DoD “Clarifies” Doctrine on Psychological Operations, redefines "propaganda"

[bananas]

"From now on, propaganda will refer only to what the enemy does"
"PSYOP forces may be used domestically"

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/01/psyop.html

DoD “Clarifies” Doctrine on Psychological Operations
January 19th, 2010 by Steven Aftergood

The Department of Defense has issued a new publication (pdf) to update and clarify its doctrine on “psychological operations.”

<snip>

It endorses a new, negative definition of the term “propaganda,” which had formerly been used in a neutral sense to refer to “Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.” From now on, propaganda will refer only to what the enemy does: “Any form of adversary communication, especially of a biased or misleading nature, designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”

The new doctrine also dictates that the term “perception management” shall be eliminated from the DoD lexicon (pdf).

DoD acknowledges that PSYOP is limited by legal constraints, including statutes, international agreements, and national policies. Among other things, the DoD doctrine states, there is a “requirement that US PSYOP forces will not target US citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances.” Yet in a near contradiction, the doctrine also states that “When authorized, PSYOP forces may be used domestically to assist lead federal agencies during disaster relief and crisis management by informing the domestic population.” Perhaps the PSYOP forces are supposed to inform the domestic population without “targeting” them.

<snip>

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. "From now on"??

They have been doing that for at least 8 1/2 years now.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[Festivito]

4. So, all we need is perceived perpetual disaster. No problem.

I hope there is more to it, such as who signs off on it, who faces the jury.