In the same month the White House claims to have lost millions of emails and the U.S. Attorney General is walking a tight rope for not leveling with the American people and Congress, the Army is now under fire for inflating and apparently lying about the tragedies of Ranger Pat Tillman and former POW Jessica Lynch. Pat Tillman' brother, a fellow Army Ranger and Jessica Lynch herself have testified on Capitol Hill that the Army blatantly changed official reports in order to manage a public relations nightmare and to create heroes worthy of Hollywood movies. However, in wartime situations like these, is the truth always the right answer?
Today's military Public Affairs officers have an incredibly difficult job. In their role as a primary source of military information, they are responsible for balancing the needs of domestic and international audiences while zealously protecting the security of military Information Operations (IO). In February 2006, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (the military's top uniformed leaders) published an unclassified document outlining the tenets of Information Operations. In describing the components of effective Information Operations, which are required to "achieve and maintain information superiority for the U.S. and its allies", they listed five enduring Principles of Public Information. The third principle states:
3. Information shall not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect the Government from criticism or embarrassment.
While the Principles of Public Information appear to be clear and straightforward, the responsibilities of the Public Affairs officer are not nearly as easy to decipher. One of the things she or he must do is work closely with the IO staff in order to ensure that their activities are "integrated, coordinated and deconflicted with IO". What does that mean? How far does the military go in order to balance the truth with embarrassing news from the battlefield? History shows that one concept the American public finds hard to accept is the truth should not be an automatic response in time of war. National security concerns should always be given priority when they come in conflict with releasing highly damaging information. To illustrate the point, here is another quote from the Joint Chiefs that deserves serious consideration:
"Battles and campaigns can be lost in the cognitive dimension. Factors such as leadership, morale, unit cohesion, emotion, state of mind, level of training, experience, situational awareness, as well as public opinion, perceptions, media, public information and rumors influence this dimension."
This is where the "battle for the hearts and minds" comes in. Information that severely damages the morale of troops in the field, the public back home or the public in an enemy nation must be carefully scrutinized before being released. While the Bush administration haphazardly stretches the truth at nearly every opportunity, the control and management of information coming from our nation's battlefield should be and will continue to be a work in progress. Military leaders and politicians will always be faced with decisions about whether to release the unvarnished truth or to paint a picture that conforms to stated policy and goals for victory. Sometimes, releasing the unvarnished, embarrassing truth is the right decision. At other times, the consequences of truth are too great.
In the case of Pat Tillman, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Army wanted to avoid reporting to the American people that a highly regarded former professional football player from the Arizona Cardinals was killed by his own fellow soldiers. In Jessica Lynch's case, the story about a severely wounded and possibly sexually assaulted female soldier in captivity quickly turned into a Rambo-esque young woman who continued to fight and kill enemy combatants despite being wounded and under heavy fire.
Decisions about releasing information during a time of war will always be difficult. Each battle or incident that requires reporting will produce information that either supports or discredits statements by our leaders, their policies or the goals they are trying to achieve. In order to win the "hearts and minds" battle, the military will continue to " integrate, coordinate and deconflict" information that it releases to the general public and worldwide news outlets. Did the Army go too far in the case of Pat Tillman's friendly fire death? Was it too tempting to turn an attractive young, female POW into a legendary fighting machine at a time when the Pentagon needed some good news? These questions do not have right or wrong answers. In this writer's opinion, the truth should have prevailed in both of these cases. As a nation, we should only bend or hide the truth when national security is at stake. Neither of these scenarios rises to that level. Pat Tillman's family should have been given the truth when the Army knew it and Jessica Lynch's story should have been told truthfully. As she stated, her fellow soldiers were the real heroes, particularly the ones who really fought and actually died that fateful day in Iraq.
Copyright (c) Joseph Collins 2007 |
