2012 - Afghanistan - "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" - And NATO-CIA Propaganda

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html 2012 Article Relates to Amnesty International USA. Former USA Executive Director 2012-2013: Suzanne Nossel Suzanne Nossel: currently executive director of PEN American Centre largest of the 144 centres that form a loose federation that comprise PEN International Current USA Executive Director appointment: Steven W. Hawkins Steven W. Hawkins: American social justice leader & litigator http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html Huffington Post - 2012 Coleen Rowley Former FBI Special Agent Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars Posted: 20/06/2012 00:50 AEST Updated: 18/08/2012 19:12 AEST By Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley The new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA -- Suzanne Nossel -- is a recent U.S. government insider. So it's a safe bet that AI's decision to seize upon a topic that dovetailed with American foreign policy interests, "women's rights in Afghanistan," at the NATO Conference last month in Chicago came directly from her. Nossel was hired by AI in January 2012. In her early career, Nossel worked for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke under the Clinton Administration at the United Nations. Most recently, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the U.S. Department of State, where she was responsible for multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women's issues, public diplomacy, press and congressional relations. She also played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council (where her views about the original Goldstone Report on behalf of Palestinian women did not quite rise to the same level of concerns for the women in countries that U.S.-NATO has attacked militarily). Nossel would have worked for and with Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, and undoubtedly helped them successfully implement their "Right to Protect (R2P)" -- otherwise known as "humanitarian intervention" -- as well as the newly created "Atrocity Prevention Board." This cornerstone of President Barack Obama's foreign policy (which has served mainly to rationalize the launching of war on Libya) is now being hauled out to call for U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria. "Smart Power" = smart wars? In fact, Nossel is herself credited as having coined the term "Smart Power," which embraces the United States' use of military power as well as other forms of "soft power," an approach which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced at her confirmation as the new basis of State Department policy. An excerpt from Nossel's 2004 paper on "Smart Power," published in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine, sounds a lot like Samantha Power's (and also traces back to Madeleine Albright's) theories: To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war. Washington, the theory goes, should thus offer assertive leadership -- diplomatic, economic, and not least, military [our emphasis] -- to advance a broad array of goals: self-determination, human rights, free trade, the rule of law, economic development, and the quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Following the CIA Red Cell Perhaps the AI's hiring of a State Department shill as executive director of its U.S. affiliate was merely coincidental to how/why its "NATO Shadow Summit" so closely mimicked the CIA's latest suggested propaganda device, but.... The "CIA Red Cell," a group of analysts assigned to think "outside the box" to anticipate emerging challenges, was right to worry in March 2010 when the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) found that 80 percent of French and German citizens were opposed to continued deployment of their countries' militaries in the U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan. Even though public apathy had, up to that point, enabled French and German politicians to "ignore their voters" and steadily increase their governments' troop contributions to Afghanistan, the CIA's newly-created think tank was concerned that a forecasted increase in NATO casualties in the upcoming "bloody summer ... could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal." In a confidential memo, the "Red Cell" wrote: The Afghanistan mission's low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009. Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters ... Only a fraction (0.1-1.3 percent) of French and German respondents identified 'Afghanistan' as the most urgent issue facing their nation in an open-ended question, according to the same polling. These publics ranked 'stabilizing Afghanistan' as among the lowest priorities for US and European leaders, according to polls by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) over the past two years. According to INR polling in the fall of 2009, the view that the Afghanistan mission is a waste of resources and 'not our problem' was cited as the most common reason for opposing ISAF by German respondents and was the second most common reason by French respondents. But the 'not our problem' sentiment also suggests that, so for, sending troops to Afghanistan is not yet on most voters' radar. But Casualties Could Precipitate Backlash If some forecasts of a bloody summer in Afghanistan come to pass, passive French and German dislike of their troop presence could turn into active and politically potent hostility. The tone of previous debate suggests that a spike in French or German casualties or in Afghan civilian casualties could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal. The CIA "Special Memorandum" went a step further, inviting "a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion" to suggest "information campaigns" that State Department polls showed likely to sway Western Europeans. The "Red Cell" memo was quickly leaked, however, furnishing a remarkable window into how U.S. government propaganda is designed to work upon NATO citizenry to maintain public support for the euphemistically titled "International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF) waging war on Afghans. Here are some of the CIA propaganda expert's suggestions: ...messaging that dramatizes the potential adverse consequences of an ISAF defeat for Afghan civilians could leverage French (and other European) guilt for abandoning them. The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France 's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties... Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission...Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences. Amnesty International struck similar themes in announcements posted online as well as billboard advertisements on Chicago bus stops (like the one above). Telling "NATO: Keep the Progress Going!", the ads beckoned us to find out more on Sunday, May 20, 2012, the day thousands of activists marched in Chicago in protest of NATO's wars. The billboard seemed to answer a recent Huffington Post blog post, "Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?" The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it's not doing so well with three quarters of the world's women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war ... a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America 's top foreign policy office has been held by women ... women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters. Our curiosity was further piqued because we consider ourselves to be women's rights and human rights proponents and also due to our own prior federal careers in intelligence and military. (Colonel Wright is retired from the State Department/US military and Rowley is from the FBI.) So along with a few other anti-war activists, we packed into a taxi to head to the Chicago hotel where Amnesty International's "Shadow Summit" featuring former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other female foreign relations officials was being held. We happened to carry our "NATO bombs are not humanitarian"; "NATO Kills Girls" and anti-drone bombing posters that we had with us for the march later that day. As we arrived, an official-looking black car dropped off Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, who was to be a main speaker (on the first panel, along with former Secretary Albright; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois; and Afifa Azim, General Director and Co-Founder, Afghan Women's Network; along with Moderator Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Deputy Director of the Council on Foreign Relations' Women and Foreign Policy Program). Verveer cast a cold glance at us and would not answer Ann Wright's questions as she scurried into the hotel with her aides surrounding her and us following behind. At first the hotel security guards tried to turn us away but we reminded the registration desk the Summit was advertised as "Free Admissions" and that some of us were members of Amnesty International. So they let us register and attend as long as we promised to leave our signs outside and not disrupt the speakers. The hotel conference room was about half full. We stayed long enough to hear the opening remarks and the moderator's first questions of Albright and the other speakers on the first panel. All generally linked the protection and participation of Afghan women in government as well as the progress made in educating Afghan women to the eventual peace and security of the country as envisioned by the new strategic "partnership" agreement that Obama had just signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Ms. Verveer said Afghan women do not want to be seen as "victims" but are now rightfully nervous about their future. When we saw that audience participation was going to be limited to questions selected from the small note cards being collected, we departed, missing the second panel as well as kite-flying for women's rights. We noted, even in that short time, however, how easy it was for these U.S. government officials to use the "good and necessary cause" of women's rights to get the audience into the palm of their collective hand -- just as the CIA's "strategic communication" expert predicted! But Why Ms. Albright? Not everyone was hoodwinked however. Even before the "Summit" was held, Amnesty realized it had a PR problem as a result of its billboard advertisement touting progress in Afghanistan. An Amnesty official tried to put forth a rather lame defense blaming an accidental poor choice of wording. But many readers (and AI members) posted critical comments and questions, including concerns about Albright's involvement given her infamous defense of Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s, which were estimated to have caused the deaths of a half million Iraqi children, with the comment "we think the price is worth it." Under the blogger's explanation: "We Get It / Human Rights Now," there were comments like these: ...Could someone from AI please explain why Madeleine Albright was invited to participate in this event? We (and especially those of us who are familiar with AI) should all be able to understand that the wording on the poster was a genuine, albeit damaging, mistake. But why Ms. Albright? The posters are pro-NATO and play into prevailing tropes about so called "humanitarian intervention" via "think of the women & children" imagery. The posters & the forum that includes Albright are neither slight slips nor without context. AI is coping heat because they have miss-stepped dramatically. There is NOTHING subtle about either the imagery nor the message! It is not a case of "oh sorry we didn't realize it it could be interpreted that way! They used pro Nato imagery & slogans ahead of & during a controversial summit that has thousands protesting in the streets. Tell me again how that is not taking sides? They asked a notorious apologist for mass murder of children to speak on the right of women and children...tell me again: how is that not taking sides. So it is absolutely reasonable for past supporters (and board members like myself) to be asking how it is that Amnesty USA so lost its bearings they could make a critical SERIES of errors like this? Of course the defensive AI blog author never answered the numerous questions asking why Amnesty had chosen Madeleine Albright as their main speaker. So we will venture an answer that probably lies in the fact that all of the powerful feminist-war hawks who have risen to become Secretary of State (or are waiting in the wings) are now taking their lead from the ruthless Grand Dame who paved the way for them, Madeleine Albright -- (see Coleen Rowley's recent blogs: "Obama's New 'Atrocity Prevention Board': Reasons for Skepticism" and "Militarization of the Mothers: You've Come a Long Way, Baby, from Mother's Day for Peace"). It's also possible the highest ranks of the feminist wing of military interventionism (i.e. Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al.) are so passionate and hubristic about the nobility of their goal and "Amercan exceptionalism" that some have simply succumbed to a kind of almost religious (blind faith) type fervor. The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions Nossel's and Albright's theories are flawed in many ways but suffice it to say that democracies are actually not less prone to war. A long list of "democracies" -- including Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, France and the United States itself -- disprove this assertion. In any event, the U.S. has been terribly hypocritical in its support of "democracies" in foreign countries, often toppling or attempting to topple them (i.e. Iran's Mossadeqh, Guatemala's Arbenz, Chile's Allende) in order to gain easier control of a foreign country through an allied dictatorship. No one is going to argue that the goals of humanitarianism, preventing atrocities and furthering women's rights around the world are not "good and necessary" (in the words of the CIA strategic communications expert). We would go so far as to say these ARE truly noble causes! Testimonials about human rights' abuse are often true and fundamentalist regimes' treatment of women seems to vary only in degrees of horrible. But while it's true that many women lack rights in Afghanistan, some would argue that it's conveniently true. And that the best lies are always based on a certain amount of truth. The devil, however, lies in the details of promoting equality and accomplishing humanitarianism. Most importantly the ends, even noble ends, never justify wrongful means. In fact, when people such as Samantha Power decide to bomb the village (Libya) to save it, it will backfire on a pragmatic level. It must be realized that it is the nobility of the U.S.-NATO's motivation that -- as CIA propaganda department has advised -- should be relied upon to convince otherwise good-hearted people (especially women) to support (or at least tolerate) war and military occupation (now known to encompass the worst of war crimes, massacres of women and children, torture, cutting off body parts of those killed, as well as increasing mental illness, self-destructive behavior and suicides among U.S. soldiers and the corresponding cover-ups of all such horrible means). In the decades after Vietnam, a number of military scholars identified declining American public support for that war as the main factor responsible for the U.S. "losing" Vietnam. One lesson learned and quickly implemented was to get rid of the military draft and put the wars on a credit card so fewer citizens would pay attention. Some control also had to be gained over the type of free media (that led to trusted TV anchor Walter Cronkite broadcasting his public souring on the Vietnam War). A whole series of war propaganda systems, from planting retired generals as "talking heads" on TV to the assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deciding to "embed the media," have worked pretty well to maintain the necessary level of war momentum in mainstream media and amongst public opinion. But now, with American polls approaching the same problematic levels as those in Europe cited by the "CIA Red Cell," we suddenly see major human rights organizations like Amnesty International (as well as others) applauding Obama's (and the feminist war-hawks') "Atrocity Prevention Board." Such sleight of hand seems to work even better amongst political partisans. By the way, it should be noted that Congress may allow these Pentagon propagandists to target American citizens through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Should we connect the dots? There are some clear lines where the laudable need to further human rights should not be twisted into justifying harsh economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children or, even worse, "shock and awe" aerial bombing that takes the lives of the women and children the "humanitarian" propagandists say they want to help. Madeleine Albright's response about the deaths of a half million children on 60 Minutes, that "the price was worth it," illustrates the quintessential falsity of what ethicists call "act utilitarianism" or concocting fictional happy outcomes to justify the terrible wrongful means. It also seems that a human rights NGO, in this case Amnesty International, which had gained a solid reputation and hence the trust of those it has helped through the years, will be jeopardized in aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO. This is exactly how the Nobel Peace Prize got corrupted, aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO, which is why Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire withdrew from the Nobel Peace forum held in Chicago during NATO. Good NGOS and non-profits that want to maintain the trust in their humanitarian work tend to be very careful to maintain their independence from any government, let alone any war-making government. When NGOs, even good ones, become entwined with the U.S./NATO war machine, don't they risk losing their independent credibility? Ann Wright is a 29-year U.S. Army/Army Reserve Colonel and a 16-year U.S. diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war. She returned to Afghanistan in 2007 and 2010 on fact-finding missions. Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She wrote a "whistleblower" memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures. She retired at the end of 2004, and now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation. (Originally posted on Consortiumnews.com) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING (POSTS) CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan LINK | here 'CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups' | Robert Parry LINK | here Mainstream Media - Concentrated - Big-6 Corporate Control - Lies & Indoctrination LINK | here Modern Art As CIA Weapon LINK | here Other Interesting: British Broadcasting Corporation Syria: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - Fraud LINK | here Summary US-NATO War Machine Humanitarian NGOs Shilling for US-NATO Wars Entwined with US/NATO War Machine Title: "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" Link | Post US-NATO / CIA PROPAGANDA SELLING AFGHANISTAN WAR USA UNSIGNING ROME STATUTE USA THREATENING MILITARY ACTION RE BRINGING USA BEFORE ICC CIA PROPAGANDA & MEDIA CONTROL - GENERAL Page | Link ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Feel like I've maybe read and posted this before. It's a pain tracking anything on this blog, so I've not looked to see if I've covered this. Memory's shocking, so it's all like new to me.   lol Anyway, I really enjoyed this article.  Even though it dates back to 2012, everything is applicable today in terms of how government, military, foreign policy, NGOs, humanitarian organisations etc operate. ꕤ

CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan

ꕤ Summary SOURCE WikiLeaks CIA PROPAGANDA EXPERTS SELLING THE AFGHAN WAR TO RELUCTANT PUBLIC IN ALLIED NATO COUNTRIES ‘ISAF Mission’ referred to in CIA propaganda strategy report  -- is basically NATO military intervention     & is therefore referred to as such in the summary below CIA strategic communication analysis -- ie amounts to a CIA Propaganda Assessment & Plan Dated:  11 March 2010 ___________________________________ The propaganda plan focuses on finding ways to sell NATO military intervention in Afghanistan to the French, German & other Western European publics ___________________________________  SUMMARY / COMMENTS NATO countries, in this case, primarily France & Germany count on PUBLIC APATHY to proceed with committing resources and troops to NATO military action in Afghanistan _______________ Oddly,  this ‘public apathy’ is  despite 80% *opposition* of German & French public polled in late 2009 So one would think that until such public opinion is translated into street demonstrations and the like, such opposition will be taken as ‘public apathy’ and ignored by politicians _______________ CIA warns that public hostility may be aroused by: *military casualties *civilian casualties NOTE:  Dutch (Netherlands) government fell due to troop commitment to Afghanistan CIA therefore also cautions that Dutch-style debate spill-over could result in the event of high casualties and could threaten other European maintenance/commitment to NATO military intervention in Afghanistan Article - Netherlands govt collapse Dutch government collapses after Labour withdrawal from coalition Row over extension of Dutch troops' tour of duty in Afghanistan forces Labour out of Jan Peter Balkenende's ruling coalition David Batty and agencies @David_Batty Sunday 21 February 2010 03.52 AEDT Last modified on Tuesday 20 May 2014 05.21 AEST The Dutch government has ­collapsed over disagreements on whether or not to extend troop deployment in Afghanistan. The prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, said the Labour party – the second-largest party in his ruling coalition – was quitting. He tendered his government's resignation to Queen Beatrix, the Dutch ceremonial head of state, in a telephone call. Balkenende has been weighing up a request from Nato for Dutch troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2010. Just under 2,000 Dutch personnel have been serving in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan, where 21 Dutch soldiers have been killed. MORE http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/20/dutch-coalition-collapse-afghanistan _______________ Public Apathy Permits Politicians to Ignore Voters Afghan military intervention unimportant to the French and German public, therefore: =  French and German leaders could disregard what opposition there was =  could increase their troop contributions to NATO military intervention in Afghanistan Result of public apathy as at March 2010: -- Germany:  third highest troop level in Afghanistan -- France:  fourth highest troop level in Afghanistan *DESPITE OPPOSITION of 80% of German & French public polled in late 2009 _______________ That's a massive amount of opposition that the German and French governments are ignoring, presumably because it is not opposition mounted in the streets of those countries. _______________ Same 2009 poll showed German and French public: -- did not rank Afghanistan as a most urgent issue. -- did not rank stabilising Afghanistan as a high priority issue. -- did not see Afghanistan as a national problem. -- saw Afghanistan military intervention as waste of public funds. Therefore, propaganda must be tailored to EXPLOIT these public opinion factors. CIA propaganda advice memo indicates that the European public viewing the issue of Afghanistan as a 'not our problem' which is interpreted that the existing deployment of troops to Afghanistan is not on the public radar. CASUALTIES The CIA propagandist plan concern is that: Passive public opposition could be turned into active calls for withdrawal of troops if German troops, French troops or Afghanistan civilians are killed. _______________ Which probably explains why: 1) the military hides figures of civilian dead. 2) the government discourages media focus on military dead, bodybags etc. _______________ DOMESTIC POLITICS Ongoing support for NATO military intervention is at risk at ELECTION TIME. { Comment:  therefore, one would think, anti-war campaigners might wish to especially concentrate their efforts in the lead up to elections, as election time appears to be a critical time to turn public opinion and to perhaps leverage wanted results from politicians } CIA express concern re DOMINO EFFECT: ie if the Dutch pull out due to domestic opposition, the French and the Germans may do likewise, citing the Dutch precedent. { Comment:  for anti-war campaigners, that would mean that if one country’s campaign is successful, there is a strong likelihood that such success may be followed up elsewhere, by setting of example for others to follow } _______________ Propaganda Pre-empting Opposition Between 2008 & 2010 (ie 2 year period) France + Germany took measures to pre-empt further opposition to Afghanistan military intervention _______________ FRANCE Following deaths of x10 French soldiers in late 2008, Sarkozy called for a National Assembly to give the appearance of debate & consent Sarkozy's government won the vote Sarkozy used that opportunity to then deploy a further 3,000 troops Due to regional elections coming up March 2010, Sarkozy's govt is at risk to any increase in casualties ______________ GERMANY Kunduz Airstrike 2009 American F-15E fighter jet struck two *beached* / *stranded* fuel tankers reportedly captured by Taliban insurgents, in response to German call. Over 90 civilians killed in US fighter attack. German Col. Georg Klein relying on intelligence officer relying on sole informant. Col. Georg Klein ordered that 500-pound GBU-38 bombs be dropped at 2:30am. June 2010 Germany announced it would pay $5,000 to each of the families of over 100 civilian victims, as an ex gratia payment without admitting liability. Former Afghan Commerce Minister Amin Farhang described the $5,000—equivalent to about 20,000 Afghanis—as a "laughable" sum. {Comment:  that sum’s an insult} Germany reclassified the Afghanistan deployment as an "armed conflict within the parameters of international law", allowing German forces to act without risk of prosecution under German law. [Wikipedia] ------------------ Article - Kunduz "Officially, the German deployment had been termed a "stabilization mission," which left many soldiers resentful that the full dangers of their mission were not appreciated back home." February 11, 2010 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-world-from-berlin-new-evaluation-on-afghanistan-long-overdue-a-677289.html So the propaganda program was already in place in Germany, spinning the 'stabilisation mission' line for what is intensely contested occupation. ______________ Kunduz Airstrike of Sept 2009 killed high number of Afghan civilians is described by the CIA as a 'potential pressure' on the government Germany also has vulnerability:  May 2010 regional elections CIA advises on how the European public may be encouraged to swallow increased military casualties and/or increased civilian causalities: ie can be done by linking 'outcomes' in Afghanistan with the voters' own priorities Communication method to achieve this: *propaganda program across NATO troop contributing nations  *consistency  *repetition  *linking to key concerns for particular national audiences is the pre-emptive propaganda measure, to be relied upon to continue to support NATO military intervention in the event that the 2010 apathy concerning Afghanistan military intervention turns to active opposition & calls for withdrawal, as this propaganda will then shore up the politicians' ability to justify & support taxpayer expense and deployment of their nations' troops in Afghanistan. { Comment:  So it is propaganda to pave the way to giving politicians the excuse to carry on as they wish, even in the face of future opposition. } THE PLAN FRANCE Exploit concerns for civilians & refugees give examples of benefits to Afghan civilians / ie spin the Afghan civilian ‘benefits’ Choice of spin is based on results of public opinion polls. 2009 Public polls indicated: 1) those in support of Afghanistan military intervention, hold the view on basis that intervention is a 'help' to civilians; 2) those against Afghanistan military intervention, hold the view on the basis intervention is damaging to civilians. Going by the 2009 polls, the CIA propaganda experts conclude that contradicting the perception that Afghanistan military intervention does more harm than good is important in France, particularly given the Muslim minority in France. The plan is to cite a 2009 poll that indicates that a majority Afghans support foreign military intervention in their country. Reason for this tactic:  This is important because a good percentage of the German and French public that was polled (and in opposition to the military intervention in Afghanistan) also believed that the Afghan public is opposed to foreign military intervention in Afghanistan. Exploiting Public Guilt In addition, the French can dramatise the potentially negative consequences of NATO defeat for Afghan civilians Exploiting Cultural Differences re Status of Women eg by using the spectre of Taliban denying girls education this is supposed to trigger secular French indignation give the public reason to support French military intervention in Afghanistan -- ie  using propaganda to spin foreign military intervention in Afghanistan aims as a'good and necessary' cause so as to obtain public support, regardless of casualties ______________ COMMENT Explains all that incongruous emphasis on women's rights and anti-rape campaigns pushed by the UN, the British government, the US government, and like organisations -- where the ditzy Hollywood celebrities front the propaganda sideshow in a perverse entertainment-politics ‘marriage’ with bald-headed neocon warmonger politicians ______________ Exploit Testimonials  / Personalise Exploiting stories re the plight of refugees is highly recommended (given media controversy that was whipped up re 2009 expulsion of 12 Afghan refugees) { Comment:  the same could be said of the ‘Refugee Crisis’ currently drummed up by Merkel and the media and used by politicians in an attempt to justify attack on Syria } French were already involved in anti human trafficking efforts, so (according to the CIA propaganda memo), the French could be talked into supporting a NATO propaganda campaign along the lines that a NATO defeat could cause a refugee crisis. ______________ COMMENT  The irony is that military interventions are responsible for creating displacement and refugee problems, which Europe is currently awash with due to successive interventions of NATO and allies. ______________ GERMANY 2009 poll indicates German public opposition to war in Afghanistan was on the basis of: - financial/resources waste reasons - not a German issue - objection in principle {pacifist public} Ways to dampen German public opposition to NATO military intervention in Afghanistan - demonstrating ‘progress on the ground' - propaganda re consequences for Germany if NATO defeated in Afghanistan - propaganda re value of German 'partnership' in the NATO-led intervention - using propaganda about Afghanistan optimism re the military intervention's progress could challenge the waste of taxpayer money argument { Comment:  following government-associated broadcaster polls are never to be trusted (in my opinion) ...  } Background ARD ARD (broadcaster) joint organisation of Germany's regional public-service broadcasters founded in 1950 in West Germany ARD - world's largest public broadcaster, with a budget of €6.3 billion & 23,000 employees budget comes primarily from the licence fees every household, every company and even every public institution ARD - operates many correspondents' offices in foreign cities, second only to BBC News {Comment:  BBC has been described as a ‘nest of spies’ by Iran, so it is not unreasonable to conclude ARD would be a like German organisation} Since 1960 it ARD been operated by the German federal government [Propaganda & Mass Persuasion, Cull, Cullbert & Welch - pg 333] ABC/BBC/ADR These polls *supposedly* indicated a high level of Afghan support for foreign military invasion in their country, on the basis of belief in pending improvement of conditions. {Comment:  lol ... anyone actually believe that?  Who did they poll, US payrolled dissidents? } Meanwhile, there were equally high levels of German pessimism re ‘stabilising Afghanistan’ Propaganda plan is to stress this 'high optimism' attributed to Afghanistan public To counter the 'not our problem' attitude of the German public, the following propaganda is called for: messaging that indicates NATO defeat in Afghanistan could equal exposure to terrorism, opium, refugees in Germany ______________ Irony This is the *exact* result of German *INTERVENTION* abroad -- it creates an explosion of displaced & therefore refugees, that Germany (& Europe) is now imposing on the German public. Currently Germany (& Europe) is hosting unprecedented levels of (unvetted) refugees and economic immigrants, passed off by the media as 'Syrian refugees' --  80% of whom are from countries other than Syria -- countries that have been targets of US & allied military destruction. Thus Germany has in fact opened itself up to ADDITIONAL financial burden; extensive, ongoing, and irreconcilable social burden; significant threat and likelihood of internal violence and terrorism; probable drug importation given the high probablility of internal links (refugee influx) to external sources of opium. All these ADDITIONAL costs of war to Germany are imposed on German taxpayers, alongside the refugee problem Germany has taken onboard on behalf of its imperialist American 'partner'. ______________ For Germany, propaganda strategy is to spin and emphasise NATO intervention's 'multilateral' and 'humanitarian' propaganda angles 1990s Germans supported NATO attack on Balkans as a show of 'commitment' to NATO allies German point of weakness is the desire to help / co-operate. The 'helping allies' rationale is the major reason for German public support of NATO military intervention in Afghanistan (in 2009 poll). European worry about European standing in Washington is EXPLOITED by Washington -- as leverage for maintaining European contributions to the NATO military interventions. eg.  Obama did not attend EU summit /  places Europe in 'lesser position' & results in European 'hand wringing' re this demotion For some bizarre reason, the French and the German publics are deemed to have confidence in Obama's ability to handle foreign affairs CIA indicates that this French & German public gullibility can be exploited by getting Obama to: a) spout propaganda about the importance of NATO military intervention in Afghanistan; & b) express disappointment in allies who do not help. ______________ LMAO ... ingenious.   That definitely hooks in the brainwashed Germans, who are all about goodness and light and hand-holding cooperation in the aftermath of decades of British and US subjugation and propaganda.  lol ______________ 2009 poll showed that when citing the Obama *personal* request for Afghanistan deployments, support increased as follows: =  4-15% French increase in support for 'yes' =  7-13% German increase in support for 'yes' ______________ CIA says that although the total percentages are small, there is a public sensitivity to disappointing the plutocratic puppet President of the American empire EXPLOITING AFGHAN WOMEN FOR WAR PROPAGANDA idea is to use Afghan women to 'humanise' NATO military intervention in Afghanistan / as the symbols of NATO's noble role in combating Taliban. Arrange media events conveying testimonials by Afghan women to broadcast to disproportionately female audiences. EXPLOIT *Afghan women speaking of experiences under Taliban *Afghan women speaking of aspirations for the future *Afghan women speaking of fears of Taliban victory Hook up Afghan women and the media Disseminate the pro Western/NATO intervention in Afghanistan propaganda via media to the French, German and other European women so as to get the women of Europe to come on-board with NATO military intervention in Afghanistan This is especially important as polls indicate that - 08% more French women than men are anti war - 22% more German women than men are anti war SOURCE WikiLeaks ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Propaganda 101 Obama will decorate an original French soldier for bravery in Afghanistan ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Barack Obama will deliver in a month the Medal of Honor to Captain Florent Groberg, 32, a French-born US soldier who distinguished himself for his courage in fighting in Kunar province, Afghanistan. TRANSLATION Barack Obama will deliver in a month the Medal of Honor to Captain Florent Groberg, 32, a French-born US soldier who distinguished himself for his courage in fighting in Kunar province, Afghanistan. The "Medal of Honor", the highest American military award, distinguished, since 1863, an "act of heroism beyond duty." It is often awarded posthumously. Deployed in Kunar province in 2009 and again in 2012, Captain Groberg has shown 8 August 2012 in Asadabad. In an interview with Army Times magazine, Groberg captain told how he came face-to-face with a man about to commit a terrorist attack - suicide, an explosive device attached to the torso.  "The only thing I thought was: I must away from myself, I have to get him away from everybody," he recounted, explaining how he had then thrown to the ground. "At that time, he lands on the ground, I look at it, and it explodes, it explodes right before my feet." The blast left four people dead and many injured on the US side. But the intervention of Captain Groberg prevented the suicide bomber to activate his bomb when he had planned to do so and thus avoided a death toll much higher. Florent Groberg was born in Poissy, near Paris, May 8, 1983. US citizenship in 2001, he was educated at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda. Recounting the phone call from US President informing him that he would receive the prestigious medal, Florent Gorberg evoked unforgettable: "It's not every day that one of the most influential men in the world calls you on your mobile. " The discount will medal ceremony held November 12 at the White House. FRENCH SOURCE http://www.leparisien.fr/international/obama-va-decorer-un-soldat-d-origine-francaise-pour-son-courage-en-afghanistan-15-10-2015-5186039.php?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed&link_time=1444864002#xtor=AD-1481423552 ꕤ