Black Ops 101

Charles Paul Freund | January 28, 2005

There's been yet another angry exchange over whether Iraqi bloggers who are pro-American may be CIA fronts. This time the argument is between Jeff Jarvis (link via Instapundit), who is outraged by a charge he regards as profoundly irresponsible, and Eric Alterman, who says that a CIA connection is not beyond his imagination. "It wouldn't tax my imagination to wonder if perhaps some of those [Iraqi] bloggers might be planted by the CIA to confuse credulous readers . . ."

Well, blogger fronts wouldn't necessarily tax my imagination, either. Let's say I ran a clandestine black-ops shop. I might set up pro-U.S. Iraqi blogs; I might not: The potential pay-off is pretty limited, and the potential damage significant. What I'd be more interested in attempting would be a site that was apparently critical of the U.S. (I'm not suggesting that any particular such site is anything other than what it claims to be.)

The limitations of a pro-U.S., English-language Iraqi blog should be obvious. First, it would immediately be suspect in the eyes of my critics and enemies, and second, all of its sympathetic readers would already be my allies. True, such a blog could be useful for my side's morale, and I might be able to create some breakout posts that got attention beyond my core of friendly readers. But in the world of black ops, this is pretty small change. (Worse, if my pro-U.S. site were ever revealed to be a fake, it would immediately delegitimize any genuine pro-U.S. sites in the region.) By the way, I doubt that I'd let any of my cast of beards meet with the U.S. president.

The real work of black ops lies elsewhere: confusing and if possible delegitimizing my enemies. For that, I'd want a site that had their credulous attention, one that echoed and seemed to validate their views. Once such a site had gained the trust of its readers, I'd wait for my opportunities to embarrass, mislead, or otherwise manipulate those readers.

Those opportunities might be a long time coming; I'd have to be careful with the site because once I'd used it against my enemies I probably would have undermined the site's usefulness. I'd want to husband its value carefully. Indeed, I might end up never pulling the trigger on the site. But it would be there if I decided to exploit it, and it would be of far greater potential value to me than a risky friendly site.

Obviously, I might decide to create both friendly and hostile sites. I might also decide that a site that was anti-insurgent and anti-U.S. would be useful. There are lots of possible variations (including creating no front blogs at all). But if all I did were to create outspokenly pro-U.S. sites, I'd be doing a bad job.

The most dramatic use I might make of a seemingly hostile site would be eventually to "turn" it; to admit grudgingly in a series of endgame posts that the situation in Iraq might be changing in ways that I approve of. (Though I probably wouldn't credit the U.S.) But there might be many other, less dramatic scenarios in which I could turn the trust of my readers against their interests. That's the real point of black ops: to mislead your foes. Good black-ops operators create their tools and wait for the opportunities to use them.

Again, I have no reason to suspect that any site critical of the U.S. is anything other than what it claims to be. We're just taxing, or not, our political imaginations.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|1.28.05 @ 3:37PM|#

Are you suggesting that The New York Times is a CIA front?

Matt|1.28.05 @ 3:39PM|#

I think he's saying that Juan Cole's apparent descent into sputtering insanity is actually a plot nearing fruition.

Jesse Walker|1.28.05 @ 3:40PM|#

Next up: Apply this analysis to the Armstrong Williams situation. Is Paul Krugman on the D.C. payroll?

|1.28.05 @ 3:53PM|#

I think it's racist that you call them Black Ops. Are you saying that only people of color can be subversive?

|1.28.05 @ 3:57PM|#

If the goal is to harass and deligitimize the enemy, it makes you wonder how many trolls and comment-spammers are actually on the CIA payroll.

|1.28.05 @ 4:11PM|#

You can convince yourself of all sorts of things if you want to. In your head, create a map of concentric circles around 'verifiable', and put each story at some radius from that golden spot. Be equally skeptical of things further out.

Don't bother trying to explain the relative plausibility of things far from verifiable by way of conspiracy theories. All such efforts do is cause you to invest so greatly in a hypothetical that you lose sight of the fact that you should be equally skeptical of all claims at the same radius.

Ted Barlow|1.28.05 @ 4:17PM|#

I don't want to sound argumentative, but the CIA has an actual history of covertly financing pro-American/ pro-capitalist artists, talks and journals in Europe during the Cold War, to try to lure the intelligensia away from communism. (See the book "Who Paid the Piper?")

Do they have a known history of running fake anti-American voices? Just curious.

Shannon Love|1.28.05 @ 4:26PM|#

I don't think the CIA has the imagination to execute something like that.

It is very interesting that people like Altman have no compunction against drawing a flashing neon bulls-eye on some poor individuals back, based on nothing but their fevered wish and too many Clancy novels.

They seem utter oblivious to the idea that things that they write influence the course of real world events. Its as if they believe they are observing events though a one way mirror and that the things they write only have an effect on their side of the mirror.

In truth, manipulation of the world wide media and world wide public opinion are the primary goals of terrorist. The pay keen attention to how the media reports on their actions.

There are a large number of mainstream commentators whose works must bring a big grin to the faces certain unsavory people. Perhaps Altman and others receive a little "encouragement" from this or that Saudi funded foundation.

I don't have any evidence this is the case of course, I just "raise the possibility"

|1.28.05 @ 4:47PM|#

After the revelations recently of pundits and payola, how hard is this to imagine?

Not very.

And a little cash goes a long way on 3rd world countries.

|1.28.05 @ 4:48PM|#

These jokers accused Salam Pax of being a baathist agent the instant he refused to worship our Dear Leader with the requisite enthusiasm . . . they seem a little touchy when it goes the other way.

The Bush administration has thrown peanuts at C-list hacks to flog their ideas, not even their Big Ideas like Iraq but pretty minor stuff like the defending marriage bit. I'd be surprized if they didn't buy some positive blogging. Or just do it themselves.

|1.28.05 @ 5:13PM|#

The CIA using agents of influence? Imagine! So what! actually this conspiracy theory is more likely to be the spawn of some intelligence operation or another than any Iraqi blogger (vis the KGB hatched "The CIA invented AIDS" conspiracy theory). The best way to keep the paranoids from winning is not to be one yourself.

Alterman is just a nasty, viscous leftist plain and simple. I think he is one of those people who liked Saddam and is happy to see Iraqi body counts in the paper every day. I don't think he cares if the guy is killed or is making a special effort to get him killed. Alterman is more interested in making sure anyone who disagrees with him and his worldview is discredited. An Iraqi who thinks the invasion was a good idea is a pretty strong rebuke to his way of thinking. That Iraqi must therefore be discredited in anyway possible. So, Alterman calls him a CIA agent, not to convince Iraqis of that fact but justify westerner liberals belief that any Iraqi who benefited and supports the invasion is on the U.S. payroll. If it gets the poor guy killed, Alterman doesn't give a f**k. In Alerman's view, even if the guy wasn't a CIA stooge, he deserves to die for having the audacity to support the United States. Read Alertman's blog every day that he really is just that nasty of a person.

|1.28.05 @ 5:18PM|#

Didn't someone (maybe even me?) a month or two link internal DOD documents suggesting that the government was looking for ways to "make use of" the potential of the blogosphere in precisely this context? Seems like you wouldn't need to be a conspiracy theorist to posit the existence of front blogs, just credit the government with following through on its own avowed intentions.

|1.28.05 @ 5:20PM|#

What was the point of this post? To point out the most incredibly obvious thing in the world. Maybe there should be limits placed on what (or who) can be on the net. 'Don't eat the yellow snow'

|1.28.05 @ 5:22PM|#

|1.28.05 @ 5:45PM|#

I suspect that this hitandrun entry is itself a black-ops plant done in order to confuse the issue and so sow the seeds of doubt.

And don't try and deny it "Freund" (if that is your real name.)

|1.28.05 @ 5:51PM|#

It seems to me that publicly wondering about the existence of front blogs is one thing, positing their existence is another, and naming blogs you don't like as a government front is something else entirely.

I'm very comfortable with the first; I think that the second is overconfident at a minimum; and the third feels like conspiracy theory to me.

|1.28.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Not to clutter this thing up with facts, but for all the warheads shrieking about Alterman getting people killed, if you check Alterman's post, you might notice that he didn't name or even hint at any particular blogger being a CIA/OSI mouthpiece. Given that pro-American Iraqi bloggers are probably not receiving much fanmail from Zarqawi et al. anyway, I can't see how Alterman is increasing the threat to their lives.

Jesse Walker|1.28.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Not to clutter this thing up with facts, but for all the warheads shrieking about Alterman getting people killed, if you check Alterman's post, you might notice that he didn't name or even hint at any particular blogger being a CIA/OSI mouthpiece.

Maybe Alterman didn't, but perhaps this "Altman" fellow that Shannon was going on about did.

|1.28.05 @ 6:49PM|#

Come on. This "blogosphere" may be important to us, but to think the CIA thinks there's some gain that can be had by manipulating it is ridiculous. I trust almost nothing I read on these threads. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe isn't actually hit&run's editors trying desperately to spur a conversation.

Shannon Love|1.28.05 @ 6:57PM|#

"Maybe Alterman didn't, but perhaps this "Altman" fellow that Shannon was going on about did."

My bad, I conflated Alterman with somebody else. One of many, unfortunately.

|1.28.05 @ 7:04PM|#

Dammit James, I was just thinking that same thing during the the long debate on people left behind due to new technologies. My thought was, "Geez, is there any issue here joe doesn't agree with? Maybe he's Julian trying to prevent an intellectual circle jerk."

Brian|1.28.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Maybe the Lone Wacko is actually Mexican...

fyodor|1.28.05 @ 7:07PM|#

Ted Barlow's and Lee's posts demonstrate why it's easy to "imagine" CIA-paid fronts and also why such plots have the potential to backfire. That said, I personally believe it's best to take a blogger at his word and assume that he's legit in lieu of any evidence to the contrary.

|1.28.05 @ 7:13PM|#

Mo, That's the thread I got the idea from too!

Shannon Love|1.28.05 @ 7:18PM|#

I think Sarah Boxer was who I was really thinking of. Its a little hard to keep track.

Matt Welch|1.28.05 @ 7:19PM|#

In December, the Defense Science Board, which is a talk-shop advising the DoD, recommended creating a $100-150 million "Center for Strategic Communication," that would, among other things, "subcontract to the commercial and academic sectors for a range of products and programs that communicate strategic themes" to countries that are "ripe and important" (i.e., on our places-to-maybe-invade list), and among the "range of products" was listed "Web communications including blogs, chat rooms, and electronic journals."

In the fall, the DSB struck again, with a report that noted

A truly global network is reshaping politics, diplomacy, warfare -- all social interaction. Just one example: the ability of a blogger in a conflict zone to capture a digital image of an atrocity, upload it, paste it on a webpage, and have it available to millions in minutes is a startling development.

And went on to recommend:

Arab and Muslim Internet users worldwide include change agents, young and old, critical to the region's future. The U.S. needs trusted, reliable web sites conducive to dialogue on political, intellectual, and cultural levels. [...]

Underwrite International Products: There is a world-wide community of expert story tellers who produce message products for television, radio, film and games. Some of their products are exquisitely sensitive to nuances of the culture of the target audience. Such products should be developed -- or better -- identified so that their broader distribution to the target audience can be underwritten.

Use Interactive and Mediated Channels: Pervasive telecommunications technology permits the cost effective engagement of target audiences in sustained two-way interactions using electronic mail, interactive dialogue, virtual communication, interactive video games, and interactive Internet games. Similarly, this technology supports ad hoc group interactions using blogs and chat rooms. Mediated interactions involve an individual who orchestrated the posting of material on a web site focused on a specific issue. These new forms of engagement should be harnessed for appropriate audiences.

|1.28.05 @ 7:37PM|#

Matt, After the recent revelations of pay for propaganda, nothing can be put past the gov. Unfortunately, I don't believe the CIA would do anything that could possibly help stabilize the situation in the middle east. It would be asking too much for them to contribute to our efforts.

|1.28.05 @ 8:14PM|#

This might be a good place for my "joe is really just a prop of the Reason staff to fatten up the comments sections" theory. Seriously, does any liberal really have that much conviction, to come here day in and day out and get pounded? For every joe post you get ten angry libertian responses. I assume it ups the hit count everytime somebody comes back to read joe's refute. Literally, I bet if you analyzed the number of joe posts and responses to joe, you'd find they account for about half of all comments ever made at H&R and at least a third of your main page hits. And all we get is the same old arguments every week and nearly-gay porn banner ads on the side.

Steve Smith|1.28.05 @ 8:36PM|#

Ted Barlow:

I don't know of any "fake anti-American" voices off-hand. However, Frantz Fanon had a rather interesting relationship with the CIA towards the end of his life, around the time Wretched of the Earth came out.

|1.28.05 @ 8:42PM|#

Here [iraqthemodel.blogspot.com] is an example of what I think is a paid Iraq blog. It could only be written by an American, and could only fool Americans, even the name of the blog is a clue. They also seem to be getting a number of radio interviews with American radio stations out of it.

digamma|1.28.05 @ 8:45PM|#

I think he is one of those people who liked Saddam and is happy to see Iraqi body counts in the paper every day.

I think this John character has been planted by the left to delegitimize conservatives.

|1.28.05 @ 11:37PM|#

"That said, I personally believe it's best to take a blogger at his word and assume that he's legit in lieu of any evidence to the contrary."

Tell me about it! For some strange reason everbody thinks I'm a gay law student from Alabama!

|1.29.05 @ 12:30AM|#

Shannon Love,

Sarah Boxer? Altman? Alterman? Yeah, right. :)

|1.29.05 @ 1:45AM|#

How about a statement for The Base in Iraq that appears to take an extremist position one week before the election?

|1.30.05 @ 9:41PM|#

What is wrong with that though? How many have people the government for being completely inept at the propaganda war and not getting itside out enough in the middle-east? If these blogers are on the payroll, it sounds like a pretty astute information operation to me. The kind of thing that we need to be doing more of.

What would be wrong with it in this particular case is that its target is clearly not the Arab world but the American public. It's in English fer chrissakes! (Not that I actually think that the blog in question is CIA front).

It is very interesting that people like Altman have no compunction against drawing a flashing neon bulls-eye on some poor individuals back, based on nothing but their fevered wish and too many Clancy novels.

If the Fadhil brothers have a bulls-eye on their back, it was placed there by warbloggers who have been desperate to publicize them as widely as possible, and succeeded in doing so long before this Altman fellow got into the act. For goodness' sake - these fellows went on a tour of the United States arranged by a collection of warbloggers, and ended up having a widely-publicized meeting with the President! And now the warbloggers want us to suppose that Alterman's idle speculation is the thing that has placed them in mortal danger.

|1.31.05 @ 10:40AM|#

"Come on. This "blogosphere" may be important to us, but to think the CIA thinks there's some gain that can be had by manipulating it is ridiculous."

Exactly. If we're talking about English language blogs, the target audience is clearly not Iraqis.

mtc, 10:1 is exactly what I'm looking for. It's the only way I can find a fair fight!

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements