Congressional panel investigating misinformation from the battlefield

Remove all ads!

What does everybody make of the recent testimony given by Jessica Lynch and Kevin Tillman at the House committee on oversight and government reform investigating whether misinformation from the battlefield was deliberate?

 

It strongly suggests that there have been domestic information operations by the US military. That was one of the new tricks Rummy and his deputies (re)-introduced into the military inventory (after they for good reason had been banned) in the hope it would be yet another transformative wonder weapon.

As the Tillman story, and Lynch's even more so, demonstrate, domestic propaganda by the military is extremely damaging once exposed. It only works in the short run. Instead it undermines the credibility of the military.

Lynch's story is even more brazen than heroing-up Tillman. As she said, to her great credit, she did nothing to deserve the Bronze Star Medal the U.S. Army awarded for her "...bravery and heart [which] persevered while surviving in the ambush and captivity in An Nasiriya." The accounts of her bravery have been made up, which suggests that that also applies to the alleged rape at the hands of her Iraqi captors. She's carrying herself with remarkable dignity inspite of all that.

The target audience was in both cases domestic. Tillman's story and Lynch's story were probably part of PSYOPS to accomplish missions with the objective to influence public opinion at home.

But no fear, cunning administration lawyers have determined that as long as the American public is not "targeted," any leakage of PSYOP to the American public does not matter The myth-weaving around Lynch's and Tillman's stories was well beyond that I guess.

 

What's so depressing about this is that it completely ignores the role of friendly Iraqi medical staff in her rescue.

 

Both these stories are tragic moments for American prestige. They make our leaders look like petty liars, (which they probably are). Having to stoop to the level of this kind of base propaganda is really, really sad. And then to not even be able to pull-off the scam without any of kind of aplomb is even worse - they appear as incompetent, petty liars; 'nuff said. Yuk!

 

Just look at the number of lies here!

1. She didn't go down fighting - her gun was jammed with sand.

2. She wasn't mistreated - she was taken to a hospital.

3. She wasn't even a captive - the Iraqis tried to return her, but the ambulance was fired upon by U.S. forces en route to the checkpoint, and had to turn around and return to the hospital.

4. She wasn't heroicly rescued - the American troops walked into an unguarded hospital and took her back to the U.S. base.

 

umm... the Jessica Lynch stuff came out years ago. In fact, all the information presented by Jessica was known to the public (at least I had read it) BEFORE she was ever awarded the Bronze Star -- the awarding of which really pissed me off as a military member, especially since there were other members of her convoy that certainly deserved it.

The Tillman cover up I'm neutral about. Although I do not agree with the lies, I can certainly see a humane reason for it. A death is worst thing to hear for family members and friends. That the man died a hero will often soften the blow. This was a man most of the US thought of as a dedicated warrior and man to be looked up to. Putting a heroic spin helps most people deal with the death -- but that does not compare to the backlash when people find out the truth.

It was commonplace in WWII for letters to be sent home by the military describing heroic actions of their deceased husbands, wives, sons, daughters, and friends. These men and women died serving their country and helping others -- that the cause of death was driving drunk through Paris, or suicide, was immaterial and never mentioned to the family. It is a cultural thing in the military that all who die serving their country are heroes. As I said, I can see a humane reason the Army did the cover up, although it was poorly thought out. I don't think there was any 'save my ass' associated with it as the tactical commander accurately reported the incident -- good intentions gone haywire.

 

I have to disagree with you a bit about Tillman. He was being promoted by the media and especially the administration as an example of red-blooded American heroism long before his death. He's the ultimate red-white-and-blue poster boy, if you think about it: handsome, tough, strong, fearless, and so patriotic that he gave up stardome to serve his country. He was practically a G.I. Joe.

So it was the obvious move to promote him as such. The military found an excellent source of good PR in Tillman. But because there was always a spotlight on him, that makes the promotion of that lie all the more shameful. While I agree that it is morally justifiable to soften the blow for greaving families, they still deserve to be told the truth. And furthermore, when that lie is disemmenated to the public on such a grand scale - especially in (what appears to be) a concerted effort to direct attention away from the scandal du jour, Abu Graihb - I believe the military had an obligation to come clean about the circumstances surrounding his death. It's not as if he died robbing an Afghan bank or something - it was a friendly-fire accident. No shame in that, though certainly tragic.

Though I believe grieving families deserve the truth no matter how emotianally devastating it is to hear, I agree that the heart is in the right place in telling families their loved one died a hero. However, this moral choice is only justifiable in a vacuum - meaning that this news will be intended for, and end with, the family. When Tillman's heroism was trumpeted to the world as an example of patriotic sacrifice, the military crossed the line in an absolutely reprehensible fashion.

EDIT - I should of read your post more clearly, T2. I think we're essentially in agreement.

 

You see to me, Pat Tillman became a hero when he gave up millions of dollars to play in the NFL and went to serve his country in a time of war. Whether he died or not, he was already a hero. I think many Americans feel as I do. He didn't have to lead a counterattack against insurgents to become a hero, as he already WAS a hero. You even admitted this yourself when you said:

So the question becomes, if he was already considered a hero by the vast majority of the U.S., and everyone who dies serving their country are heroes, then why was it necessary to puff up a story beyond all proportions? Did they want him to become a superhero?

There is no easy way to learn about the death of a loved one serving in the military. However, the truth, if nothing else, provides cold-comfort to the families involved. The Tillmans - who still had another child serving in the military who was on the same patrol as Pat - deserved that much.

 

I agree with both of you. Although I was not quite willing to call Tillman a hero up front -- dedicated, courageous and honorable fit him to a tee though.

Like I said, I can see a humane reason for the lies, but do not agree with them. DR is quite right about the friendly fire thing, but a public that practically idolized Tillman would certainly be distraught if they knew he was killed by our own people (that grief has been turned to anger). The death threats and derogatory letters to the soldiers pulling the trigger would have been devastating to morale (which is already low after such an accident). I can well imagine that someone up high in a moment is sympathy could think 'it was for the best for everyone involved' -- but that's not really a rational thought. Like I said, I think it was done by individuals meaning well, but not thinking clearly (it happens often in grief).

 

Meh. Edited because didn't fully read previous posts.

Grumble.

 

T2Bruno - I agree. I can see some reasons for covering it up, but it's not fair for many of the people involved. Besides, having to make tough decisions and carry them through is supposedly a part of what the military is all about.

 

Lies will out. Alas, too many government figures don't believe that. And people get cranky when they find out they've been lied to.

For me, no amount of spinning and editing makes any story related to war casualties less heartbreaking. So, please, go ahead and level with me.

I don't have family members serving in Iraq but I do have friends whose sons and brothers are serving there. If the worst happens to them, we want to know exactly what it was, not some version designed to "soften the blow." It can't be softened. Lying about it only makes it worse when the truth becomes known.

As for the military's motives, this war has so little popular support in relation to its human toll and financial cost, you have to wonder if such stories aren't an effort to swing a few people toward supporting the war. But I honestly don't see how that will ever work, or how rational people would think it would work.

It is a great and terrible tragedy all around, and yet another piece of evidence for the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.