Part of the Pentagon's PR plan is under fire. The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that the military - using a carefully worded statement - had purposely
misled CNN (in a report that aired in October) about a potential troop deployment. The military's move was part of a psychological operation ("psy-op") intended to dupe
insurgents in Falluja, Iraq, and to allow U.S. commanders to see how guerrillas would react of they believed U.S. troops were entering the city. (CNN was able to clarify the story
in a subsequent report.)
Although military deception has been used throughout history, the Pentagon's current efforts have sparked a debate within the fortress about the proper use of information
during wartime. We asked Richard Levick, president of Levick Strategic Communications (Washington, D.C.), which has handled the media in 3,000 legal matters, including the
current Guantanamo prisoner litigation, for his take on whether this is simply life during wartime or whether the policy could backfire.
"The military should - of course - care more about victory than keeping the press happy. But questions remain about the longer-term consequences of the manipulation, especially
since, as the government acknowledged, the October feint was only one incident in a broader effort to use the media for programmatic disinformation. Moreover, a larger pattern of
such disinformation - from Abu Ghraib to the death of ex-NFL player Pat Tillman (now known to have been killed by 'friendly fire') - raises troubling questions about the intended
target (not to mention the frequency of misinformation). Is it the enemy or the American public? If it's the American public as well, the efforts to fool the enemy seem
significantly less sympathetic."