Talk:Psychological operations/Archive 1

Clearly plagiarized from America's army recruitment site's PSYOP description. I will be editing it soon, when I have the time.

--User:dagamezmasta 21:04, July 05, 2005.

The Organization of the Article
This is a badly organized article. It appears to have just happened rather than be organized in any logical form. I am, unfortunately, too much of a newby to start this project, but I am willing to assist a more talented author - Luxomni 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is to cover multiple nationalities (which is reasonable), put them in alphabetical order - Germany, United Kingdom, United States would be reasonable. UK, US, Germany is just random.
 * Descriptions of Campaigns such as "U.S. Psychological Operations in Afghanistan" and similar stubs for WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, and others should be subs of US Army or whatever organization they belong to.
 * Detailed particulars such as the diatribe about a particular operation in Afghanistan should properly be referred to their own articles.

U.S. Army, Airforce, Marine PSYOP

 * Does anyone know if the Marine's actually have PSYOPs, as of 5 years ago I don't believe they do, but maybe things have changed? --A User


 * I don't know if Commando Solo really should be under the Airforce header. Or if the Airforce should be said to have PSYOP. Do they? I believe the Army runs the operation on Commando Solo, the Airforce just own and fly the plane. That doesn't really make them Airforce PSYOP, they just drive the Army PSYOP around. I spent my time on a PSYOP team on the ground so I don't know exactly how the Commando Solo operation works, but that was always my impression. - atfyfe

ANSWER: My Army PSYOP company spent 2003 attached to the 1st Marine Division because the Marines lacked tactical PSYOP, so the answer is no. A few PSYOP guys wore some Marine uniforms only because their own BDUs and brown t-shirts had been rendered unservicable and we were in a Marine supply line not Army. At first opportunity the company resupplied Army clothing and Marine clothing was disgarded.

As for Commando Solo, I agree, the AF "technically" doesn't "do" PSYOP. They supply the plane, pilot, etc., while the Army does the actual product development. Be that as it may, they have the assets dedicated to an important PSYOP mission. User:Virgil

I disagree Virgil, when my TPT was attached to a Marine company we wore marine style BDU's but used army name tapes and insignia. Our reason was to create a more uniform appearance while working with the Marines. it really is a matter of commander's discression. Jocosetad 17:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I was answering his question as to whether Marines have PSYOP. The Marine uniforms aren't per regs and it shouldn't have happened except in the most extreme circumstances such as the one our guys were in. Commanders aren't allowed the leeway to circumvent Army regs and senior NCOs shouldn't have allowed it. I've been doing this PSYOP thing for over 15 years with foreign and U.S. units. With the Brits we didn't adopt their uniforms and we functioned effectively. Virgil 04:30, 06 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the Navy aspect of PSYOP. The Navy has become more of a PSYOP player since the start of the GWOT, but has always participated in a limited PSYOP role throughout its history. I'm writing a thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School on the subject to be published in MARCH 2006. ---Neptunerex 20SEP05. --Neptunerex 16:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a small note here. I'm a reservist army PSYOP and my roommate is a reservist Marine so we looked into the question of marine PSYOP a while back. Marines do have a PSYOP MOS, but it is only a secondary MOS to their Civil Affairs MOS. It is described as supplementary CA training to help coordinate activities with attached PSYOP teams, ie Army PSYOP teams. That is the extent of Marine PSYOP. From what I hear of them though, Marine CAG (civil afairs group) is a pretty sweet gig.--Krustykev 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions I have about PSYOP in the US military:

1) Are PSYOP considered part of the intelligence or special forces communities?

Army special operations

To add to this, until 1989/90 PSYOP was a part of military intelligence. The MOS designator was that of an intel analyst (96B) with an identifier showing the soldier had taken a PSYOP course in addition to the 96B course and in the late 80's a new MI MOS was developed for PSYOP--96F.

In 89/90 MI gave up control of it's 96F soldiers assigned to the 4th PSYOP group and they were taken from MI to become a U.S. Army Special Operations MOS now changed to 37F. Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

2) Historical uses of PSYOP?

Too many to name, go to the psywarior link and read.

3) Are PSYOP used on friendly/neutral civillians to bolster morale?

Yes, as well as on the enemy

Caveat, PSYOP is barred for use on US citizens.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

4) Who sets the PSYOP strategy of TPTs (at what rank, unit level, etc)

04's and above set strategy, tpd, or detatchment hq send this to tpt's

The answer is more complicated, TPTs and BPSEs are assigned to supported manouver units where they take their mission orders from that CDR and simultaneously are under PSYOP command as well. The influence of the TPT approach like many things in the Army is dependent on the POVs of the supported CDR, the input a team or BPSE OIC/NCOIC has into planning and the PSYOP chain of command. Every outing seems different than the last depending on the mix. Setting strategy isn't quite right at TPT level, more like setting tactical approaches.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

5) Is "disinformation" and deceptions(like fake Marine landings in Gulf war 1) considered PSYOP, or "propaganda"?

yes

Propaganda--or information operations--is a subset of PSYOP. Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Q's on the training section:

6) Do PSYOP members require security clearances?

secret and above

7) What languages do US PSYOP train in?

 arabic, spanish, french, farsi

More than just those given, I've learned Russian, others Ukrainian, Swahili, Dutch, German, Korean, Chinese, Vietnames...basically any of the major language groups and dependent on the PSYOP unit's AO.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

8) So are all active-duty PSYOP required to take airborne school even if they end up attached to regular forces, or is it that all PSYOP end up attached to airborne?

they are required to train to be airborne qual, as are most special ops soldiers

PSYOP soldiers, 37F, are assigned to the 4th PSYOP Group (ABN) or 4th POG, and must be airborne qualified and on jump status. There are positions outside the 4th POG in places like Korea, Italy, Germany, CAPOC, JFKSWC, etc but these are limited and generally staffed by senior NCOs.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info, this article is very well-done. Identity0 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All the above said only applies for US PSYOP - and a lot of other things stated in the article, too; e.g. no forces under NATO command are allowed to target friendly population or own troops - while this can be done by national PSYOP/PSYOPS forces under national responsibility and doctrine. This includes troop information. Talking about PSYOPS/PSYOP we need to differenciate much more - and you need to be an expert with international experience not having worked only in a national TPT, BPSE or even CJFPOCC. By the way, the US Airforce provides the technical assets (COMMANDO SOLO) but transmitting the PSYOPS messages from Ft. Bragg (Army PSYOPS) - and can use the airplanes as a dual role platform. User:Peter

PSYOP and PSYOPS
"less acceptable usage" == NPOV. No justification given.

--babbage 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In the PSYOP community the 's' at the end is considered wrong. -- A User


 * Only in the US, apparently. The British Armed Forces appear to use PSYOPS. See here. Don't automatically equate American usage with general usage. -- Necrothesp 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point, however the information that when refering to U.S. PSYOP one should not use "PSYOPS" should be included in the entry. If you use wikipedia for research and write an article on US PSYOP, you'll be lucky enough not to make an idiot of yourself by spelling PSYOP wrong. atfyfe


 * My understanding is that PSYOPS is NATO usage and PSYOP is US usage. -- www.psywar.org


 * To clarfy the situation: PSYOP is solely the US terminology while the European (main nations UK and GE) and NATO abbreviation says PSYOPS. This is common sense in NATO and PfP countries (see NATO and respective national documents).


 * In Vietnam the usage was that "I was in Psyops" or "Call in Psyops"; but the unit I was in was the "10th Psyop Battalion" or "It was a Psyop operation". The S attachment wasn't optional. It served some kind of linguistic function similar to the S appended to verbs in declension - i.e. I run, he runs. It was not as straightforward as allowing either Psyop or Psyops. Apparently the change in allowable usage postdates 1969. Luxomni 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)     Psyop 10-B-2 RVN 1969

psyoper's editing
Who here is or has been a psyoper? I am in an american reserve unit.--65.220.54.20 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As you probably noticed from the preceding Psyop/Psyops controversy, I was in Company B field team 2 of the 10th Psyop Bn., 4th Psyop Group in VietNam in the year 1969. Back then it was nowhere near as professionally run and organized as it is now. I had the opportunity to visit Fort Bragg buring the runup for Operation Desert Shield and was astounded at the difference that 20 years made! I presume they are still improving. Luxomni 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

edit
I removed the Marine Corps as having organic PSYOP units in the United States. Army PSYOP teams may be attached to the Marines and sometimes even wear Marine style uniforms during this time. (but the name tape still says Army) This no doubt caused the confusion.

Also for clarification to a previous comment the 193rd Special Operations Wing of the Air Force owns and uses the equipment on Commando Solo. Although they don't come up with the actual media used, which is still the army's responsibility, they are a unit in the Air Force with a dedicated PSYOP mission.

24.15.230.227 05:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Joel (former PSYOP guy)

I deleted the Bart Simpson reference. The story by Baghdad Betty, during the first Gulf War, was debunked long ago. See: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/radio/baghdad.htm#add or http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1515. I was in Iraq as a PSYOPer and frankly don't recall ever meeting anyone who ever heard it and the first I knew about it was from U.S. news sources. In spite of the fact that it is false it is still being referenced by PSYOP related studies, there's a lesson there on the power of the media. PSYOPers have been the victims of media PSYOP. 65.207.35.122 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who put the Bart reference in. Yes, I've heard both that it really occurred and that it is a myth. I don't really know what to believe. On the one hand your “F.A.I.R.” article claims Johnny Carson took responsibility for inventing the story, on the other hand: Going over right before the invasion in 2003 I was briefed by an Iraqi defector who claimed to be involved in the Bart Simpson debacle. According to him (an Iraqi Air Force Col.), he knew Bart Simpson was a cartoon character but he couldn’t convince his higher-ups.

Now after finding out that Iraq has no WMD we are all painfully aware of how Iraqi defectors like to exaggerate. Also, if you were over in Saudi during the first war I have to imagine this story would have spread like wildfire among U.S. troops if it really happened. Verdict: I think I would like to read the transcript of Carson taking responcibility for myself. But you are probably right this is B.S. User:atfyfe 8 November 2005

Debate over burning bodies section
Point:

I'm removing this section:

U.S. PSYOP mistakes Every country's PSYOP attempts fall flat on their face sometimes. The United States is not immune to mistakes in its PSYOP operation. The most recent example of a U.S. PSYOP misstep is the public burning of enemy bodies in Afghanistan. While the bodies had been left on the battlefield and were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns, the decision by a tactical PSYOP team with the 173rd Airborne to burn the bodies in public to try and lure enemy fighters to attack has become a public relations nightmare for the U.S. Army.

During the War on Terror U.S. PSYOP teams often use the broadcasting of inflammatory messages over loudspeakers to try tempting enemy fighters into a direct confrontation where the Americans have the upper hand. In the Afghanistan incident, a PSYOP sergeant read out the following inflammatory message to the Taliban: "Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be." U. S. authorities were to investigate the incident which may have contravened the Geneva convention. 

pending further facts. There are a couple of other errors/issues I address below, but my main gripe is that this incident is still under investigation, and that the benefit of the doubt should be granted until such time as an investigation report is available. There were subsequent reports in the press that contradicted some of the facts in the initial story or added richer context, like the assertion that the bodies were not recovered by the village inhabitants because they were interloping Pakistanis. Either way, let the TV/press websites bicker the finer points for now- there's no need to echo that process here in WP.

Whether or not this is a PSYOP 'mistake' I think is unclear; whether or not it is still a 'PR nightmare' is quite clear: not now (as I write this not one month after the incident); if it even ever was one. For it to be a PSYOP mistake, it would have to be shown to be inneffective to the point of interfering with the supported commander's mission and intent. (Keep in mind, we are only talking about the PSYOP team's use of the burned bodies as fodder for their LS taunt broadcasts - the actual act of burning the bodies was conducted by the supported unit -see below.) If the broadcasts had succeeded in riling up the Talibanis enough to take on the 173rd, and they were subsequently defeated with minimal cost to the supported unit, then it would have been a tactical success. That success could then be overshadowed by the strategic level/big picture problem of perception that the US is insensitive to Islamic burial rites; if this had never hit the media the way it did, that would never have been a problem at all. That perception could cut 2 ways: Only time will tell the balance.
 * Lessened cooperation in the GWOT by Muslims b/c of 'outrage'.(bad) ^or^
 * Lessened enrollment in terrorist organizations by devout muslims fearing a resultant cremation.(good)

My other gripes -
 * This: The most recent example of a U.S. PSYOP misstep is the public burning of enemy bodies..., ...the decision by a tactical PSYOP team with the 173rd Airborne to burn the bodies in public to try and lure enemy fighters to attack... is directly contradicted by the article itself: Members of the U.S. 173rd Airborne said they burned the bodies of the suspected militants for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, according to the program.

218. Graves Registration Service - Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body. Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. '''In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead. They shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged,''' that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found."" (FM 27-10) They seem to have followed the letter of the law. 'If possible' gives the commander leeway on cremating muslims, I would think.


 * The United States is not immune to mistakes in its PSYOP operation. Reads in the mind as "Psychological operations operation" Perhaps: - The United States is not immune to mistakes in conducting PSYOP. There are other places where it's a clumsy read, but I'd prefer the whole incident not be included yet. I'm sure there are other instances of more clearly cut PSYOP mistakes that could be used. -user 12.208.168.37

Response: “this incident is still under investigation”

It appears rather clear cut to me, or would the fact it is under investigation really warrant it being cut from the entry. Even if there are a few minor details left undetermined (and it isn’t clear to me that there are any details left unclear), the major points are clearly known.

'''“the benefit of the doubt should be granted until such time as an investigation report is available.”'''

The original posting of this information did not grant the benefit of the doubt to the soldiers. I edited it making it sound as neutral as possible, however, in my eyes I think what the soldiers did was just fine. I spent plenty of time in Iraq trying to lure insurgents out to fight just like these PSYOPers were trying to do. So I am not giving them the “benefit of the doubt”, I am flat out agreeing with their actions. However, I worded the article entirely neutral. If you find it critical I think you are reading that into the information, it was last edited by someone (me) who agrees with their actions.

'''“the assertion that the bodies were not recovered by the village inhabitants because they were interloping Pakistanis.”'''

Does that fact even matter? What does it matter why the village inhabitants didn’t retrieve the bodies? Not that I believe their story anyway. Anytime any attack happened in Iraq the locals would always blame it on foreigners. Either way, this information does not matter to the article. The point is that the locals did not retrieve the bodies so the soldiers had to dispose of them.

'''“Whether or not this is a PSYOP 'mistake' I think is unclear; whether or not it is still a 'PR nightmare' is quite clear”'''

This is not a bias opinion, this is simply stating what is obvious. I don't know how to argue this point other than to ask you to consider the coverage of this event again.

“For it to be a PSYOP mistake, it would have to be shown to be inneffective to the point of interfering with the supported commander's mission and intent.”

Yes it may have lead enemies out of hiding, (a tactical success) but surely this was “overshadowed by the strategic level/big picture problem of perception that the US is insensitive to Islamic burial rite.” I agree it was a good tactical decision, but part of PSYOP is taking in account the broader strategic consequences of your actions. At the very least PSYOP made the mistake of doing this PSYACT in the presence of media!

“had never hit the media the way it did, that would never have been a problem at all.”

But it did. The PSYOPers did the act with media presence. Maybe that was their only mistake, but regardless this was a mistake.

“Also: “directly contradicted by the [2] article itself: Members of the U.S. 173rd Airborne said they burned the bodies of the suspected militants for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, according to the program.””

You misquote the entry. Right before it says the PSYOPers burned the bodies publicly to lure out the enemy, it says “were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns”. So the information was there.

"They seem to have followed the letter of the law. 'If possible' gives the commander leeway on cremating muslims,"

I agree with you that the act was within the law and a sound tactical decision. Perhaps that information should be put into the entry, but it was still a mistake. (1) Your right, there are other examples of PSYOP mistakes that can be included. However, you haven’t written about them, so this is all there is. (2) Plus this is a topical example. It has the advantage of being a current event. (3) Someone added this to the article. They took the time, and so the presumption should be in favor of cleaning it up if needed rather than deleting. I thought the original posting was poorly done, so I edited it rather than deleting it.

I am not putting this back in yet. But depending on people’s reaction to our little debate here I might. Anyone else’s thoughts?

-- Response C-point: "You misquote the entry. Right before it says the PSYOPers burned the bodies publicly to lure out the enemy,..." Misquote? That was verbatim from the article. Please show me where the article specifically states that the PSYOP team burned the bodies, or where my quote varies from the text of the article.

"It appears rather clear cut to me, or would the fact it is under investigation really warrant it being cut from the entry. Even if there are a few minor details left undetermined (and it isn’t clear to me that there are any details left unclear), the major points are clearly known."

I appreciate the fact that you tried to NPOV this, but to me, it's a turd - and no amount of polish will make it shine. It's not that it's under investigation, it's that the investigation could yield a lot more important details, or put current ones in better context. At this time, we have only one primary source for the story, Mr. Dupont, the reporter. All other stories, including the japantoday internet one quoted here, are based on his account. If you peruse the stories that are out there, you may find as I have that the details don't always agree. For that reason, I feel that it is premature to include this incident, and moreso to classify it as a mistake, at least a PSYOP one.

This is my read of the sequence of events, based on the reporting that is out there to date:
 * 1) the people were killed in action prior to the date of the story
 * 2) 24+ odd hours later, they were starting to get 'ripe'.
 * 3) the supported unit commander ordered the bodies burned for hygiene reasons
 * 4) his troops carried this out
 * 5) the reporter filmed that event
 * 6) later, how long is not defined, the PSYOP team conducted their taunt broadcast(s), which were also filmed
 * 7) later still, the PSYOP team discussed what was broadcast with the reporter

"GEORGE NEGUS: Do you think they understood the ramifications of what they're doing? The burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca and going to the trouble of reading to you in English the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the Taliban? STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think the airborne unit that were responsible with the burning of the two Taliban soldiers weren't really thinking in that way. I think the psychological operations unit, who were responsible for the broadcast along with some other broadcasts to the Taliban, they're quite well aware of it. They're older guys. That's their job. They're PsyOps. They use it as a weapon. And the Americans are so frustrated. They're frustrated because they can't find the enemy. They're chasing shadows all the time. GEORGE NEGUS: The guys burning the bodies probably did they think were doing it for reasons of hygiene that were mentioned in the story? STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe that. That was the feeling I got as I climbed up the hill. As I got to the crest of the hill, they started burning the bodies. My initial reaction was, 'My God, I've got to film this. This is really important stuff. It's my responsibility as a journalist to - GEORGE NEGUS: The PsyOps had a different purpose? STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe so. Niece(sic) guys - they said to me, 'We've been told to burn the bodies, the bodies are have been here for 24 hours and they're starting to stink so, for hygiene purposes, this is what we've got to do.' Later on, when I was down with the PsyOps operations people, they used that as a psychological warfare I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west -..." http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2005-10-19&headlineid=1037 (Even the direct quote from the transcript leaves it up in the air as to who did the burning. When Dupont starts with 'I Believe so...' he had just been interrupted by another question from Negus, it looks to me like he was finishing the thought from the last question and segued into the new one, and that may give the impression the PSYOP team burned the bodies. But the 'Look, I think...' line pretty clearly shows who did the burning.)

Calling it a 'PSYOP Mistake' I think gives them too much blame. Like in baseball, you can have something go bad for the team, but it still doesn't qualify as an 'error' unless someone flubbed something they should have by all rights made happen. Allow me to expand on what I previously qualified as a PSYOP mistake:
 * 1) The incident should be classifiable as bad PSYOP, in concept or execution.
 * 2) PSYOP personnel should be primarily responsible for the problem, even in spite of getting approval from supported unit for the operation.

For the first, I think we agree that the broadcast was tactically sound PSYOP, even if, as some accounts say, the messages did not produce the desired effect of inciting the enemy to engage in battle. I think we also agree that it became problematic on the strategic level, due to the event becoming an international news story. This is a constant dichotomy - good tactical level PSYOP can be bad strategic PSYOP, and vice versa. For the second part, this is where I would like to see more information before declaring this a PSYOP mistake. I believe that it was not the decision of the PSYOP team to burn the bodies. They may have advised the SU commander against it, and been overrulled. They may have discussed the ramifications amongst themselves and opted to withhold protest - "Yeah, this could become a bad thing for the Army, but we still have to stay on this hill with these funky bodies. Let the grunts burn them...". They could have given incorrect cultural advice, in re. to the facing or positioning of the bodies, or Muslim burial rules. Disrespecting Muslim burial rites? Probably an Army mistake. PSYOP's fault? Undetermined.

"The PSYOPers did the act with media presence." While I respect the need for secrecy where appropriate, is the lesson to be drawn here that no PSYOP can be conducted in the presence of outside media? At worst, this may be classifiable as an unavoidable mistake - the guys were faced with two poor choices - do nothing, or do what they can of their job even though the media is there.

'''re. 'PR nightmare' "This is not a bias opinion, this is simply stating what is obvious. I don't know how to argue this point other than to ask you to consider the coverage of this event again."''' My point is that this was a story for a week or less, and now it's almost forgotten. (Google it and see!) It didn't cause the uproar or death that the 'flushed Koran' story or 'Abu Ghraib' did. That's not to say that it won't pop up again, or get worse. But it's not as you say 'obvious' - that's a highly subjective judgment. The coverage has been, in 'big picture' terms, no big deal.

'''re. 'topical example/current event - I think it's too topical. For it to be an effective example of PSYOP Mistake, we need more facts. It doesn't make a good 'teachable anecdote'. As it is, it's an open answer essay question that people would answer with the PSYOP version of "I'd move quickly and quietly down the hall". (I'd pick the perfect mix of 2 mutually exclusive goals'.) Real life doesn't work that way... (22 November 2005- 12.208.168.37)

Addition; 11/27/2005: The other shoe has dropped, CENTCOM has issued their report. Right click/save as here: http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/News%20Release/Nov05/Investigation%20into%20the%20Gumbad%20Incident.pdf

I still maintain the mistake here makes a poor example for learning purposes.

"Action #2: The broadcast of PYSOPS (sic) message pertaining to the burning of enemy combatant remains subsequent to the firefight in Gumbad. 1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. psychological operations forces did broadcast two loudspeaker messages designed to incite fleeing Taliban to fight. These messages mentioned the burning of enemy remains and were in violation of standing policies for the content of loudspeaker messages. 2) The criminal investigation revealed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the remains were burned for the purpose of providing content for the loudspeaker message. However, the investigation did reveal that the loudspeaker operator did willfully violate known standards for message content and standards for reporting his activities during the conduct of missions. Additionally the operator and his supervisor failed to follow documentation and reporting procedures surrounding this incident. Their conduct falls well below the acceptable standards of behavior for Soldiers." (pp. 4-5)

Bold examples are emphasized by me. This is a poor example because without being able to state what the 'standing policies' were, and then to specify how their actions violated them, it's hard to definitively point out what the mistake was. I can surmise it's a broad 'don't act against other culture's religious mores' but it also just could have been that they were prohibited by policy from using derogatory names like 'lady boys'.

--12.208.168.37 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Putting it back "The above incident involved the PsyOps unit. And it was clearly not just a mistake. The entire section cannot be just removed, as this was an important operation, and clearly shows the teams at work. Some members of the US administration disagree with this approach. That is mentioned to. To remove the section smacks of a cover-up. Wallie 11:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"

Other options? The only way this could be a coverup is if I could totally purge all mention of the incident from the discussion and article archives, which I obviously can't do, and wouldn't even if I could. Even then, the press articles are all over the internet, so what would the point be? To just throw it back in without correcting factual errors, or updating the story based on newer information, is worse than nothing at all, IMHO. One incident cannot possibly be representative of 4+ years of PSYOP in Afghanistan, either.

My suggestions:
 * 1) A complete new article on US PSYOP history, genesis to current. Could include the beginnings/antecedents on up to current events in the GWOT and beyond. (Like the most recent 'paid for stories in Iraqi press' story.) Distinguishes 'modern' PSYOP from older eras.
 * 2) A section here in this article covering same.
 * 3) Other ideas?

Thoughts?

12.208.139.138 06:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Official Response I noticed that there was a reference to the CENTCOM report on the burning of the bodies. It is pretty clear what happened. Soldiers were asked to burn the bodies. OK. They were just cleaning up the area. PsyOp thought they could use this as an opportunity to draw the enemy out into a fire fight, or at least introduce them to the killing zone. The wording of the text used over the loudspeakers would have been written by, or at least sanctioned by a senior officer in PsyOp. The CENTCOM report is trying to limit the damage to PsyOp's reputation. But the facts remain that this event did happen, and was probably typical of the way that PsyOp was handling other operations from 9/11 up until then. After all, anyone who is familiar with PsyOp will know that to be effective, some of their tactics may be somewhat irregular. Wallie 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As I read the article in Wikipedia, I got the distinct impression that its purpose was primarily to discredit and embarrass the American involvement. The writer does not seem to have familiarity with how Psyop is done or what its relationship with regular units is. Psyop does not either act in a vacuum or independently. Operations are done at the request of a field grade officer or better of another unit (almost exclusively combat), and in support of either a planned tactical operation; or planned civilian action program for a civilian advisory boards such as CORDS/JUSPAO in Vietnam. Even in Vietnam it was not a "seat of your pants" reactive usage. Now the organization is vastly improved with cultural experts. The article more than implies rogue psyop units cruising the counryside looking for mischief. Luxomni 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Gatekeepers?
How do alleged "gatekeepers" fit in with Psyop? Schizombie 07:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Gatekeeper link. I think the person who put it there implies that US PSYOP is somehow involved in "gatekeeping". However, U.S. PSYOP is not used on domestic audiences. If it were, it would definiately not be the Psychological Operations community that would be doing it. I think those looking for an evil goverment plot to control their minds should try pinning their (crazy) idea on a different branch of the goverment(CIA, NSA, whatever). U.S. PSYOP does not have the skill, training, secrecy, or people to be involved that sort of thing.

Listen, I don't believe in an evil shadow goverment (or whatever), but even if there is one, it does not involve the U.S. Defense Department PSYOP community. Look elsewhere for your evil plots. (Atfyfe 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC))
 * I put an AfD on the Gatekeepers article. Probably going to get kept or kept by reason of no consensus, I have a suspicion, since people are allowed to outnumber WP policies, however sound.  Sigh. Шизомби 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Broadcast System
Does anyone else think it's a bit suspicious that once a week, on every channel, in every household, the loudest, most obnoxious sound needs to played for a long duration in order to test our national emergency alert system? -Henry George