Talk:Psychological Operations (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] References

This is bound to meet some objections, therefore it might me prudent to insert references to the claims presented here. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV

I am concerned about the neutrality of this page, which includes multiple uncited "excuses," for lack of a better word, such as "While the program was an innocent attempt by the Army to provide its PSYOPers with the expertise developed by the private sector under its "Training with Industry" program," and "While the bodies had been left on the battlefield and were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns." I am not really a contributor to Wikipedia, more of a reader, but I hope an active member can work on neutralizing this article. 66.87.91.36 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these "excuses" out. I have edited the sections which you have noted and added two sources. I hope you can further review the article. Moonburn 08:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The whole burning bodies section needs looked into by an impartial historian, with an eye to NPOV, and facts. There is an archived discussion with challenges to the factual presentation of the story as presented here. Also, the new section on Tal Afar seems self-sourced.

[edit] Links

I Killed this link: http://www.psyop.tv/main.php It's to a commercial company. Has nothing to do with the subject matter.

That company probably needs its own entry. It very obviously models itself on psyop doctrine. I presume the company is made up of some ex-PSYOP soldiers. - Atfyfe 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TPD1720

Should the section regarding TPD1720 be deleted because it doesn't source anything.216.158.58.34 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tal Afar section needs to go. Mainly because this entry is not going to have a section for every PSYOP detachment's deployments. While I am sure the detachment did I great job in Tal Afar, nothing seems to have occured worthy of encyclopedic note. Furthermore, the information would seem to belong on the entry for Operation Restoring Rights rather than on the entry for PSYOP. - Atfyfe 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed section:

PSYOP in Tall'afar, Northern Iraq "TPD1720"

More recently, PSYOP elements were used very effectively in Northern Iraq, more specifically in the city of Tall’afar. Tall’afar, a city about an hour west of Mosul, and with a population of approximately 250,000, had become a safe haven for insurgents and terrorists who were using the city as a base for terrorist operations and activity. Tactical Psychological Detachment 1720 (TPD 1720) of the 17th Psychological Operation Battalion, from Joliet Illinois, (comprised of two TPTs, 1721 and 1723) supported elements of the 3rd ACR from May 2005 till February 2006. The 3rd ACR was then replaced by elements of the 1st AD, with continued support by TPD 1720, until the latter’s replacements in early May of 2006.

TPD 1720 was called upon, on a daily basis, to work in rather austere and non-permissive environments, not only within the most inhospitable areas of Tall’afar, but in surrounding villages and cities as well. Some as far North as Al-Kasik, as far west as the border towns of Rabia and as far East as Aski-Mosul. Technically it could be said that TPD 1720 also worked as far south as Baghdad, as TPT 1722 (one of the three TPTs of 1720) was tasked to support elements within the Baghdad area for the 12-month deployment.

One of the biggest successes attributed to the PSYOP support, was evident in the operation to rid the insurgent and terrorist stricken district of Sarai, in the northwest region of Tall’afar. The operation, “Operation Restoring Rights”, was a classic textbook case of how a properly run PSYOP campaign works and realizes the commander’s intent. The PSYOP teams were instrumental in helping the civilians evacuate the district, help control mass movements, scripted and broadcast surrender appeals, movement information, harassment and deception messages, as well as support the local Iraqi forces in conducting their specific duties and responsibilities in the operation.

For their hard work, TPD 1720 were recognized and honored by the Commander of the 3rd ACR, Colonel McMaster, as well as by the 1st AD. The city was transformed from a ghost town to that of city alive with merchants, parks, schools and an ever-growing infrastructure.

[edit] Noriega mission

I was under the impression that the music was played to interfere with the media's snooping mics, not to drive Noriega out.Moonburn 06:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told the same thing in PSYOP school, but I was never sure if that was just one of those stories soldiers tell or a true account of what happened. - Atfyfe 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It was an effort to interfere with the mic's. pictures of the scene show the speakers pointed away from the Noriega compound at the media outside. Jocosetad 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You have 2 different accounts of the Noriega music, only one can be right. One is the press the other is bored soldiers. This needs to be resolved, which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.165.29.26 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
As far as plausibility goes, the bored soldiers story is much much more likely. Since when did CNN have building penetrating microphones anyway? - Atfyfe 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
They told us it was for counter-media purposes when I was at USAJFKSWCS. The Army line is good enough for me. Moonburn 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need New insignia

I added some fact tags and removed some dead links to unit insignia in the first table. We could use new ones! --Patrick Berry 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Bodies

While I agree with all that is said here, it's gonna need to be altered to be more NPOV:

"The bodies were burned, for sanitary reasons, by Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Whether the decision was made by a Platoon Leader or the Battalion Commander remains questionable, it certainly was not a decision made by PSYOP personnel. The PSYOP Soldiers were used as scapegoats to avoid embarassing a proud Active Duty unit, who coincidently, were formerly commanded by the General who decided to reprimand the Soldiers. The PSYOP personnel were well within their boundries to harass the enemy in an attempt to encourage them to rejoin the fight."

- Atfyfe 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are more problems than POV.
See the text starting "During the War on Terror, U.S. PSYOP teams often broadcast abrasive messages over loudspeakers..." First, are these actually direct quotes? If so, I might suggest that they would have been more effective had they been in Dari, Pashtun, or some other regional language other than English. Whether they are direct quotes or not, they need to be sourced. The first citation does include

The footage also shows two soldiers with American accents, identified by SBS as being part of a US Army psychological operations team, reading messages in English that they had allegedly earlier read out to inhabitants of Gonbaz in the local dialect.

Since it is unlikely that the average inhabitant of Gonbaz speaks English, this has the flavor of a media event arranged by SBS Television. Is there more
I expanded the first external link. The second link, to the Army Times, is dead, as is the third link to Japan Today.
At this point, I think the entire section should be removed, unless there is reliable sourcing of the messages actually delivered, in an appropriate language, to the Taliban suspects. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would this constitude a WW-II psy-ops operation?

[edit] Efforts instill a sense of "collective guilt"

"In 1945 there was an Allied consensus—which no longer exists—on the doctrine of collective guilt, that all Germans shared the blame not only for the war but for Nazi atrocities as well."[1]

The Brittish and The Americans considered the Germans to be guilty, using the terms "collective guilt", and "collective responsibility"[2]

The Brittish instructed their officers in control of German media to instill a sense of collective guilt in the population[3]

In the early months of the occupation the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) undertook a psychological propaganda campaign for the purpose of developing a German sense of collective responsibility.[4] Using the German press (which were all under Allied control) and posters and pamphlets a program acquainting ordinary Germans with what had take place in the concentration camps was conducted.

"During the summer of 1945 pictures of Bergen-Belsen were hung as posters all over Germany with 'You Are Guilty' on them."[5]

Later the U.S. army came to draw a distinction between those legally guilty and the rest of the population which was then merely considered morally guilty.[6]

A number of films showing the concentration camps were made and screened to the German public. For example "Die Todesmuhlen", released in the U.S. zone in January 1946, "Welt im Film" No. 5 (June, 1945). A film that was never finished due partly to delays and the existence of the other films was "Memory of the Camps". "...the object [of the film] was to shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people -- and not just the Nazis and SS -- bore responsibility."[7]

Immediately upon the liberation of the concentration-camps many German civilians were forced to see the conditions in the camps, bury rotting corpses and exhume mass-graves.[8] On threat of death or withdrawal of food civilians were forced to provide their belongings to former concentration camp inmates[9] --Stor stark7 Talk 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Psyoppatches.JPG

Image:Psyoppatches.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar??

Is this PsyOps? I mean in the article itself or just a mistake? First Paragraph: Strategic psychological operations are done by other than the military, except possibly in major wars and at the level of theaters of operations.

The basic US doctrine is that the strategic level of psychological operations is directed by the State Department, although various declassified documents increase the responsibility of the Joint Chiefs in wartime. Covert psychological operations usually are done by the CIA. Overt strategic psyops come from the U.S. Information Agency. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am simply saying that the way it is written is not proper English. John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the changes are tuned. Still, rather than just saying it is wrong, especially in the less than perfectly clear objections in the first paragraph, why not suggest an alternative wording rather than simply say what you dislike? After all, multiple quetion marks, "is this psyops" with no antecedent, etc., are not necessarily straight out of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PSYOPsuperman.jpg

Image:PSYOPsuperman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B class failure

I'm going through the article and finding a few things that are themselves questionable, or not referenced. Nevertheless, it would be very helpful if "citation needed/fact" tags were placed on any text where it is believed a citation is needed.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three Kings

Earlier someone had stated that the soldiers portrayed in the Three Kings movie constituted a tactical PSYOP team. Is there any source someone has that might back-up this claim? From the movie it is left unclear whether they are civil affairs or PSYOP soldiers (given that CA and PSYOP share the same USACAPOC patch, the movie leaves it undetermined). Perhaps the movie script might offer some evidence one way or the other? Given the make-up and size of the team my guess would be that they in fact are meant to constitute a PSYOP team, but guesses aren't enough to call them a PSYOP team in this article. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd assumed it was a CA team; no PSYOP specific equipment and an SF NCO. That isn't necessarily mean they weren't--there's always been a few SF tabbed officers--but it does point to CA. Virgil61 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)