Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
One of the questions: Why would Russia suddenly have to bribe Afghan militants to kill Americans when they’re been doing it for free for 20 years?
What a lifetime in journalism leaves you with is a profound dislike for fake news and a heightened ability to detect it. When politicians, corporations or government agencies lie in order to manipulate the public, they commit a profound betrayal of public trust — a quaint concept, to be sure, but one that used to matter a very great deal to many of us. Today the greatest serial liar in public life is Donald Trump, and normally any news that seems to discredit him is welcome to me. But when the news that discredits him is fake, I find that I dislike the news even more than I dislike Trump.
The latest apparent revelation is that Russia (them again!) has been offering militant groups in Afghanistan cash bounties for killing American soldiers. The story appeared in the New York Times ten days ago, was subsequently “confirmed” by many other news outlets, and is now presented everywhere as established fact. Trump is accused of either knowing about the bounties and doing nothing, or not knowing about the bounties, and in either case is presumed guilty of dereliction of duty.
Democrats, like hounds on fox-hunting day, are in a joyous uproar of outrage, bugling about treason and incompetence and breach of faith and God Knows what all. Just a damn minute.
(I know what you’re going to say: “You’re not an expert, you’re not even a pundit with contacts in Afghanistan, how dare you contradict the judgment of people who do this for a living?” To which I have two responses: 1) Remember Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction? And 2) hold my beer.)
The first problem with the first story in the New York Times is that it is based entirely on anonymous sources. Like every other media outlet, the Times has a written policy discouraging the use of anonymous sources at all — let alone as the only source for a sensational story. To its credit, the Times story is laced with qualifications, phrases such as “if confirmed” (Hello? That means it is NOT confirmed.), “uncertainty” and “it was not clear.” But such qualifiers do not make it into headlines, or subsequent versions of the story.
The next steps in the process reveal not the unfolding of a journalistic triumph, but the launching of a con: several media outlets soon “confirmed” the New York Times reporting; by which they meant not that the had confirmed that the thing had happened, but that they had found their own set of anonymous sources who claimed it had happened. Then, the Times took a victory lap, saying, “See? Other journalists have confirmed our story.” They did no such thing. They replicated it.
The question seldom addressed in these stories — almost never at the beginning, seldom now — is one that any journalist worthy of the title must ask first: what is the source of the material being relayed by the anonymous sources? The only answer provided so far is that the information originated with interrogations of “captured Afghan militants and criminals.” Enhanced interrogation? We don’t know. Exactly what did the militants and criminals have to say? We don’t know.
Another essential question that goes unexamined here is essential to every investigation of wrongdoing: cui bono? Who benefits? Presumably, Russia, which according to unnamed sources quoting unidentified people in undisclosed locations, has been offering $100,000 for the death of an American soldier.
But Russia desperately wants US forces out of Afghanistan, for a host of geopolitical reasons. Donald Trump wants US forces out of Afghanistan, and has made several false starts and announcements aimed at getting them out. Things are relatively quiet in the country, so far in 2020 only eight US service members have been killed, and not one of those deaths has been linked to any bounty payment. So this, we are told, is when Russia launches a scheme that, when it inevitably blows up in its face, will ensure that Trump continues to be unable to pull US forces out of the country.
Who benefits? All the people invested in the endless war: the saber-rattling politicians, the defense contractors of the military-industrial complex, the parasitic Aghan government and, oh, yeah — the high priests of the “intelligence community” who speak anonymously about bounties and weapons of mass destruction. They have been lying to us so long and so successfully that they no longer bother to work at it.
“Operation Enduring Violence” by Truthout.org is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
I never really cared much for the Orwellian flavor of Cold War 2.0, nor how it has always seemed even more contrived and bat-shit crazy then the 1.0 version.
” … phrases such as “if confirmed” (Hello? That means it is NOT confirmed.”
Who needs that confirmation crap; innuendo goes so much further, plus it’s positively titillating.
It always had to be Russia. For some reason almost everyone took their eye off the prize for about 20 years or so, but my thinking always was, when you spend roughly 27 trillion over the decades to defeat an enemy, you are not going to let them easy off thehook, especially before that adversary has been in any way, “meaningfully engaged.”
I’ll say it again, no matter how wasteful or incompetent you perceive the US military to be, it has achieved a feat quite unlike any other in military history, it has completely surrounded the most massive adversary imaginable, one loaded with weapons of mass annihilation, and it has it at it’s mercy (the US has tied Russia to the thermonuclear whipping post!), and it has accomplished this over the span of three decades without anyone taking notice.
Well, hardly anyone. I’ve noticed. Pentagon planners obviously were aware of what they were up to, and throw in Russian leadership as well – although they were very late to this party, waking up only 10 years ago to the fact that US first strike weapons’ systems were now inside the borders of their former country!
Dummies.
Nuclear tipped cruise with the capability of striking command and control targets two minutes after launch, and we are talking about bounties in far off Afghanistan, thousands of miles away from the primary battle space.
“We are at war with Russia.” Morgan Freeman.
No Morgan, we not in anything like a war with Russia, at least not yet. We have simply made the preparations necessary to do so with an outside chance of “success.”
Age of Insanity.
Interesting hypothesis alas such an assumed advantage is still no advantage at all it is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The US and its NATO allies still believe that they can obtain a quick victory and Russia will capitulate before it goes thernonuclear. I think the Russians have already addressed this proposition – we will go thermonuclear. It is called checkmate.
I’m not sure about the veracity of the so-called intelligence regarding a Russian plot to bounty-kill Americans in Afghanistan. There seems to be a lot of smoke at this point, but who knows?
What I CAN say, however, is that, as a mega-tribal people, the Russians hold fast to the ethos of vendetta – [‘The sins of the fathers shall be visited on their sons and their sons’ sons down to the third and fourth generation.’ – Exodus 34:7] – and we’ve been screwing the Russians in every way possible for the last three-quarters of a century, so it’s no wonder that, in the last Presidential campaign, they worked so hard to jettison the neocon Hillary in favor of the malleable buffoon now occupying the White House. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the bounty thing proves true. The Russians don’t like us; why would they?…lots of bad blood goin’ down!
Fact is, ya’ can’t beat the Ruskies. Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon and Hitler learned this lesson the hard way. We got a taste of it ourselves when we attempted to capitalize on the fall of the Soviet Union by installing a drunken puppet (Yeltsin, I believe) as the head of their country, only to be stopped dead in our tracks by Putin and his mob – actual Russians!
This worn-out script is tired beyond belief, yet we continue this ongoing dance around the truth. They (many “theys” out there) lie; we know they’re lying; they know we know they’re lying; they lie some more. The Russian bounty fiction is the latest trip across that dance floor, and it’s among numerous reasons I don’t give my attention to the mainstream media, which has been captured as a willing propaganda arm of the state, or perhaps more accurately, been woven into the military-industrial-corporate complex. Recently caught mention of how adults are responsible for protecting the young against such assaults on truth. This is usually accomplished with critical thinking and semantic analysis. But who is even receptive to such sober undertaking when instead our fear index is constantly being tweaked into emergency mode?
Great post Mr. Lewis, except I can’t tell whether you used the expression “enhanced interrogation” ironically. I hope so, because it is the Bush administration’s term to keep from saying torture. Too many vicious groups’ dissembling expressions have been accepted already, the replacement of genocide by ‘ethnic cleansing’ is another good example.
As Lee Camp and others have pointed, out this the third time that some atrocity which does not stand up to close examination has appeared when Trump has circled too close to withdrawing troops. I hope your country can get them home before bankruptcy precludes it.
No, I meant torture. My anonymous sources suggest it could be a factor
Good stuff, Tom. I was beginning to waver. All the woke Rachel Maddow-watching morons in my life were wondering how to exact revenge upon Russia (without actually enlisting in the military themselves).
Hey, I resemble that remark! I like Rachel; however in this particular instance I have to agree. I also noticed the amazing velocity of the major media amplification. Echo Chamber does not adequately define the phenomena.
For an echo to work the sound must be loud enough (sufficient energy), the reflecting surfaces suitable, and the principle is one hears their own words. I am coining what is going on as “the prime focus effect”.
Ever been to a science center with the pair of parabolic dishes set up about 100 feet apart? A person can stand at one end and whisper while the person standing at the focal point on the other end can hear the person whisper. These are a pair of prime focus antennae. An echo is a broadcast without focus, these media manipulations are very much focused.
It is well documented the CIA has plants in all the major media organizations (and some not so major). The operation is simple. One operative initiates the “whisper” in one organization and it is directed at the receiver at the other organization, so it goes through the amplification links until enough apparent credibility is established.
What is the context of semantic difference? An echo implies a non-defined receptor audience, a mass, or a even a mob. It is amorphous. Whereas the prime focus implies a planned and directed intent with specific receivers and amplification effects. One is not so much a Plan whereas the other is very much so.
Interesting take on this topic. I’m not sure I understand it, but I like it. I like stuff that makes me consider an issue in an entirely different light.
Well Tom you have nicely addressed the ‘fake news’ issue. It is merely propoganda and quite distressing propoganda at that because underlying that propaganda is the unspoken insinuation that the Russians have completely abrogaged the Geneva convention on warfare. Does that propganda infer therefore that the US will do likewise. I am sure the Russians are irritated by it but then the Americans have been irritating the Russians for a long time. No you put your finger on it this is for domestic consumption and reasons and of course to continue the status quo. Dangerous for you folk in the US more than any folk in Russia.
Oh and yes I know about this stuff from my own lifes work, I was a career intelligence officer once. I resigned in disgust and frustration. Nothing has changed and my assessment of the quality of so called American intelligence has not either, its crap dressed up in and for a long time driven by techno satellite data and terrabytes of electronic intercept none of which tells you anything about disposition or intention. You good folk have a major major problem because the very people who you should rely upon to keep you informed in an unbiased and factual fashion about a whole lot of stuff, not just Russians are emesched in dogma and group think and buried under mountains of dodgy data going back decades. Good luck sorting that one out!