military theorists alike have built on this understanding and elaborated on the role between public opinion and military success. Suffice it to say that this connection is especially important for a democracy. There’s a fine line, however, between rallying the support of the people for a cause, and deceiving the people in order to maintain their support. I think Churchill got it right during WWII when he leveled with the British people while exhorting them forward. This initiative seems to get it wrong.

Robert Bateman is less impressed:

Here is the short version of the thesis: The political appointees in the Pentagon try to counteract adverse news stories and also try to increase what they believe are positive news stories.

Whoa Nellie! Knocked ya right outta your saddle with that one, didn’t they?

[...]

Now I am certainly not disputing that the Administration tries to spin America, and occasionally the world for that matter, like a Siamese kitten dropped into a Maytag. And I in no way dispute that they have tried to use friendly analysts to do so. I do not think that there is a reader out there who would be the least bit surprised that as the NYT put it, “many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust.” Hello? Homer Simpson has had more enlightening insights that that.

What I am disputing that it was propaganda for them to make the attempt. Look at the Creel Committee (aka the Committee for Public Information) circa 1917-1918. That, ladies and gentlemen, is propaganda. Look at some of the other things done during the Wilson Administration as well. This? No, this is about as surprising as POTUS giving repeated “exclusive” sit-down interviews to FOX News, and boxing out the other stations. It is also about as effective.

[...]

Now I stated at the outset that there is a nugget here, and that is the business ties aspect of the story, that’s legit. To a degree. But at the same time you don’t see when a legal consultant is on the air, or a medical one, the depth of their ties to their own industries. The interlocking of the board memberships is also a bit problematic, and I think full disclosure on those points should have been made by the analysts. But then again, if the news organizations did not ask (or even inform/educate about the standards of journalism) their analysts the questions about their business connections, how were the retirees supposed to know about the journalism ethics? Osmosis?

A wise fellow once noted that “A Nation that would separate it’s scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” Well, on a similar note lets add the Bateman Corollary: “A nation that would separate its soldiers from its communicators will have its COIN (counterinsurgency) conducted by mutes and its communications done by the militarily illiterate.”

I think they both basically agree, Bateman is just being cynical. In the end, it is certainly “wrong” for a person to take advantage of other’s respect to disseminate misleading information. But not illegal. And it is certainly unethical for a person to use their position to enrich themselves in this way, regardless of whether other people do it. But not illegal.

Update: Carter follows up. This time he’s more interested in the relationship between the military and the society at large. Read it, if you dare…
This relationship is something that is very important and that I find interesting, so I’ll come back to it later. This book, which I’ve been planning on re-reading, formed the foundation of my understanding of the issue.