We are at war. Propaganda is a part of winning it, or at least preserving life in the process. Why is it such a violation for it to be produced on BEHALF of the Armed Forces, when it is repeatedly generated AGAINST them?

Appearances are still important. Our rep is bad in much of the Arab world (and this is not the place to discuss why, so please don't). It just is.

This administration seems to truly believe that its intentions are so pure they can do anything to accomplish them. Don't they even wonder for a second that maybe our good intentions are not apparent to everyone? Anything we do will be interpreted as EvilYankeeImperialistHereticEtc trickery, so doesn't anyone ever think that there are certain actions that lend themselves more easily to this interpretation? And that maybe we should - gasp - have a backup plan? Oh wait, I forgot - a backup plan is an exit strategy is the Powell Doctrine is defeatist pantywaist trash.

This is the second book based on the archives Vasili Mitrokhin smuggled out of the Soviet Union during its last days. It focuses on what the KGB was doing around the world, excluding Europe and the US, the subjct of the first book.

What stands out is how successful KGB "Active Measures," that is, the placement of disinformation pieces in the local media, were throughout the 50s-80s.

The US gov't ran overt information programs (through USIA) and covert information programs (through the CIA). Both, to distinguish them from KGB programs, could rely on factual reporting, not inventing stories to make the other guy look bad, or to screw around with how one country viewed another.

Among the highpoints of KGB efforts were stories about how the CIA or Pentagon invented AIDS, and the now-legend baby-parts stories. How the US was supporting one faction in government over another was an frequent tack, very believable by foreign governments with questionable legitimacy to begin with.

Definitely worth reading to see how pervasive disinformation (and other programs) were, but also how unsuccessful most of them were.

The apparant fact that you admit you watch Al Jezera tell me a lot about you.

And you watch BBC, Europes super lefty liberal madia that loves to bash America along with Al Jezera. I suggest you start watching Fox News.

Are you muslim?

it is Al Jezera to spread any hate

Please give an example of Al-Jazeera "spreading hate." Which show on the channel are you talking about? Most of the time the stories are indistinguishable from the BBC.

Oh, well, just one more ploy designed to "Make Bush look bad".

To bad the democrats can't do anything honestly and truthfully.

But countering negative press with honest reporting that conveys information helpful to our cause is not only within the bounds of decency it is essential to mission success.

How about bursting into an Iraqi journalist's home in the middle of the night, firing bullets at him and his wife while they were sleeping, arresting him without charge, stealing his interview notes and tapes, interrogating him for several hours, then dumping him off in an unsafe Baghdad neighborhood?

That seems to be the tactic the US is taking more recently.

Regardless of whether Aron or others at Encounter might have suspected that their checks were cut by the U.S. taxpayer, are their insights and reporting any less relevant and true?

James,
Gerecht dodges it, but you edge closer to the problem... "countering negative press", as you say, is a legitimate purpose for a gov't-run CA or PR function. The problem is the implicit assumption that 'negative press' is solely a function of spin. Sometimes, things really are 'that bad' - if commentators (I refuse to call such people 'journalists') are paid to simply make things up or unquestioningly relay talking points, we lose all credibility in the eyes of the audience we're trying to influence. And even in the arenas where there are regular bits of 'good news', like Iraq, ham-handed and unprofessional efforts can still leave us looking like (at best) Pollyanna stumbling through a minefield.

People the world over respect organizations that investigate & report the truth, as best they can - even if it's not all complimentary. Organizations that only tell one side what they want to hear may have a built-in audience, but they have no right to gripe when people outside their target demo don't respect them (and yes, that goes for left-wing news as well as right-wing).

If paying journalists creates the perception that they're unbelievable American tools, that is not a good perception.

Why do people who are trying to "get the message out" want to do it in a covert manner? Oil & water, my friends.

As most regular readers know, a lot of space in this blog has been devoted to arguing for the need for pro-American propaganda under war-time conditions. Those who object to American 'propaganda' neither have a firm grasp of the definition...