U.S. to Fund Pro-American Publicity in Iraqi Media
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 3, 2008; A01 The Defense Department will pay private U.S. contractors in Iraq up to $300 million over the next three years to produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to "engage and inspire" the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government. The new contracts -- awarded last week to four companies -- will expand and consolidate what the U.S. military calls "information/psychological operations" in Iraq far into the future, even as violence appears to be abating and U.S. troops have begun drawing down. The military's role in the war of ideas has been fundamentally transformed in recent years, the result of both the Pentagon's outsized resources and a counterinsurgency doctrine in which information control is considered key to success. Uniformed communications specialists and contractors are now an integral part of U.S. military operations from Eastern Europe to Afghanistan and beyond. Iraq, where hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on such contracts, has been the proving ground for the transformation. "The tools they're using, the means, the robustness of this activity has just skyrocketed since 2003. In the past, a lot of this stuff was just some guy's dreams," said a senior U.S. military official, one of several who discussed the sensitive defense program on the condition of anonymity. The Pentagon still sometimes feels it is playing catch-up in a propaganda market dominated by al-Qaeda, whose media operations include sophisticated Web sites and professionally produced videos and audios featuring Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. "We're being out-communicated by a guy in a cave," Secretary Robert M. Gates often remarks. But Defense Department officials think their own products have become increasingly imaginative and competitive. Military and contractor-produced media campaigns, spotlighting killings by insurgents, "helped in developing attitudes" that led Iraqis to reject al-Qaeda in Iraq over the past two years, an official said. Now that the insurgency is in disarray, he said, the same tools "could potentially be helpful" in diminishing the influence of neighboring Iran. U.S.-produced public service broadcasts and billboards have touted improvements in government services, promoted political reconciliation, praised the Iraqi military and encouraged Iraqi citizens to report criminal activity. When national euphoria broke out last year after an Iraqi singer won a talent contest in Lebanon, the U.S. military considered producing an Iraqi version of "American Idol" to help build nonsectarian nationalism. The idea was shelved as too expensive, an official said, but "we're trying to think out of the box on" reconciliation. One official described how part of the program works: "There's a video piece produced by a contractor . . . showing a family being attacked by a group of bad guys, and their daughter being taken off. The message is: You've got to stand up against the enemy." The professionally produced vignette, he said, "is offered for airing on various [television] stations in Iraq. . . . They don't know that the originator of the content is the U.S. government. If they did, they would never run anything." "If you asked most Iraqis," he said, "they would say, 'It came from the government, our own government.' " The Pentagon's solicitation for bids on the contracts noted that media items produced "may or may not be non-attributable to coalition forces." "If they thought we were doing it, it would not be as effective," another official said of the Iraqis. "In the Middle East, they are so afraid they're going to be Westernized . . . that you have to be careful when you're trying to provide information to the population." The Army's counterinsurgency manual, which Gen. David H. Petraeus co-wrote in 2006, describes information operations in detail, citing them among the "critical" military activities "that do not involve killing insurgents." Petraeus, who became the top U.S. commander in Iraq early last year, led a "surge" in combat troops and information warfare. Some of the new doctrine emerged from Petraeus's own early experience in Iraq. As commander of the 101st Airborne Division in northern Nineveh province in 2003, he ensured that war-ravaged radio and television stations were brought rapidly back on line. At his urging, the first TV programs included "Nineveh Talent Search" and a radio call-in show hosted by his Arabic interpreter, Sadi Othman, a Palestinian American. Othman, a former New York cabdriver employed by Reston-based SOS International, remained at Petraeus's side during the general's subsequent Iraq deployments; the company refers to him as a senior adviser to Petraeus. SOSi has been one of the most prominent communications contractors working in Iraq, winning a two-year $200 million contract in 2006 to "assist in gathering information, conducting analysis and providing timely solutions and advice regarding cultural, religious, political, economic and public perceptions." "We definitely believe this is a growth area in the DOD," said Julian Setian, SOSi's chief operating officer. "We are seeing more and more requests for professional assistance in media-related strategic communications efforts, specifically in gauging of perceptions in foreign media with regard to U.S. operations." The four companies that will share in the new contract are SOSi, the Washington-based Lincoln Group, Alexandria-based MPRI and Leonie Industries, a Los Angeles contractor. All specialize in strategic communications and have done previous defense work. Defense officials maintained that strict rules are enforced against disseminating false information. "Our enemies have the luxury of not having to tell the truth," Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman told a congressional hearing last month. "We pay an extremely high price if we ever even make a slight error in putting out the facts." Contractors require security clearances, and proof that their teams possess sufficient linguistic abilities and knowledge of Iraqi culture. The Iraqi government has little input on U.S. operations, although U.S. officials say they have encouraged Iraqis to be more aggressive in molding public support. The Pentagon is sensitive to criticism that it has sometimes blurred the lines between public-affairs activities and unattributed propaganda. As information operations in Iraq expanded, some senior officers warned that they risked a return to psychological and deception operations discredited during the Vietnam War. In 2006, the Pentagon's inspector general found that media work that the Lincoln Group did in Iraq was improperly supervised but legal. The contractor had prepared news items considered favorable to the U.S. military and paid to place them in the Iraqi media without attribution. Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that his initial reaction to the anonymous pay-to-publish program was "Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing." On Aug. 21, the day before bids on the new contract were closed, the solicitation was reissued to replace repeated references to information and psychological operations with the term "media services." Senior military officials said that current media placement is done through Iraqi middlemen and that broadcast time is usually paid. But they said they knew of no recent instance of payment to place unattributed newspaper articles. The officials maintained that news items are now a minor part of the operation, which they said is focused on public service promotions and media monitoring. But a lengthy list of "deliverables" under the new contract proposal includes "print columns, press statements, press releases, response-to-query, speeches and . . . opinion editorials"; radio broadcasts "in excess of 300 news stories" monthly and 150 each on sports and economic themes; and 30- and 60-minute broadcast documentary and entertainment series. Contractors will also develop and maintain Web sites; assess news articles in the Iraqi, U.S. and international media; and determine ways to counter coverage deemed negative, according to the contract solicitation the government posted in May. Polls and focus groups will be used to monitor Iraqi attitudes under a separate three-year contract totaling up to $45 million. While U.S. law prohibits the use of government money to direct propaganda at U.S. audiences, the "statement of work" included in the proposal, written by the U.S. Joint Contracting Command in Iraq, notes the need to "communicate effectively with our strategic audiences (i.e. Iraqi, pan-Arabic, International, and U.S. audiences) to gain widespread acceptance of [U.S. and Iraqi government] core themes and messages." Lawmakers have often challenged the propriety of the military's information operations, even when they take place outside the United States. The Pentagon itself has frequently lamented the need to undertake duties beyond combat and peacekeeping, and Gates has publicly questioned the "creeping militarization" of tasks civilians traditionally perform. In 2006, President Bush put the State Department in charge of the administration's worldwide "strategic communications," but the size of the military's efforts dwarf those of the diplomats. State estimates it will spend $5.6 million on public diplomacy in Iraq in fiscal 2008. A provision in the fiscal 2009 Defense Authorization Bill has called for a "close examination" of the State and defense communications programs "to better formulate a comprehensive strategy." Some inside the military itself have questioned the effectiveness of the defense program. "I'm not a huge fan" of information operations, one military official said, adding that Iraqi opinions -- as for most people -- are formed more by what they experience than by what they read in a newspaper, hear on the radio or see on billboards. "A lot of money is being thrown around," he said, "and I'm not sure it's all paying off as much as we think it is." http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15207 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100204223_pf.html ====== U.S.-Israel jet deal sought: Pentagon backs sale of next-generation F-35s fighters to ally by Stephen Manning, Chicago Tribune October 2nd, 2008 read background on arms deal. The Defense Department said this week that it wants to sell as many as 75 fighter jets to Israel in a $15.2 billion deal for the aircraft expected to be the mainstay of air power in the United States and several other nations for decades. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said it notified Congress on Friday that Israel has asked to buy 25 of the F-35s made by Lockheed Martin Corp., with an option to buy 50 more later. The sale would be the first to a country outside the United States and eight partner nations that are collaborating on the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The jet is still under development and not in service, but the United States plans to eventually acquire 2,458 planes for the Army, Marines and Air Force at a cost of $300 billion. The F-35 was designed as a replacement for a range of warplanes, including the F-16, which is a large component of many air forces worldwide. Countries such as Spain, Singapore and Japan also have expressed interest in the F-35. Israel has said it plans to buy a fleet of F-35s as it upgrades its military technology. The first batch of 25 would be the variant of F-35 designed for conventional takeoff from military airfields, but the later 50 could include a version that can land vertically. While the jet is expected to be widely used, the program has suffered some setbacks, including delays and growing cost that have been criticized by government auditors. When maintenance and service costs for the life of the jet are added in, the cost of the F-35 to the United States could reach $1 trillion over the next several decades. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15206 === U.S. approves $330 million in arms deals for Israel by Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters September 9th, 2008 The U.S. government on Tuesday said it had approved up to $330 million in three separate arms deals for Israel, and sources tracking a much bigger deal for 25 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets said that agreement could be approved later this month. Top Israeli and U.S. government officials also met in Washington on Tuesday for the most senior bilateral high technology dialogue ever between the two allies. Co-chaired by U.S. Commerce Undersecretary Mario Mancuso and two senior Israeli officials, the three-day high tech forum is aimed at expanding secure high technology trade and investment across a wide-range of promising technology areas. While U.S. and Israeli officials met in nearby Virginia, the Pentagon told Congress it had approved three arms deals for bombs, Patriot missile upgrades and anti-armor weapons. Lawmakers have 30 days to block the sales, but such action is rare. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees major arms sales, said it approved the sale of three kits to upgrade Israel's Patriot missile defense system, a deal valued at up to $164 million if all options are exercised. The kits, made by Raytheon Co, would help Israel develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability, the agency said. It also approved the sale of 28,000 M72A7 66mm light anti-armor weapons, 60,000 training rockets, and other equipment, a deal valued at up to $89 million. The main contractor would be Talley Defense, based in Mesa Arizona. Finally, the government approved the sale of 1,000 GBU-9 small diameter bombs made by Boeing Co, in a deal valued at up to $77 million if all options are exercised. A separate agreement that would allow Lockheed to sell Israel 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, plus an option for at least 50 more, was also nearing approval, according to two sources tracking the deal closely and a top defense analyst. They said the DSCA hoped to notify Congress about the deal before lawmakers head back to their districts to campaign for the November 4 election, possibly by the end of September. The Pentagon is solidly backing Israel's request for the fighter jets, which are being designed by the United States and eight other countries to replace the F-16 fighter jet. But the two sides are still working out the details of the exact configuration of the F-35 that Israel will receive, said Loren Thompson, analyst with the Lexington Institute. "There is strong administration support for selling F-35s to Israel, however the government will need to determine which items are included in the Israeli version since the technology is very sensitive," said Thompson. Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, the Pentagon's program chief for the F-35, last month told Reuters that Israel was getting the F-35 into its fleet "as quickly as we possibly can." Pinchas Buchris, director general of Israel's defense ministry and one of the co-chairmen of the high-tech forum, told Reuters he would have a high-level meeting about the issue while in Washington this week. But he said the two countries were still continuing "tough" discussions about various issues related to the F-35 sale, although he declined to give any details. "We still have a long way to go," Buchris said. Mancuso said the forum, also attended by U.S. and Israel industry executives, marked a big step forward after tensions between Israel and the United States in the past over weapons sales. He said Israel had made positive changes in recent years, including establishment of the Defense Export Controls Office, and enactment of a new law. He said the United States would continue to maintain tough export controls where needed, but it also hoped to expand collaboration with Israel in many promising high tech areas. "Our technical collaboration will continue to grow as our broader comfort on these issues grows," Mancuso said. Buchris said Israel had made many improvements in a drive to keep tighter control of defense exports, and said that those efforts had been closely coordinated with the United States. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Carol Bishopric) http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15205
