No Comment — September 30, 2009, 8:22 am

Did Bryan Whitman Run the “Military Analysts Program”?

Following President Obama’s assumption of office, a single member of the core Rumsfeld team at Defense has managed to hold on to his position: the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Bryan Whitman. As I documented previously, he has a long record of using his position for politically dubious shenanigans, including a quickly debunked smear of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Back in 2007, Ken Silverstein linked Whitman to a curious program, the full scope of which was then barely understood. As David Barstow documented in his Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé, seventy-five retired military officers were recruited by Pentagon public affairs officers and were given talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC. They were given extraordinary access to White House and Pentagon officials. As Barstow states: “The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.” The program shows the Washington media at its worst—“independent analysts” are trotted out on TV and radio for their views, but in fact they are merely regurgitating messages prepared by the Pentagon and designed to reinforce its media message.

This entire project certainly broke the law, and there is no reason to doubt that the Pentagon officials in charge of it understood that. As the Reagan Administration Justice Department ruled in a February 1, 1988 opinion, “covert attempts to mold domestic opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for propaganda.” The law forbids the use of appropriated funds for “covert propaganda,” that is, efforts to shape domestic public opinion that do not reveal that government appropriations were used. The program that Barstow exposed, and in which Whitman played a leading role, was clearly illegal because it was covert, it was an effort to shape domestic public opinion, and it involved the “undisclosed use of third parties.”

Now, Raw Story fleshes out some details. After reviewing a FOIA treasure trove of internal documents concerning the program, here’s what they found about Whitman’s role in the project:

Bryan Whitman surfaces in over 500 emails and transcripts, revealing the deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations was both one of the program’s senior participants and an active member. Whitman’s conspicuous presence in these records is notwithstanding thousands of documented communications the Bush Pentagon released but for which names were redacted and an untold number the prior administration successfully withheld after its two-year legal battle with the Times.

Not surprisingly, Whitman reacts to the story with a very bland denial.

In a conversation with Mr. Whitman, he denied any involvement or senior role in the program, saying he only had “knowledge” of its existence and called the assertion “not accurate.” Asked to explain the hundreds of records showing otherwise, Mr. Whitman replied, “No, I’m familiar with those documents and I’d just beg to differ with you,” though he did acknowledge being in “some” of them.

As Brad Jacobson notes, the overall structure of the program, and a decision to house it formally in the public affairs office for community relations, appears to have been designed to protect Whitman in the event that the program was later disclosed. He goes on to note Whitman’s intimate involvement in the program—detailing Whitman’s role in coping with the Pentagon’s early failure to provide soldiers with body armor, and disclosures of instances of torture in connection with the report of Admiral Albert T. Church. A subsequent review shows the “independent military analysts” mindlessly parroted the talking points that were furnished by Whitman.

Raw Story is promising further analysis as their series on Whitman continues. The disclosures prompt a simple question: why is Whitman, a loyal Republican propaganda artist, still in the Pentagon? Barack Obama’s commitment to provide a home for some loyal Bushies is welcome, but public affairs might not be the best position for them to occupy.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

From the April 2015 issue

Company Men

Torture, treachery, and the CIA

Six Questions October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm

The APA Grapples with Its Torture Demons: Six Questions for Nathaniel Raymond

Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

September 2015

Weed Whackers

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Tremendous Machine

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Goose in a Dress

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Genealogy of Orals

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Romancing Kano·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:

The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.

leadership
service
integrity
creativity

Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.

Article
The Prisoner of Sex·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“It is disappointing that parts of Purity read as though Franzen urgently wanted to telegraph a message to anyone who would defend his fiction from charges of chauvinism: ‘No, you’ve got me wrong. I really am sexist.’”
Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
Gangs of Karachi·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“In Karachi, sometimes only the thinnest of polite fictions separates the politicians from the men who kill and extort on their behalf.”
Photograph © Asim Rafiqui/NOOR Images
Article
Weed Whackers·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“Defining 'native' and 'invasive' in an ever-shifting natural world poses some problems. The camel, after all, is native to North America, though it went extinct here 8,000 years ago, while the sacrosanct redwood tree is invasive, having snuck in at some point in the past 65 million years.”
Photograph by Chad Ress
Article
The Neoliberal Arts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“College is seldom about thinking or learning anymore. Everyone is running around trying to figure out what it is about. So far, they have come up with buzzwords, mainly those three.”
Artwork by Julie Cockburn

Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:

65

An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.

A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Subways Are for Sleeping

By

“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”

Subscribe Today