Scientia potentia est

The National Security Archive has released new documents that detail the "Media War Plan" to be executed in Iraq. A timeline of events is provided for easy reference. The first document, called "'Rapid Reaction Media Team" Concept, was published in January 2003 (pre-Iraq war) and recommends the creation of a "Rapid Reaction Media Team" using "hand-picked" American, British, and Iraqi media experts to prepare for the establishment of an "Iraqi Free Media" following the invasion of Iraq. It also discusses the team's mission, personnel requirements, required tasks, and plans for "on-the-shelf" programming, and outlines topics and themes to be disseminated to the Iraqi public. The very first line of the brief is as follows: "1.0 Background. This concept paper defines a critical interim rapid response component of the USG's strategic infommation campaign for Iraq - in the event hostilities are required to liberate Iraq." The words used in this first line are enough to turn the stomach. "Strategic information campaign"? In other words, propoganda? Continuing into the successive sections does not improve the tone. The assumption of military action in Iraq screams out of the page - "the mission will be...to stabilize Iraq, preventing the trifucation of Iraq after hostilities" - and inflamatory statements riddle the text like the bullets that would soon riddle the Iraqi state: "... a re-consituted free Iraqi domestic media can serve as a model in the Middle East where so much Arab hate-media are themselves equivalent to weapons of mass destruction." If one can see past this slant, the next offense quickly surfaces in the form of the "hand-picked media experts" that will oversee the disemination of information in post-war Iraq. After the U.S Attorney scandal, we understand what this administration means by "hand picked" - the mean dogmatically loyal Republicans. What this may mean for the message that is communicated to the Iraqis is very disturbing. Reading the PowerPoint slides that appear at the end of the document, another disturbing piece of information is revealed. Under the "basic elements", we find a bullet point that reads: "The Team will work for the Interim Authority, and - after the handover from DoD - will receive guidance from State (i.e., {Name blocked out} with whom we have excellent working relations.)" Who, exactly, do we have "excellent working relations" with in the "State"? Hmmm... In 2007, the Pentagon finally got around to reviewing this onformation, and published "Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy," on February 9, 2007. This report concluded that: "The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate . . . " Therefore, "the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not provide 'the most accurate analysis of intelligence' to senior decision-makers." Weasel words which basically say, "You lied, and while you didn't break any laws, you still shouldn't have done it." Big surprise. The other document in the breakdown is titled "Acquisition: Contracts Awarded for the Coalition Provisional Authority by the Defense Contracting Command-Washington," published March 18, 2004. It involves money paid to various companies and organizations to participate in this inititave. One of the beneficiaries is Shaha Ali Riza, who received preferential treatment from our friend Paul Wolfowitz (of World Bank scandal fame), who was then a senior Department official. The web is ever-tightening. These documents show from yet another angle the administration's early goal of "methodically preparing an invasion to oust" Saddam Hussein. It shows blatant disregard for any of the other parties involved, and reviews the lengths and expense that the administration was willing to engage in to support its assertion. As we preach our gospel of "truth" and "democracy", we actually engage in something quite different. So, is knowledge power, or is it the other way around?