|
 he
good news is that Leftists at home and abroad are no longer getting
front-page attention for their preposterous claims that the Pentagon
is badly treating terrorists by denying them prisoner-of-war status
during their incarceration in Guantanamo Bay. The bad news is that
the Bush administration's critics over the war on terrorism have
not given up, they have simply chosen a new stick with which to
beat up the U.S. government.
The current
campaign has been prompted by charges breathlessly publicized by
the New York Times to the effect that the defense department
is preparing to use disinformation against foreign governments and
press. Suddenly passé are concerns about the "sensory
deprived" Taliban and al Qaeda detainees captured on film being
forced to kneel in their Cuban stockade. The cause de jour has become
an insistence that the Pentagon tell nothing but the truth, the
whole truth, all the time.
While the focus
is different, the political subtext of the new campaign — like
the one that preceded it — is the same: Knock down the public's
confidence in the administration when it comes to waging war on
terrorism.
It is as extraordinary
as it is regrettable that this second round of overheated rhetoric
appears to have been precipitated by the same source as the first:
The Pentagon's own public-affairs shop. This organization recently,
if belatedly, took collective responsibility for the decision to
release the provocative photograph of the Guantanamo detainees.
That self-inflicted wound was compounded by the failure simultaneously
to explain that it chronicled not their day-to-day treatment, but
a single moment in time: The exceedingly dangerous transition of
hardened and ruthless terrorists from the plane that brought them
to Cuba to their cells.
The defense
department's PA shop has yet to take credit for setting off this
week's cause celebre. Still, the front-page, above-the-fold article
in the February 19 editions of the New York Times that precipitated
the current firestorm of criticism was sourced by unnamed individuals
transparently defending their bureaucratic "turf" against
proposals that would cede to a newly created Office of Strategic
Influence any authority to disseminate information to overseas audiences.
The tragedy
is not only that the secretary of defense has been obliged by actions
of his own subordinates once again to spend precious time, energy,
and political capital defending his department against the Left's
rants. Rather it is that, in the process, he has been compelled
sharply to circumscribe, and perhaps to disable, an effort whose
importance he appreciates better than practically anyone: The ability
of America's unrivaled dominance in information technologies and
techniques to contribute to winning the war on terrorism.
This is to
take nothing away from Secretary Rumsfeld. To his credit, he has
responded to the latest charges with characteristic forthrightness
and courage, affirming the importance of public and press confidence
in the defense department's official declarations while underscoring
the military's need to use deception in appropriate circumstances
to assure tactical and strategic success.
Unfortunately,
in the process he felt compelled to rule out the use of "disinformation."
A press release issued by his office Wednesday declared flatly,
"Under no circumstances will the office [of Strategic Influence]
or its contractors knowingly or deliberately disseminate false information
to the American or foreign media or publics."
To be sure, this is — and should be — the general rule.
Yet, producing misleading indications of our intentions and otherwise
acting to deceive an enemy is not merely a time-tested and -honored
practice in warfare. It is in some cases — D-Day comes to mind
— essential to the success of military operations and, most
especially, to keeping U.S. combat casualties to an absolute minimum.
This is, arguably,
even more true today than ever before. As the American armed forces
mount worldwide operations under the unblinking gaze of seemingly
omnipresent, 24/7 media coverage, the need to induce the enemy to
misapprehend our plans and intentions becomes all the more challenging,
even as it becomes ever more important. Secretary Rumsfeld needs
to have available to him creative ideas about how to accomplish
that goal, and the latitude necessary to act on such ideas where
saving the lives of our servicemen and women and/or our civilian
populace may hang in the balance.
Winston Churchill
once trenchantly observed, "In a time of war, the truth is
so precious that it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
It would be regrettable, and potentially costly, if the Bush administration
were to allow itself to be bludgeoned into foreclosing the deception
option to protect truth and the lives of all those who treasure
it.
|
