US Army black propaganda backfires: Creates more contempt for desperate American leadership
Want to see what black propaganda is? It's right under your nose. The US Army would never reveal publicly what it "knows" about the enemy's training.
These documents are designed to discredit ABC news for publishing them. They are actually black progapanda. The website provides absolutely no useful information.
Which is the intent of black propaganda.
Why the Army Released the information
Do you remember the Italian security guard who was killed? After Caliparis died, there was an army investigation into the matter.
Guess what the idiots in DoD did? They published the classified version of the report without redacting any of the information.
The report outlines everything the US knows about the insurgents convoy intercept methods: Peak attack times, convoy routes, effectiveness of weapons, and US intelligence on which insurgent methods are effective. It's worse than getting the Ultra codes.
The Army has a security and training problem with its troops. The last thing DoD can afford at this time is an enemy who believes DoD has got them pegged.
And at the same time DoD needs to stir up the pot a little: Hide the report with the classified information; spew out non-sense about what they actually know; and then hope for the best.
Deconstructing the Document: Problems with the "Training" manual
The information is not consistent internally, and it references objectives that are not in the photographs.
The documents are designed to see who responds, how people react, and to bait people into discussing issues.
The manual asserts or infers assumptions about motivations that are not universal. Not all situations are like this.
Recall, this is allegedly a training manual. But the manual doesn't actually recognize the specific skill it is training.
The documents also presume that certain soldiers would/would not do things; but the problem with this is that if the enemy is already assuming there will be bad consequences, it makes no sense that someone would not act.
The problem with the "manual" is that it assumes certain things about the intelligence of the reader. Small problem: It's assumption about the audience age, sophistication is not consistent.
The documents presume that the audience would know certain things in one situation; but the opposing forces would/would not have the same level of skill in a similar situation.
The manual attempts to create a sense of "realism" by dissuading the audience from taking action. Suggesting that the "no action" is the best action is actually the objective of the "training"; in fact, this information is not designed to actually be used, but create the impression that it is being used.
Note specifically that all the pages state "wrong". This does two things. The person reading the "training manual" would go down one path, then change to a new direction.
Moreover, if these were actually training manuals, the US would never reveal them, as it would give away "what the US knew" about what was going on. If there were errors, they would say nothing; if there were actual threats, then they would silently change their tactics.
This is not an error with the publication; it's deliberate to send a signal that the "training is bad."
The documents also demonstrate certain assumptions about combat operations which are not only incorrect; but make assumptions about how the enemies would or would not respond to each other.
The other thing to notice is that each of the photos talks about problems in the US military: Discipline, violations of the Geneva conventions, or lack of compassion toward the weak.
At the same time, the "manual" emphasize "no action" in each of these cases: When certain types of forces, troops, or personnel are around.
Forces "smart enough" to use the internet, would also have access to online training manuals containing this information.
There is no reason to create such a shoddy work; which is, in fact, the purpose of this document -- to create in the mind of the US Soldier that the enemy is incompetent.
If they were incompetent, why does the number of insurgent attacks increase?
Answer: The US doesn't have enough combat forces on the ground.
If your head is spinning right now, that's the objective of black propaganda: To confuse you, make you question, and not be sure.
I suspect this has something to do with the US hoping to secure more funding for "information warfare" and beef up the IT-funding accounts.
Also, this is a way of actually promoting the military. It's a way of putting before the public the military in a different light: As if they are a target, but targeted by someone who is incompetent.
The training, if it were true, would be a problem for the US military in that it would reveal operational tactics. Because this is "revealed," it is not likely these are true.
The other thing to consider is the tone of the language. The writing style if far to assertive, succinct. This not how the Arabic language sounds when you translate it directly.
The writing style is more of a blue-collar-type level language of an American, not someone from the Middle East who is a little more refined, and focused on what they're doing.
Also, if this were truly an online-manual, the material would be more entertaining and have a far more mocking tone to it. There would be no reason to be so aggressive.
This information is written this way to tough the hearts of those who are most likely to react: The talk show hosts in America.
The language and tone of the language is similar to the type of language one might expect to read in a training manual from a prison contractor.
At the same time, it is also hoped that the document will be actually used by the enemy. The training manual does the following:
The manual hopes to actually create fissure in the enemy camp by doing the following:
Also, not the document appears to have "credibility" in the use of acronyms. Small problem. The original acronyms in Arabic do not translate directly into English.
o\Overall, the document does correctly recognize the following problems with the American combat units in Iraq by overstating them. This means the "most acceptable public reaction" [what the reader would expect is something less], so because the status quo level is far different than this manual suggests, this also gives an aura of authenticity.
For example the document overplays the following valid themes:
The manual is also intended to be consumed by American military personnel with the hopes of:
Rather, the pamphlet has another goal: To dissuade the insurgents from doing what is most annoying:
The manual also hopes to create in the mind of the enemy the following ideas:
Black propaganda is designed to believably be from another source. This fails that test.
The level of acceptance of this propaganda indicates the extent to which non-sense is embraced, or information is not getting questioned. In turn, this is an indicator for both the media-analysis and the views which the military holds the media: Contempt, pawns, and to be manipulated.
Those who provided this information have another motive. It is to create the perception they are a reliable source; in fact, this is trash.
If you're getting this information from someone, check your sources. They're doing this to set you up.