It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ignoring the Obvious by Staring at Distrations

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:03 AM
I despise propaganda, particularly governmental propaganda and most specifically propaganda forwarded with a political objective. The art of secrecy relies on this propaganda to conceal the truth, it uses great big distractions and the loudest possible mouthpieces to drum up the noise, and like sheep a large number of people can be expected to jump into the game. The sheep become zombies, creating their own propaganda in an effort to out guess the conspiracy makers, and generally do nothing more than contribute to the distraction.

One of the great myths of the Iraq war is the CIA and European intelligence agencies had become inept, incompetent baboons unable to keep a secret and virtually oblivious to what is happening in the world. These spooks apparently were so incompetent that all of them guessed wrong about WMD in Iraq, therefore everything they do is subject to the incompetent label.

However anyone who studies the history of such spooks know that mistakes are usually buried deep in propaganda, and all attempts to forward the concept of incompetence on spooks are encouraged, not discouraged, in a disinformation campaign to insure distractions are the discussion, because distractions conceal their secret, out of sight projects, and special operations.

A popular form of propaganda today is forwarding the notion of incompetence in the United States and British governments. The theory goes that because the armed forces of those nations are actively engaged in military operations, killing people at enormous rates, taking fewer casualties historically than any other military operation in history, and producing new lethal and convert technologies at an alarming rate these nations are making themselves "weaker" by some political measurement. I'm not certain how this type of propaganda , which defies logic and historical basis, is accepted as reality but that is how some politicians think. Such ideas are dangerous, since it is clearly disinformation and propaganda.

Donald Rumsfeld was predictable, he was a civilian with a long history in the Pentagon. Rumsfelds theories were based in speed and overwhelming firepower, not size. His brain child projects were based around futuristic technologies like global strike, while his strategies centered around speed not size. His theories led to the problems with security situation in Iraq, and his solutions were always based on overwhelming firepower. When Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, the expectation that the United States would strike Iran was based on his reputation and tendencies, thus the idea became a reasonable expectation.

Robert Gates is not Donald Rumsfeld, but the stories being flooded into the media sound like Rumsfeld strategies, not Gates strategies. Gates is not a career Pentagon guy, rather he is a spook, He has a history, which includes a mysterious role in Iran-Contra that had to include well established contacts in both Iran and Iraq. His autobiography is an insiders look on how the US managed crisis during the cold war.

Gates appointment of Admiral William "Fox" Fallon to lead CENTCOM is very interesting. Most average Americans look at the word "Admiral" and get distracted, but if you look at his career you see something different. Fallon was the main Naval aviation officer in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. His role was to work directly with the highest ranked military officers of the regional countries, coordinate Naval aircraft with allied aircraft, and generally negotiate issues ranging from tactical strike packages to political permission of overflight rights. Later, he was one of the most important Naval officers in the Kosovo Campaign, the flagship commander no less. Finally, his role in the Pacific includes the only US commander to negotiate military cooperation exercises between the US and China, one of the most respected American Naval officers in Japan and South Korea, the man who turned Naval cooperation between India and the United States into cooperations that now include nuclear technology, and a widely respected military leader regionally for his clandestine approach to regional terrorism issues.

Simply put, Admiral or not, Fallon is the most politically connected Military Officer in the US Armed Forces, and maybe the world.

Finally, General David Petraeus is the most interesting appointment to the region of them all. There can be little question why Gen. Petraeus was appointed commander of Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I), he is there for his expertise in counterinsurgency. He wrote the book for the US Army on counterinsurgency, literally, as that book is known as US Army Field Manual 3-24. His counterinsurgency doctrine requires troops able to operate independent, but mobile on the ground and in the air, able to cover large areas quickly, and sustain for long durations without massive supply. Virtually all the infantry units chosen for the "surge" match his counterinsurgency doctrine criteria.

The United States, capitalizing on this perception of weakness, has set in motion a very cunning strategic military strategy in the Middle East, and the buzz word behind the propaganda is "surge."

This "surge" consists of several mechanized infantry units, an additional special forces brigade, some logistical and electronic aircraft, a Patriot Missile Battalion for the region, and a Naval Strike Group centered on an aircraft carrier.

This buzzword "surge" fits the old buzzword "strike" very well, and the deployments are large and can be very distracting. However, some of the specifics don't make much sense.

The popular idea is the expectation of an overt military strike against Iran. Under Rumsfeld, that made sense, but Gates is former CIA. With Fallon, he has an open door into virtually every regional leader, and a proven record of what clandestine military operations can do. The surge units aren't heavy, in fact they are built for moving light infantry, so they aren't the best choices for dealing with the Iranian military, rather are better suited for dealing with smugglers and breaking up terrorist cells.

With an Admiral in command, the Carrier is an unmissable distraction, but Fallon's reputation is solid because of his effective use of SOF operations in places like the Philippines and Indonesia.

Something else is happening, the strike theory is disinformation, the carrier is a distraction, and something else is going on. The question becomes what is that something?


log in